View PDF View XML View in Voyant

House of Representatives
24 November 1971

27^th Parliament · 2^nd Session

PETITIONS
- Duffy’s Forest Airport
- Aid to Pakistani Refugees
- Lake Pedder
- National Service
- Taxation: Wine Growers
- Chemical Agents of Warfare
- Chemical Agents of Warfare
- Lake Pedder
- National Service
- Lake Pedder
- Crime Prevention
- Aboriginal Welfare
- Aboriginal Welfare
- Contraceptives
QUESTION
- AUSTRALIAN ECONOMY
QUESTION
- MOTOR CAR PRODUCTION
QUESTION
- AUSTRALIAN ECONOMY
QUESTION
- PARLIAMENTARY COMMITTEES
QUESTION
- TERRITORIAL WATERS
QUESTION
- EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY
QUESTION
- NATIONAL FILM AND TELEVISION TRAINING SCHOOL
QUESTION
- THIS DAY TONIGHT
QUESTION
- SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
QUESTION
- AUSTRALIAN ECONOMY
QUESTION
- PRIME MINISTER’S OVERSEAS VISIT
QUESTION
- ABATTOIRS
QUESTION
- FOREIGN INVESTMENT
QUESTION
- QANTAS: PRIME MINISTER’S VISIT OVERSEAS
QUESTION
- AUSTRALIAN BROADCASTING COMMISSION: NEWS PROGRAMMES
QUESTION
- TELECAST BY PRIME MINISTER
QUESTION
- HEALTH: COMMON FEES
QUESTION
- THIS DAY TONIGHT
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY ELECTRICITY SUPPLY ACT
LOAN (DEFENCE) BILL 1971
GOLD MINING INDUSTRY
- Discussion of Matter of Public Importance
SEWERAGE RETICULATION AND TREATMENT PLANT, TENNANT CREEK, NORTHERN TERRITORY
- Reference to Public Works Committee
QUESTION
- SUSPENSION OF STANDING ORDERS
STATES GRANTS (HOUSING) BILL 1971
- Second Reading
- Third Reading
QUESTION
- AUSTRALIAN FORCES IN VIETNAM
HOMES SAVINGS GRANT BILL 1971
- Second Reading
- Third Reading
ADJOURNMENT
- Social Services
ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS UPON NOTICE
- Mineral Policy (Question No. 4585)
- Electoral (Question No. 4590)
- Pakistan: Supply of Arms (Question No. 4596)
- Nursing Homes: Charges to Pensioners (Question No. 4599)

Mr SPEAKER (Hon. Sir William Aston) took the chair at 2 p.m., and read prayers.

page 3539

PETITIONS

Duffy’s Forest Airport

Mr WENTWORTH:
Minister for Social Services · MACKELLAR, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– I present the following petition:

To the Honourable Hie Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. This petition of supporters of the Committee to Slop Duffy’s Forest Airport respectfully showeth that:

There is a public controversy over the decision to establish an airport at Duffy’s Forest, situated in the metropolitan area of Sydney.

There is a strong case for the lease of 99 acres of Crown Land presently being offered by the State Government of New South Wales to (he Commonwealth Government for an airport site to be revoked, and that part of the Crown Land which contains the Wianamatta shale cap to be preserved for all time for the people of Australia by being included in the boundaries of the Kuringgal Chase National Park. If the airport is established there will be extensive damage to the ecology of natural bushland over a widespread area.

Noise pollution will have a detrimental effect over a widespread area of the suburbs surrounding the Chase.

We believe that it is essential to protect the recreational nature and peace of Ku-ring-gai Chase National Park both now and for the future.

Your petitioners humbly pray that your Honourable House will at once, in the public interest, take appropriate steps to ensure that the Government revokes the lease of the Crown Land belonging to the State of New South Wales and ceases all negotiations for purchase of 37 acres of land privately owned which comprise the 136 acres necessary for the airport s;ie and abandon the proposal to establish an airport at Duffy’s Forest.

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

Petition received.

Aid to Pakistani Refugees

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

– I present the following petition:

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

lt is obvious the people of Australia are vitally concerned about the welfare of some nine million East Pakistan refugees that have crossed the border into India. Also they are equally concerned about the desperate plight of millions of displaced persons in East Pakistan, many of whom are wane ofl than the refugees, as they are not even receiving relief supplies. The involvement of the Australian is evidenced by their willingness to contribute substantial funds to voluntary agencies, to assist their work in these countries.

As some twenty million refugees and displaced persons are today facing acute problems of hunger and privation - nutrition .ind child family problems - ultimate famine and death on an unprecedented scale - the Commonwealth Government must plan to come to their assistance in a more sacrificial way.

Your petitioners therefore most humbly pray that in tackling these great human problems in Bengal, by far the greatest this century, ‘.he House of Representatives in Parliament assembled, will request that a special meeting of Cabinet be called to provide $10m for relief purpose:, in India and East Pakistan, and a further S50m over three years to help rehabilitate the refugee–, in East Pakistan.

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

Petition received.

Lake Pedder

Mr FOX:
HENTY, VICTORIA

– I present the following petition:

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

That Lake Pedder, situated in the Lake Pedder National Park in South-West Tasmania, is threatened with inundation as part of the Gordon River hydro-electric power scheme.

That an alternative scheme exists, which, if implemented would avoid inundation of this lake.

That Lake Pedder and the surrounding wilderness area is of such beauty, and scientific interest as to be of a value beyond monetary consideration.

And that some unique species of flora and fauna will be in danger of extinction if this area is inundated.

Your Petitioners therefor; humbly pray thai the Federal Government lake immediate steps lo act on behalf of all Australian people lo preserve Lake Pedder in its natural stats. All present and particularly future Australians will benefit by being able to escape from their usual environment lo rebuild their physical and mental strength in this unspoilt wilderness area.

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

Petition received.

National Service

Mr KELLY:
WAKEFIELD, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I present the following petition:

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of electors of the Division of Wakefield respectfully sheweth:

Thai the determination as to which young men are required to undergo compulsory, military service under the National Service Act 1951-1968 is arrived at by a ballot system, based upon arbritary grounds as to their date of birth.

And that this procedure providing for selection by a method of chance is an unfair and arbitrary imposition on the human rights of a minority and discriminates against certain of the young male persons in the community in favour of others solely by reason of their respective dates of birth.

Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that Section Twenty-six of the National Service Act 1951-1968 be repealed.

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

Petition received.

Taxation: Wine Growers

Mr GILES:
ANGAS, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– 1 present the following petition:

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned electors of the State of South Australia respectfully showeth:

That there appears to be an anomaly in the Sales Tax (Exemptions and Classifications) Act in as much that concessions are given to the agricultural industry for persons engaged in cereal grow-‘ ing for the purchase of Machinery and Plant (and parts therefore) for use in the bulk handling of grain, which is exempt from Sales Tax (Item 112).

Thai no such concession is given to vignerons to change to bulk handling of grapes although wineries are equipped to receive grapes by such means of handling and demand such a change.

That in view ot the rapidly rising costs in the wine industry, and the .need for growers to cut delivery costs to a minimum, this concession should be allowed for the increasing use of bulk handling equipment by vignerons.

Thai equipment such as telescopic or underbody hoists which are used on vignerons’ vehicles, and being the main equipment for the bulk handling of grapes, and other such equipment although not being a class of goods of a kind which are used exclusively in agricultural industry, that these goods be exempted from Sales Tax if they are to be used exclusively, primarily, and principally, in the agricultural industry by persons (namely vignerons) engaged in that industry.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House will amend the Sales Tax (Exemptions and Classifications) Act and cause such Machinery and Plant which can be used by vignerons for bulk handling of grapes to be included in that Act as an exemption.

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

Petition received.

Chemical Agents of Warfare

Mr KIRWAN:
FORREST, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I present the following petition:

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of electors of the Commonwealth of Australia respectfully showeth:

thai the United Nations General Assembly Resolution 2603 XXIV A (December 1969) declares that the Geneva Protocol of 1925, which Australia has ratified, prohibits Mie use in international armed conflict of any chemical agents of warfare - chemical substances whether gaseous, liquid or solid - employed for their direct toxic effects on mau, animals or plants:

that the World Health Organisation Report (January 1970) confirms the above definition of chemical agents of warfare;

thai the Australian Government does not accept this definition, but holds that the Geneva Protocol does not prevent the use in war of certain toxic chemical substances in the form of herbicides, defoliants and ‘riotcontrol’ agents.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray -

thai the Parliament take , 10 le of the consensus of international political, scientific mid humanitarian opinion; and

that Honourable Members urge upon the Government the desirability of revising its interpretation of the Geneva Protocol, and declaring that it regards all chemical ^lbstances employed for their toxic effects on man, animals or plants as being included in the prohibitions laid down by that Protocol.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pi ay.

Petition received.

Chemical Agents of Warfare

Mr WEBB:
STIRLING, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I present the following petition:

To the Honourable the Speaker and Member^ of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of electors of the Commonwealth of Australia respectfully showeth:

that the United Nations General Assembly Resolution 2603 XXIV A (December 1969) declares that the Geneva Protocol of 1925. which Australia has ratified, prohibits the use in international armed conflict of any chemical agents of warfare - chemical sub- stances whether gaseous, liquid or solidemployed for their direct toxic effects on mun, animals or planus;

that the World Health Organisation Report (January 1970) confirms the above definition of chemical agents of warfare;

that the Australian Government does not accept this definition, but holds that the Geneva Protocol does not prevent the use in war of certain toxic chemical substances in the form of herbicides, defoliants and ‘riotcontrol’ agents.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray -

that the Parliament take note of the consensus of international political, scientific and humanitarian opinion; and

that Honourable Members urge upon the Government the desirability of revising its interpretation of the Geneva Protocol, and declaring that it regards all chemical substances employed for their toxic effects on man, animals or plants as being included in the prohibitions laid down by, that Protocol.

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

Petition received.

Lake Pedder

Mr SHERRY:
FRANKLIN, TASMANIA

– I present the following petition:

To the Honourable th.e Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of citizens of the Commonwealth of Australia respectfully showeth:

That Lake Pedder, situated in the Lake Pedder National Park in South-West. Tasmania, is threatened with inundation as part, of the Gordon River hydro-electric power scheme.

That an alternative scheme exists, which, if implemented would avoid inundation of this lake.

That Lake Pedder and the surrounding wilderness area arc of such beauty and scientific interest as to be of a value beyond monetary consideration.

And that some unique species of flora and fauna will be in danger of extinction if this area is inundated.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Federal Government take immediate steps to act on behalf of all Australian people to preserve Lake Pedder in its natural state. AH present and particularly future Australians will benefit by being able to escape from their usual environment to rebuild their physical and mental strength in this unspoilt wildneress area. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.

Petition received.

National Service

Mr GILES:

– I present the following petition:

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of electors of the Division of Angas respectfully sheweth:

That the determination as to which young men are required to undergo compulsory military ser vice under the National Service Act 1951-196o is arrived at by, a ballot system, based upon arbitrary grounds as to their dale of birth.

And that this procedure providing by a method of chance is an unfair and arbitrary imposition on the human rights of a minority and discriminates against certain of the young male persons in the community in favour of others solely by reason of (heir respective dates of birth.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that Section Twenty-six of the National Service Act 1951-1968 bc repealed.

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

Petition received.

Lake Pedder

Mr WHITTORN:
BALACLAVA, VICTORIA

– I present the following petition:

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

That Lake Pedder, situated in the Lake Pedder National Park in south-west Tasmania, is threatened wilh inundation as part of the Gordon River hydro-electric power scheme.

That an alternative scheme exists, which, if implemented would avoid inundation pf this lake.

That Lake Pedder and the surrounding wilderness area is of such beauty and scientific interest as to be of a value beyond monetary consideration.

And that some unique species of flora and fauna will be in danger of extinction if this area is inundated.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Federal Government take immediate steps to act on behalf of all Australian people to preserve Lake Pedder in its natural state. All present and particularly future Australians will benefit by being able to escape from their usual environment to rebuild their physical and mental strength in this unspoilt wildernes area. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.

Petition received.

Crime Prevention

Mr BENNETT:
SWAN, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– 1 present the following petition:

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

That they are gravely concerned at the apparent appalling increase in crime in Australia, particularly in densely populated areas;

That they fear the police forces of the various States and Territories are undermanned and underequipped to handle the increase in crime;

That their concern is aggravated by the apparent number of unsolved crimes particularly those involving violence to the individual including murder.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the honourable members of the House of Representatives will seek to ensure that the Commonwealth Government will seek the co-operation of the Stales and supply extra finance to the States to enable:

proper town planning and development to halt the increase in densely populated areas which leads to increased crime,
the proper staffing and equipping of police forces to enable adequate crime prevention and detection measures to reduce the frightening increase of both solved and unsolved crime,
the proper detention of and rehabilitation of criminals, and
compensation to victims of crimes of violence.

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

Petition received.

Aboriginal Welfare

Mr WEBB:

– I present the following petition:

To the honourable the Speaker and members of the Motive of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:

That there is a crisis in Aboriginal welfare in the South West Land Division of Western Australia resulting from a population explosion, poor housing and hygiene and unemployment and unemployability.

That there is a need to phase out native reserves in the South West Land Division of Western Australia over the next three years.

That town housing must be provided for all Aboriginal families where the bread winner has permanent employment or an age or invalid pension entitlement

That such housing must be supported by the appointment of permanent ‘home-maker’ assistance in the ration of one home-maker to every eight houses or part thereof.

That incentives of housing, ‘home-maker’ services and training facilities must be created in centres of potential employment for those who are currently unemployed or unemployable.

That insufficient State or Federal assistance has been made available to meet these requirements.

That adequate finance to meet these requirements can only be provided by the Commonwealth Government.

Your petitioners most humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled will give earnest consideration to this most vital matter.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received*

Aboriginal Welfare

Mr KIRWAN:

– I present the following petition:

To the honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:

That there is a crisis in Aboriginal welfare in the South West Land Division of Western Australia resulting from a population explosion, poor housing and hygiene and unemployment and unemployability.

That there is a need to phase out native reserves in the South West Land Division of Western Australia over the next three years.

That town housing must be provided for all Aboriginal families where the bread winner has permanent employment or an age or invalid pension entitlement.

That such housing must be supported by the appointment of permanent ‘home-maker’ assistance in the ratio of one home-maker to every eight houses or pan thereof.

That incentives of housing, ‘home-maker’ services and training facilities must be created in centres of potential employment for those who are currently unemployed or unemployable.

That insufficient State or Federal assistance has been made available to meet these requirements.

That adequate finance to meet these requirements can only be provided by the Commonwealth Government.

Your petitioners most humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled will give earnest consideration to this most vital matter.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received.

Contraceptives

Mr BENNETT:

– I present the following petition:

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

That the sales tax on all forms of contraceptive devices is 27i per cent. (Sales Tax Exemptions and Classifications Act 1935-1967). Also that there is customs duty of up to 471 per cent on some contraceptive devices.

And that this is an unfair imposition on the human rights of all people who wish to prevent unwanted pregnancies. And furthermore that this imposition discriminates particularly against people on low incomes.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the sales tax on all forms of contraceptive devices be removed, so as to bring these items into line with other necessities such as food, upon which there is no sales tax. Also that customs duties be removed, and that all contraceptive devices be placed on the national health scheme pharmaceutical benefits list

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

Petition received.

page 3543

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN ECONOMY

Mr ARMITAGE:
CHIFLEY, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I address a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the many indicators of storms ahead for the Australian economy, such as the United Kingdom’s entry into the European Common Market, the wool industry crisis, both rural and general unemployment in the basic industries, the currency crisis and obvious speculation about a possible appreciation of Australian currency as indicated by the dramatic increase in Australia’s overseas reserves, which now stand at over $2,600m-

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member is giving information. I suggest that he ask his question.

Mr ARMITAGE:

– Will the right honourable gentleman either arrange for the introduction of a mini Budget to stimulate the economy or bring down a statement on the economy so the House may debate it?

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

– As to the first question, the honourable gentleman must understand that this is a matter of policy and I would not be giving an answer to the question, unless 1 came straight into the House and made my decisions or the decisions of the Government known. Exactly the same applies lo the second part of the question.

page 3543

QUESTION

MOTOR CAR PRODUCTION

Mr BURY:
WENTWORTH, NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is addressed to the Acting Minister for Trade and Industry. Is it a fact that the complete manufacture of motor cars in Australia gives rise to the expansion of basic engineering facilities and the training of a skilled labour force which add considerably to our industrial and defence potential? Is it also a fact that the mere assembly of motor car parts, whether imported from overseas or produced locally, is a relatively simple and cheap operation which adds variety to consumer choice but not much to our basic industrial structure? Has the volume of imports of completely built up cars and parts for assembly gravely limited the total market available for the sale of cars fully manufactured in Australia? Is it Government policy to keep the market primarily for cars fully manufactured in Australia or to allow the matter to be settled by events? Will the Minister make a statement of Government policy in the near future to guide those making the massive investment decisions involved in this industry and to remove the current state of uncertainty?

Mr HOLTEN:
Minister for Repatriation · INDI, VICTORIA · CP

– For many years the policy of the Government has been to ensure, encourage and sustain the development in Australia of an efficient automotive industry producing motor cars with a maximum Australian content.

Mr Uren:

– Mr Speaker, I take a point of order. This is the time allotted for questions without notice. My point is that the Minister obviously has been given notice of this question by a Government member and that this is an abuse of question time.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I have ruled on this matter on several occasions in the past. I am not in a position to say whether what the honourable member suggests is the position.

Mr HOLTEN:

– As i was saying, the Government adopted policy measures specifically designed to assist motor vehicle and component manufacturing firms to achieve these objectives. The motor vehicle manufacturing industry is regarded by the Government as a cornerstone of the Australian engineering industry. The development of motor vehicle manufacturing in Australia, with high local content, has brought with it an improvement in Australian engineering technology, new capital investment, a wide variety of employment opportunities and significant export earnings. In terms of employment, the motor vehicle industry is estimated to employ about 6 per cent of the total work force employed in all Australian manufacturing industries. It is a fact that imports of completely built-up vehicles have gained an increased share of the market in 1971. The share of the market obtained by assembled vehicles - that is, with 60 per cent or ess local content - has also increased during 1971. These trends and related developments in the motor vehicle industry are currently subject to examination by the Government. This examination is part of the motor vehicle plans review which was announced by the Minister for Trade and Industry in April this year. This review will be considered by the Government as soon as possible and any decisions indicating

Mr Armitage:

– Mr Speaker, 1 take a point of order. May 1 ask for your guidance? Would it be in order for me to move that the Minister’s written answer be incorporated in Hansard?

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! Under the Standing Orders it would be possible for the honourable member to do this but I would suggest, that question time is at a premium and the honourable member would be wasting about 8 minutes of it.

Mr HOLTEN:

– Decisions indicating the Government’s future intentions will be announced following this consideration.

Mr Uren:

– Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. I draw attention to your request that Ministers should keep their replies to questions short. ‘ We know that this is a statement that the Minister is making. Therefore, the statement should be made after question time when, if necessary, the subject matter could be debated.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! There is no substance to the point of order. The question was asked of the Minister and his answer has been relevant to it.

page 3544

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN ECONOMY

Dr J F Cairns:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

– I ask the Prime Minister a question. In view of what was stated a few moments ago by the honourable member for Chifley in a question about the general state of the economy and by the honourable member for Wentworth about the state of the motor car industry, and in view of the general uncertainty of investors throughout Australia about economic conditions, will the Prime Minister take into account each of these matters and undertake to make to the House without delay a statement on the attitude of the Government to the need of the economy for stimulation and to improve the position in certain sectors of the economy? Will he make this as a statement without delay and not as an answer to a question directed to a Minister, so that the House will have an opportunity of debating it and so that the country will know where the Government stands?

Mr MCMAHON:
LP

– Shortly after I arrived back in Australia I had discussions with the Treasurer relating to the state of the economy. Since then, he has provided me with 2 papers and last night I discussed those 2 papers with him. The matters involved are now in the hands of the relevant departments, and if the Treasurer feels that it is desirable to make a statement to the House, I can assure the honourable member that he will do so. But I am certain that before he made any statement he would put a submission to Cabinet, Cabinet would discuss it and subsequent to that he would take the action which he and Cabinet considered to be desirable.

page 3544

QUESTION

PARLIAMENTARY COMMITTEES

Mr TURNER:
BRADFIELD, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I ask the Prime Minister whether the Government has formed any view about the establishment of a system of standing committees in this chamber and, if so, what broadly it would conceive to be the desirable nature of such a system.

Mr MCMAHON:
LP

– No. Since I have been Prime Minister Cabinet has not had a paper before it so that it could consider the matter of the committee system. I will try to have this matter considered by Cabinet before the House rises but I think it would be impracticable because I can assure the House that a tremendous amount of work of great importance has to be done. As the honourable gentleman will well know, if he wishes to refer to the Government as being all the people supporting the Liberal-Country Party Government, the matter has not been raised in the joint party room.

page 3544

QUESTION

TERRITORIAL WATERS

Mr WHITLAM:
WERRIWA, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I direct a question to the Prime Minister. Was Australia consulted by Malaysia and Indonesia before they made their declaration last week that the Straits of Malacca and Singapore were national waters? Has Australia decided to take corresponding steps” to assert sovereignty over the waters in the gulfs and between the reefs and on the continental shelf along and off her own coasts in sufficient time before the International Law of the Sea Conference assembles in Stockholm in 1973? In particular I ask: When will the Government proceed with the Territorial Sea and Continental Shelf Bill which was introduced in April last year on his behalf, when he was Minister for External Affairs, which was included in the Government’s programme at the election in October 1969 and in the GovernorGeneral’s Speech opening the Parliament in March last year, but which is at present item 70 on the notice paper? In other words, is it the policy of his Government to proceed with its predecessors’ undertaking and his own predecessor’s undertaking of 2 years ago?

Mr McMAHON:
LP

– The third part of the question obviously is intended to be provocative and is mischievous. 1 will have discussions with my colleague, the Leader of the House, and it will be in his hands as to when the matter is brought before the House for discussion. As to the first 2 parts of the question asked by the honourable gentleman, they are matters within the jurisdiction of my colleague, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, and f will ask him to answer them.

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

– We have been familiar with the general progress of events leading up to the declaration about the Strait of Malacca, but it would not be correct to say that we were specifically notified of the actual declaration in advance of it being made. The strait is 8 miles wide at its narrowest point and 35 miles wide at its broadest point. In particular, oil tankers going to Japan from the Persian Gulf have been passing through the strait. There has been an attempt to have an international regime operating. Japan has been particularly interested in the question of dredging to improve the facilities so. that the strait can take 200,000-tonners. or similar vessels, and in improving navigational aids and so on.

There had been some suggestion for a body on which. nations other than those with their coasts alongside this strait would be represented. In view of these developments, of those nations which border on the strait - Malaysia and Indonesia which claim a 12 mile territorial sea and Singapore, which has noted the declaration, and claims a 3 mile territorial sea - Malaysia and Indonesia decided to claim that the strait was within their territorial limits, certainly at the 8 miles point. It is not quite clear in the declaration how far it extends. But they recognise that there is the right of innocent passage which would normally apply in territorial waters. This is a matter which would normally come up for consideration during the discussions in the Conference on the International Law of the Sea and I think it still may do so. Our own people are studying the matter both in my own Department and in the Attorney-General’s Department. We have not ourselves given any public reaction to this declaration.

Mr Whitlam:

– The Prime Minister said he would ask the Foreign Minister to answer the first 2 questions. The second question was: Has Australia decided to take corresponding steps to assert sovereignty?

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

– Could the honourable member indicate the areas?

Mr Whitlam:

– The second question I asked the Prime Minister was: Has Australia decided to take corresponding steps to assert, sovereignty over the waters in the gulfs and between the reefs and on the continental shelf along and off her own coasts in sufficient time before the International Law of the Sea Conference assembles in Stockholm in 1973?

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

– As far as the gulfs are concerned, if we take the Gulf of Carpentaria, at its narrowest point it is 370 miles across. It presents a different question entirely. As far as the reef is concerned, it runs for 1,200 miles and goes out, as honourable members will know, over 100 miles going down towards Swain Reefs. Different questions entirely arise in this regard. The same applies to the continental shelf. We have been very active participants in the preparatory committee which has completed its deliberations. This is the first set of deliberations and there will be further committees. Wc have received a report from our own participants in this committee dealing with the questions which would bear on our claims and which would include the kind of matters which the Leader of the Opposition has raised. We have not ourselves taken any unilateral action and I do not see any prospect of our doing that in relation to the particular matters that he has raised but they will be taken into account in considering our position in the International Conference.

page 3546

QUESTION

EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY

Mr LLOYD:
MURRAY, VICTORIA

– In the Prime Minister’s statement to the House last night and in the Australian Press report of his Press conference in Honolulu, he referred to the need to strengthen our diplomatic representations to the European Economic Community in Brussels. When this matter is discussed, because of the importance of agricultural production trends in Europe to Australian agricultural market prospects, will consideration be given to the inclusion of representatives who will be able to provide early and accurate agricultural marketing intelligence on agricultural developments within the European Economic Community?

Mr McMAHON:
LP

– Naturally, I referred this problem to the Department of Foreign Affairs so that it could advise me about it. It recognises the necessity of strengthening our representation in Brussels following British entry and it recognises the need to have technical experts on the staff in order to be able to handle the agricultural problems. As yet, the Department has not been able to come to any decision as to the size and components of an increase, nor has it yet been able to put a proposal to the Public Service Board.

page 3546

QUESTION

NATIONAL FILM AND TELEVISION TRAINING SCHOOL

Mr BARNARD:
BASS, TASMANIA

– Is the Prime Minister aware that the letter from the Chairman of the Interim Council for the National Film and Television Training School about which he was asked yesterday by the honourable member for Franklin, and which he said he had not seen, was sent by the Chairman on 20th October and acknowledged by the Minister for the Environment, Aborigines and the Arts on 25th October? Has he asked the Minister why this crucial letter was not drawn to his attention before he made his statement on 26th October? If so, what was the Minister’s reply?

Mr McMAHON:
LP

– I am glad that the honourable gentleman has asked this question because, as I explained to the honourable member for Franklin this morning, what I said was capable of misunderstanding. The simple fact is that, because this matter was so sensitive, I thought it was desirable to appoint a group of Ministers to handle it and to receive letters and correspondence direct from the Department of the Environment so that they would be able to prepare a speech for me and advise me as to the action that should be taken.They did this. Consequently, I divorced myself from the details as completely as I could. I wanted to rely upon the ministerial committee which, I think; is under the chairmanship of my colleague, the Treasurer, and also has the AttorneyGeneral on it.

The second point that I want to make is that when I was giving an answer in the House, by means of a ministerial statement, to the question asked by the Leader of the Opposition, I was addressing myself basically to the question of acreage involved - whether it was to be 6 acres, Ti acres or 8 acres. I have not at any time, other than in respect of the number of trainees who should be trained at the film and television training school and the fact that the Minister for the Environment had made an incorrect statement, taken any part whatsoever in the discussions relating to the report of the P & A consultants or any comments that might be made by the Chairman of the Interim Council about them. But, as I said to the honourable member for Franklin this morning, I wish to correct what I said to indicate that copies of the letters dated 20th October and 25th October were sent to my office but the matter was. left in the control of the ministerial committee.

page 3546

QUESTION

THIS DAY TONIGHT

Mr MacKELLAR:
WARRINGAH, NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is directed to the Postmaster-General. I refer to the widespread public concern about the fact that a young man sought by Commonwealth Police in relation to his refusal to comply with the requirements of the National Service Act appeared last week on a current affairs programme presented by the Australian Broadcasting Commission. I understand that the PostmasterGeneral initiated an inquiry into this matter. I ask him: Has this inquiry been completed? If so, what are the findings of this inquiry?

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

– On Tuesday of last week, there was a ‘This Day Tonight’ programme which involved a draft resister by the name of Matteson and the Federal

Attorney-General. I did, as the newspapers have indicated, ask for a written report from the Australian Broadcasting Commission, believing that as the Minister responsible for administering the Broadcasting and Television Act I was, in my own ministerial right and also on behalf of the Parliament, entitled to seek a report. For the benefit of members - I believe that they will be interested - I might summarise shortly the report that I received.

The overall programme content was in general terms discussed with the AttorneyGeneral who consented to participate. Within the ABC, consideration was given to the question whether there was an obligation on the ABC to inform the police of Matteson’s appearance. Advice was given by the ABC’s own internal legal adviser that there was no obligation to inform the police. The ABC employee who contacted Matteson had been a fellow student with, him at school and the Sydney University. This employee, after several hours wait at Sydney University, saw Matteson there and when extending the invitation for Matteson to appear cautioned him that the ABC could offer him no protection from the police, and did not qualify such warning in any way.

After Matteson had been interviewed, final comment was sought from Senator Greenwood. At that point and without warning, Matteson left the studio by the means of his earlier access. He was seen to have passed through a door in the viewing gallery which automatically closed behind him. He apparently was not further seen or recognised by any other staff member, some of whom at that time were involved in discussion or were directing members of the Commonwealth Police within the building. The means by which Matteson left the building are not known.

Dr Patterson:

– Mr Speaker. In view of the fact that the Postmaster-General has quoted from a report, I ask that the report be tabled.

Mr SPEAKER:

The figures certainly do not show that the economy is in a state of stagnation or no growth. On the contrary, it will be seen that those figures are at current prices and therefore they reflect price increases. But when those current price figures are deflated from the point of view of price increases they still show that the state of the economy is one of improvement in the rate of growth and they do justify the statements which I have been making that there is strength and a resilience in the economy. The final point I should make is that, whereas over the last year or so the majority of the growth occurred in the wage and salary sector, on this occasion there has been a growth in the operating surplus or, in general terms, the profit of enterprises. The figures should provide ground for confidence on the part of the business community.

page 3548

QUESTION

PRIME MINISTER’S OVERSEAS VISIT

Mr CHARLES JONES:

– Is the Prime Minister aware of the resentment which has been aroused among- present staff, retrenched staff and supporters of Australia’s hard-pressed national airline by bis use of American air carriers when Qantas flights were available? Was he correctly reported as saying that he chose the American carriers for the extra space available in their 747 Jumbo aircraft? Does he still think that his personal comfort is sufficient justification for handing to the competitors of Qantas a public relations triumph, especially as he failed to gain from the American Government the routes or rights upon which the future profitability of Qantas so largely depends?

Mr McMAHON:
LP

– I thank . the honourable gentleman for giving me the opportunity to correct the false statement that was made in ‘the Press about this matter. 1 travelled under Qantas booking from Sydney to New York and it was arranged that f should go across the Atlantic by TWA aircraft because that was the most appropriate way to go. 1 went in a 707 aircraft and not in a 747 aircraft. The trip across was an uncomfortable one for me and for the Press officers associated with me because, believe me, Trans-World Airlines does pack its passengers in in a way thai Qantas would not. If I had had the opportunity to travel by Qantas of course I would have taken it. I travel by Qantas whenever a service is available and it fits in with my schedule. I finished my job in London on the Friday and left on the Saturday morning for Honolulu. On that day there were no scheduled Qantas flights from London to Honolulu and consequently I was unable to get into a Qantas plane. I have given that explanation on 2 occasions. I am sorry that the honourable gentleman was so late in asking his question.

page 3549

QUESTION

ABATTOIRS

Mr O’KEEFE:
PATERSON, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I direct a question to the Acting Minister for Primary Industry. Have licences for export to the United States of America recently been withdrawn from several large country abattoirs in New South Wales? Have these abattoirs complied with the requirements and asked for reinspection? Will the Minister see that the Department of Primary Industry carries out these inspections promptly so that valuable export trade can be recommenced?

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

– Export licences were withdrawn from a couple of abattoirs in New South Wales two or three weeks ago. As soon as the licences were withdrawn 1 made sure a list of the faults was handed to the abattoir proprietors so t’.-.ey could immediately correct those faults and recommence export operations as soon as possible. I am not at all sure about the last part of the honourable member’s question.

If he is informing me that in his view the abattoirs have now corrected those faults, I will make sure that the inspectors from the Department of Primary Industry visit them urgently so that the abattoirs can get back into full export business.

page 3549

QUESTION

FOREIGN INVESTMENT

Mr HURFORD:
ADELAIDE, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– Does the Prime Minister agree that our gold and foreign exchange reserves are now vastly beyond our needs for maintaining our trade? Is it not a fact that this surplus, caused by hot money and other foreign investment, among other disadvantageous effects contributes to excess liquidity in those very areas which do not create employment? Is it not also a fact that the Government, in its budgetary and .monetary policies is syphoning off liquidity from those very areas which do create employment, thus causing serious unemployment in many areas today? Will the Government now revise its policies by controlling foreign investment, thus checking inflation and encouraging employment instead of encouraging foreign investment as the Prime Minister did during his recent trip abroad?

Mr McMAHON:
LP

– First of all, the assumption on which the honourable member’s question is based is wrong to the extent that whilst I have not got up to date information 1 did, whilst I was the Acting Treasurer, ask the Reserve Bank whether it would have a discussion with me - or it might even have been at the time when the Treasurer was here - to see whether it could identify first usage of capital inflows into this country. While I was Treasurer the Bank had reintroduced or improved a system known as ticket entries, and the Bank had brought this up to date so that it could be handled more quickly and that greater detail could he set out in it. The Reserve Bunk also provided in its capital exchange approval’s that first usage should be set out in the application documents. From this it was able to get a fairly good idea of the situation at the time it reported to me that it could find no substantial evidence of hot money or money coming here for temporary investment.

Dr J F Cairns:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

– He is asking about now.

Mr McMAHON:

– Be a good boy; you will get the answer. What the Bank did find at that time was that most of the money was coming in for direct investment purposes. It found that Australian merchant bankers had discovered part of the answer to borrowing money at better interest rates on the European market and considerable sums were coming in, again for direct investment purposes. There were lags in payments by Australians. So 2 conclusions were reached. First of all, the Bank did not think that the amount of, if you like to call it, short term investment money coming into the country at that time was significant. Nonetheless now that the question has been raised I will ask my colleague, the Treasurer, to have another look at .the matter to see if we can get more up to date information: But of this I can say that while we can regard the information conveyed to me as giving a general indication of the trend of what is happening we cannot say with certainty what the figures are, and consequently it is not useful for statistical purposes.

page 3550

– The point I wish to make is this: The standing order makes it plain that a document relating to public affairs quoted from by a Minister shall, if required by any member, be laid on the table. The Minister certainly appeared lo be quoting from such a document. I would imagine that honourable members on both sides - the Government side no less - would be interested in the full document and I put it to you, Mr Speaker, that it is driving a coach and four through the Standing Orders if the Minister is allowed to come into the House with, say, a photostat or an extract and thus avoid the clear intention of the Standing Orders that where a public document is being relied on it should be made public.

Mr SPEAKER:

-I think it has been the custom of this House for a long time that the tabling of a document is a matter for the Minister concerned. This is a longestablished practice. I think the Leader of the Opposition is referring to standing order 321. which contains the words:

A document relating to public affairs quoted from by a Minister . . .

– 1 have received a letter from the honourable member for Kalgoorlie (Mr Collard) proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:

The urgent need for the Government to provide assistance to the gold mining industry to prevent the large scale unemployment and population and economic disruption which must otherwise occur on the goldfields of Western Australia.

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

Mr COLLARD:
Kalgoorlie

– It is 3 months today since the Prime Minister (Mr McMahon) told this House that, in the light of the changing circumstances in the nickel industry, he would reconsider the Government’s earlier decision in relation to further assistance for the gold mining industry. On 2 occasions since then - the latest as recent as yesterday - I have asked questions on the subject and have received the same reply, namely, that the matter is being considered. It therefore seems obvious that the Government is very little if any nearer to making a decision today than it was 3 months ago and the reason for my raising this matter of public importance is to acquaint the Government again with the urgency of the situation and the need immediately to increase or to give notice of an increase in the amount of assistance provided under the Gold Mining

Industry Assistance Act. This increase is necessary to prevent large scale unemployment and subsequent suffering on the goldfields, and also to prevent a very substantial movement of people from those goldfields to the capital city.

It must be recognised that unless a favourable decision is taken very shortly, some of the goldmines will have been worked to a stage where it will be impossible to keep them going, even if an increase in assistance were given at some later date or if the price of gold increased. Once you stop development in a goldmine and start to remove pillars in stopes or pull up levels, it is the finish of that section of the mine because it becomes too dangerous to re-enter. Many shafts and sections are coming close to that stage now, and that is one of the reasons why this matter is so urgent and why we require a very early decision from this Government. If the Cabinet, in refusing to agree to the request for additional assistance to goldmining, did so under the genuine impression that the nickel industry shortly would become a large employer of labour, then all I can say is that Cabinet was badly advised and it is a very great pity that not one member of Cabinet bothered to accept the invitation to come to Kalgoorlie to learn for himself what the actual situation would be, a brief explanation of which I will now give to the House.

In both Mount Magnet and Noresman where the population is almost entirely dependent on the goldmines, there are no nickel developments within the district at the moment, but this could well change within 4 or 5 years as prospects are investigated. Therefore, an early closure of the goldmine would be nothing less than disastrous for those areas. My information shows that the population in Mount Magnet at the moment is approximately 800 persons and that that number would reduce at least to 200 if the mine closed. Possibly the figure could be much lower depending on the future of the pastoral industry. The whole of the work force of the mine and the workers’ families would be obliged to move, as also would most businessmen and their employees, and the only place to which they would be likely to move would be the capital city provided, of course, that they could obtain housing. The situation in the rural industry precludes any possibility of .these people obtaining employment in that area.

The present population in Norseman is approximately 1,600 and it is estimated that a closure of the mine would mean a reduction in that population by at least 50 per ‘cent almost immediately and then, as housing became available elsewhere for the families of workers, the population would reduce still further. As at Mount Magnet, businesses would also shut down and the people concerned would move away. Previously some mine workers in Norseman had expected to be able to continue living in Norseman by obtaining employment at the Anaconda nickel mine, some 50 to 60 miles distant. Unfortunately, from information given to me the situation now is that Anaconda has not only stopped recruiting labour but is in fact reducing its work force substantially, and this has destroyed any hope of Norseman workers obtaining a job in that area.

It had been accepted in some quarters that quite a number of men from Kalgoorlie mines would be able to obtain work at the Western Mining Corp. Ltd nickel mining project at Kambalda, some 30 miles out. But now it has been reported through the Press by the manager of Western Mining that he will not. be recruiting any more labour for some months and will not even replace those workers who leave. So here again we have a nickel mine where the labour force is being reduced. Then we have the glamour show Poseidon in relation to which it was claimed, when shares reached $200 each, that 2,000 or 3,000 people would be in residence within a year or so, and a decision had even been taken regarding the siting of a new town. The story now is - it seems to come from authentic sources; in fact, it was so reported in this morning’s ‘Australian’ newspaper - that Poseidon will not be making any worthwhile progress for at least a couple of years or until the demand for nickel becomes much more certain and stronger than it is at present. It could be even longer than 2 years. If this is so, then we can forget Poseidon as being an alternative source of employment for some time to come. The nickel mines at Scotia and Carboyd Rocks are only small and would not employ many at their best, but here also there is a slackening in production due to the weakness of the nickel market.

Now 1 turn to the effect the closure of the goldmines would have on the cities of Kalgoorlie and Boulder where at present there is a population of well over 20,000 people, lt would be very difficult to arrive at a reasonably reliable estimate of what the population drop could be unless one had access to what were the family responsibilities of the men and women working for the goldmining industry and elsewhere in those towns. But a person, whom I do not intend to name but who could easily gain that information, gives an estimate of a reduction in population of between 20 and 30 per cent if the goldmines cease their operations during the next 3 or 4 years. I have reason to believe that either the present Prime Minister (Mr McMahon) or his predecessor, or both, have been furnished with that estimate. That is the rather grim situation which the people on the goldfields of Western Australia face at the moment. Approximately 25,000 people are involved, and at least one-third of them are facing very extreme difficulties.

Someone may suggest that I am painting a gloomy picture, but the fact is that I am trying to give the true picture. 1 would suggest that the share market, as it stands at the moment and as it has stood for several weeks, is a fairly clear indication that ali is not well with the nickel industry at present, nor will it be for some time in the future. If the goldmines close where then do those workers and their families go? What is their future? That is the problem we are facing. I just cannot accept the fact that any responsible government would continue to refuse a request for an increase in the gold subsidy if it was properly aware of the situation and realised that the continuation of the goldmining industry would provide employment for such a large number of people, either directly or indirectly. Surely the Government also would recognise the value of the goldmining industry in relation to decentralisation.

In about the middle of August of this year the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Anthony) said that further employment opportunities must be made available in country areas to stop the drift to the cities. Since then the drift has increased considerably and is still increasing. On 24th August this year the Prime Minister, in reply to a question from myself, said that he strongly supported the view taken by his deputy, and he went on to say that ‘wherever there is a prospect of efficient and effective decentralisation we should take action to try and assist decentralisation’. Surely here we have the opportunity in the goldmining industry for the Prime Minister and his deputy to prove by action whether the views they expressed in August were really genuine.

I pose this question: What would it cost to establish housing, water supplies, means of transport and communications for a population somewhere in the outback equal to the number of people now in Kalgoorlie, Boulder, Norseman and Mount Magnet in Western Australia? How far would $1.5m a year go in that direction? That is about the amount being requested in order to keep the goldmining industry in production. The amount being sought is practically nothing when measured against the assistance being provided, in one way or another, to several other industries in Australia. Iri that regard it must be remembered that in assisting the goldmining industry we are helping one which unlike several other subsidised industries has no difficulty in selling what it produces. No matter how much it produces, it can sell it all. There is no fear of stockpiles of overproduction. In addition, the Prime Minister, when he said that decentralisation must be supported, referred to efficiency. No-one can deny that the goldmining industry is efficient. Any industry which is still on deck despite the fact that the price of the article which it produces has not increased for some 30 years could never be branded as being inefficient.

I return to what is required. A request has been made for an additional $4 per oz, and using, as a guide, the information contained in the annual statement given on the Goldmining Assistance Act for the year ended 30th June 1971, it would cost no more than Si. 5m or S2m a year at the most. Surely this is a very small amount but nevertheless a very worthwhile amount to pay to ensure the employment and livelihood of such a large number of people, many of whom will have no alternative but to apply for unemployment relief which, in turn, of course will cost the

Commonwealth money and also reduce the revenue presently being obtained from income tax and indirect tax. So the provision of this additional assistance immediately would be a wise move and the money would be well spent. The total amount of subsidy paid on gold for the year ending 30th June 1967 was S3. 8m, and in that year 574 oz of gold were produced in Western Australia. My reason for using 1967 is that it was the year from which the significant reduction in gold output commenced.

For the year ended 30th June 1968 the subsidy amounted to $4.3 m and the amount of gold produced in Western Australia had fallen to 516,000 oz. But in that year there was included in subsidy pay-out an amount of S2.2m as advance to large producers for 1967-68 as against a Si. 5m advance in 1967 for 1966-67 large producers, For the year ended 30th June 1971, the amount of subsidy was only $2.9m but gold production for 1970 in Western Australia was down to 350,000 oz, a reduction of 200,000 oz over the 4 years, and it has fallen still further this year. I cite those figures because they must make it quite clear that as a result of the fall in gold production an increase of $4 an oz would mean only a total subsidy pay-out of little, if any, more than was the case in 1967 and 1968. So really we are not asking the Commonwealth to give very much more in total than it did in those years. Here again in this industry there is a totally different situation to that which we have in some other industries. On 6th August this year the Leader of the Country Party and Deputy Prime Minister of this country (Mr Anthony), told the annual Country Party conference that his Party was the best equipped to speak on behalf of country people in this Parliament. He also said:

And when I talk of country people 1 mean all country people, not just farmers but everyone in the country.

If that is so, surely we can expect every Country Party member in this place to support this motion because it concerns country residents in particular. We can expect Country Party members, surely, to demand to speak on this motion. If they do not, we can only conclude that the remarks of their leader were not factual and that actually the Country Party is not concerned about the general run of country people at all.

As I pointed out yesterday, the situation on the gold fields is viewed with such seriousness as to cause the Town Council of Kalgoorlie and the Shire of Boulder to decide to send at a cost of about S2,000 a deputation to Canberra to seek an audience with the Prime Minister, the Treasurer (Mr Snedden) and the Minister for Labour and National Service (Mr Lynch). If the Treasurer cannot give us a definite assurance of further assistance and if the Government still holds some . doubts regarding the situation 1 suggest they immediately send someone to Kalgoorlie to get the facts for themselves. If the Treasurer or the Minister for Labour and National Service are prepared to go, I can assure them of complete co-operation and assistance in all respects for them properly to view the situation and - obtain the real picture. But 1 emphasise that this is a matter of urgency and a favourable decision is necessary very quickly.

In conclusion, I refer to an earlier speech of the Minister for Labour and National Service who told the House that his Government wished . to avoid any serious disruption of the population and economy of the goldfields. Let me tell him and the House now that the serious disruption he referred to is ready to take place. It is just around the corner. Therefore, if his remarks were a true reflection of the Government’s attitude it should not hesitate any longer in providing the necessary assistance. Honourable members should not forget that a large number of displaced workers will suffer a considerable loss due to the fact that their houses, particularly in Mount Magnet and Norseman will be either unsaleable or at the best have very little value. This is a very serious situation which requires urgent attention and I call upon the Government to see it in that light and act accordingly.

Mr SNEDDEN:
Treasurer · Bruce · LP

– As the honourable member for Kalgoorlie (Mr Collard) has said, he has asked 2 questions about this matter. He asked one question this week and one in the previous sitting week. I do not for a moment underrate the importance he puts upon the matter. Naturally enough, all of us in this House have had experience of putting as vigorously as we could in the House and outside the House the interests of our own electors. This is a matter of survival and no doubt that is a duty for members to fulfil. We understand that. But it follows that governments are not able to act as an honourable member wants them to act on all occasions. Certainly, governments cannot act until they make a full examination of all the issues.

The Government’s decision to renew the subsidy for 3 years was taken in J une 1 970 after careful consideration of the case presented by the industry. At that time, the labour situation in Kalgoorlie was tight and general business activity was at a high level. The view taken by the Government was that a continuance of existing rales of subsidy would allow gold mining activity in Kalgoorlie to continue to phase out gradually with the employees concerned being able to obtain employment in nickel mining. The figure of declining production which the honourable member gave to the House a moment ago is an indication of this gradual phasing out. Many of the employees would retain their employment at the treatment plants as these shifted from handling gold to the treatment of nickel ore. Also, the construction of a nickel smelter by Western Mining Corporation and the reconstruction of the railway to Esperance would provide employment for the period ahead. In October 1970 whilst the legislation extending the subsidy was before the Parliament the then Prime Minister, the present right honourable member for Higgins (Mr Gorton) at the request of the Premier of the day of Western Australia, Sir David Brand, saw a delegation comprising the Western Australian Minister for Mines in a Liberal Government, Mr Griffiths, the then Leader of the Opposition, Mr Tonkin, and Mr Brodie.Hail. President of the Chamber of Mines. In December 1970 Mr Brodie-Hall wrote to the Prime Minister saying that conditions had deteriorated mainly because of an increase in Stale minimum wage rates and requesting an increase in the rate of subsidy. He also stated, as I recall it. that that was a changed circumstance. As honourable members will remember, at that time there was a very sharp increase in the minimum wage rate throughout Western Australia. The request was considered by

Cabinet and rejected. When this decision was conveyed to Mr Brodie-Hall by the then Treasurer, my colleague the honourable member for Wentworth (Mr Bury), it was asked that it again be reconsidered. In January 1971 the then Treasurer wrote saying that he could see no basis for a reconsideration.

In response to further material provided by Mr Brodie-Hall, the Prime Minister in March 1971 re-affirmed the Government’s position. I am bound to say that that was never accepted by gentlemen such as Mr Brodie-Hall whom 1 have seen on, 1 think, 2 occasions. Certainly, I have a very clear recollection of one occasion here in Canberra. In April 1971, I, as Commonwealth Treasurer, saw the Western Australian Treasurer who at that time was Mr Evans. I understand he is now AttorneyGeneral. I said that I did not consider there was a case for Commonwealth action. There have been many subsequent representations. I think it is relevant to point out that the Western Australian State Government has a role to play in this matter. Commonwealth funds provided to Western Australia this year are substantially greater than they were in 1970-71. That State has, in common with all the other Stales, benefited from the substantially improved financial assistance arrangements, access to payroll tax which has already been applied at an increased rate by the States, additional financial assistance provided at the June 1971 Premiers’ Conference and from the Commonwealth’s continued support of a high level of State borrowing programmes. The benefits to Western Australia from the transfer of payroll tax to the States and from the special revenue assistance provided in 1971-72 will amount to over Si 2m this financial year and will increase according to the formula next financial year. The Commonwealth has supported in the last 2 years special additions to Western Australia’s borrowing programmes in recognition of its rapid rate of population and economic growth compared with other States. As a result the State’s borrowing authority was 85m higher in 1970-71 than it would otherwise have been and is S8m higher in 1971-72 than it would otherwise have been. Many persons have made representations. I have a clear recollection of Senator Durack from Western Australia making representations to me. Others who made representations include the honourable member for Kalgoorlie, Mr BrodieHall, the Chamber of Mines of which he is the President, the town clerk of Kalgoorlie, and the shire president of Boulder.

Mr Collard:

– Does not that mean anything?

Mr SNEDDEN:

– Yes. That means that representations have been made. That is what it means: The representations have been made. I have since received telegrams which state: ‘Unless you’ - that is the Government - ‘make a decision we are going to come over at a cost of $2,000’. I have sent back a telegram saying that those people making all the representations are providing the information and that I do not believe that a deputation would add materially to the information available to us There is no need for them to make the point that it will cost $2,000 to come here The matter is being pursued by representations. What the representations have pointed out is that circumstances have changed and that, while an increase in the subsidy was refused previously, it now ought to be granted because of the changed circumstances which relate to the nickel industry, because there has been a slowing down of the realisation of nickel mining and nickel smelting operations, and because the transference of the work force from the gold mines into the nickel mines and smelters will leave a gap. This is the new situation which is represented to me. It is said that the break in the changeover will cause social dislocation of the people there. Because of these changed circumstances, the Government agreed to submit the matter to further examination. The position at the present time is that the matter is being so examined.

Mr CREAN:
Melbourne Ports

– I must confess to being astonished at the attitude taken by the Treasurer (Mr Snedden). The honourable member for Kalgoorlie. (Mr Collard) has raised for discussion as a matter of public importance:

The urgent need for the Government, to provide assistance to the gold mining industry to prevent the’ large scale unemployment and population and economic disruption which must otherwise occur on the gold fields of Western Australia.

I would have thought that the Minister might at least display a little bit of sympathy for the cause. He attempted to pass it off as a cheap electoral trick on the part of my colleague, the honourable member for Kalgoorlie. To my mind, this is to disparage the claims being made on behalf of a population of between 23,000 to 25,000 and on behalf of an industry which has contributed a great deal to the prosperity of this country and which can continue to do so if it is looked at sympathetically.

As I understand it, every member of the House has received a copy of this document which has been prepared by the gentle.man who has been mentioned in -.his debate, Mr Brodie-Hall. The document is entitled The Gold Subsidy Case’, ft carefully sets out the .specific reasons why an increase in the gold- subsidy has been sought. I might have understood if the Treasurer had indicated that he was in some difficulties by reason - of contractual arrangements with the International Monetary Fund which affected what he could do in this case. But he did not even attempt that. He seemed not to think that the matter was of great concern. On page 2 of this document, the compilers state:

Increasing the gold subsidy is justified because it would mean; a minimum interruption to the development of Kalgoorlie … .

Surely that is a worthy enough objective in itself. A statement by a former Treasurer - the statement was made in 1968 so it must have been the gentleman who is now Prime Minister (Mr McMahon) - is quoted. He thought that on the basis of circumstances in 1968 the advancement of the nickel industry might well look after this problem. But circumstances have changed quite rapidly since then.

I refer to an article which appeared in today’s edition of the. Melbourne ‘Sun’. Certain remarks are attributed to the West Australian Minister for Development and Decentralisation, Mr Herbert Graham. He said: . . he would be ‘disappointed but not surprised’ if Poseidon Ltd decided to defer production from its Mount Windarra ,nickel deposit.

The report goes on to say that: . . he would not be surprised if this was the case while the present economic situation prevailed and if Poseidon did defer production it would conform with a world-wide pattern.

On the other hand, the second point made by the compilers of this report to justify increasing the gold subsidy is: . . the maintenance of the present value of its infrastructrue . . .

The figure in this respect, as quoted by them, is approximately $130m. If we take the minimum interest rate on this kind of activity - these days the ruling rate seems to be 6 per cent or 7 per cent - a return of approximately S9m annually is in jeopardy here. I would contrast the type of attitude that seems to be expressed about attracting new capital to a country with the position of capital that is already there but which could be more satisfactorily utilised if the Government would lift a finger or two to do something about the situation.

The compelling point in this document is the third point made in support of an increase in the gold subsidy. This is:’

. the capacity to generate further funds for the Federal and State Governments. lt is suggested that this matter should be considered in terms of the situation in 1980. Surely we no longer think in terms of the present. 1 think that this Government approaches problems on a week to week basis instead of on the basis of what may be the situation and requirements 10 years forward. This document suggests that by 1980 Kalgoorlie and its environs ought to be producing exports of the magnitude of S2,000m of which, it is expected, approximately $280m would return to this Government in the form of taxes. This is the sort of perspective that we hoped the Treasurer might have been moved to express this afternoon. But he has tried to pass responsibility back to the States by saying: ‘Well, we are giving you more money; you could do more’. Perhaps the States could. But so could the Commonwealth. This is what the purpose of this exercise is. The Treasurer has had this document, as has every member of this House, for some months. What has made these people come here now is that the situation has deteriorated so dramatically in the last several months. Part of the deterioration is due to an internal change of circumstances and part of the deterioration is due to events overseas such as the prospects for the development of nickel in the future.

Here, however, is a classic case in which the Government could grapple with a problem which could affect existing decentralisation in this State. Apparently the Government is not concerned that people in Kalgoorlie may have to move from the district to Perth and Fremantle because of a sum of SI. 5m which will riot be forthcoming from this Government. 1 suggest that the attitude of the- Government is belittling this very real problem that exists in our midst, lt is said over and again that the future of the export trade of this country lies in the development of the mineral industries and sums of the magnitude of $500m to SI, 000m are spoken of. Here we have an established industry which has a capitalisation infrastructure in the town of Kalgoorlie itself of the order of SI 30m and for which the potential in the future runs into thousands of millions of dollars, yet, for the sake of an ha’p’orth of tar, the Government is only interested in trying to make political capital out of the situation.

I would have expected better of the Treasurer. As I said yesterday, he is running the great danger of . becoming the greatest spewer out of economic jargon with which the country has ever been afflicted. He should get down to the problems. He should not be beset by the fact that we are a small nation in a very big world. Maybe Australia is, but it can be more influential than it is at present. Here we have a relatively small problem in a very large continent, but the Government is not prepared to look sympathetically at it. I am surprised at the actions of the Treasurer. 1 thought he had at least some elements of humanity about him and some degree of enlightenment, hut has vision whatever as far as this problem is concerned. The future of this town of something like 25,000 people, which is represented well by the honourable member for Kalgoorlie, is in jeopardy simply because the Government will not contrive to find a simple solution which could give another $1.5m to it. It may be that the Government will not need to provide that assistance by way of the gold subsidy. It may be that the Government could give it direct to the local council or to particular industries. It may be that the Government can give some abatement on this rather than that. But for Heaven’s sake have a look at the prospects instead of trying to secure cheap political capital at thu expense of the honourable member for Kalgoorlie, who moved this motion - as he ought to have done - on behalf of the constituents who sent him here to represent them.

Mr HALLETT:
Canning

– The problem raised by the honourable member for Kalgoorlie (Mr Collard) has several parts to it. This problem was brought about originally by the fixed price of gold and the increased cost of producing that gold. I believe a gold mining subsidy was first introduced to counter this initial aspect of the problem. Since that time there has been tremendous mining development in many places in the Commonwealth, particularly in Western Australia. Some of this development has been in the Kalgoorlie area. I instance the nickel development at Kambalda. As the costs of mining gold have risen in that area the problem has become more acute. As previous speakers have mentioned, it was thought that the mining development around this goldmining area would in fact make employment available for those families which were being phased out of the goldmining industry. However, circumstances have changed somewhat in more recent years. As a result of the imposition by the United States of America of a 10 per cent surcharge and the general slow down in world trade there has been a considerable change in developments in the mineral world which has affected the future of mining in not only Western Australia but also other parts of the world.

As I see it, this situation has to be looked at in the light of present circumstances. I come down on the point that the Government has said that it is going to reassess its views of the situation on the basis of the case put forward by the goldmining industry and people involved in this field. T take it that this reassessment will be made on the circumstances as they exist at present. These circumstances are changing day by day. 1 think it is important for a reassessment to be made at this point of time in order to level out the thinking about what is in fact taking place at the moment in not only this gold fields town itself but also in the whole field of mining. I think the mining field must be taken as a whole. It is obvious that the goldmining industry is going to be phased out. I believe that the people in this industry recognise this. As the Government has said, it is in fact carrying out a reassessment of the situation in this industry at the present time. This reassessment is necessary because the circumstances have changed considerably over recent months.

It was expected of course, that the people phased out of employment in the various goldmining areas would be in fact taken up within the other areas of mining in Western Australia. It .is important to remember that people who are trained in the mining industry and who are lost to the industry are difficult to replace. I am sure that the Government will take into consideration the possibility of a slackening off in the development of the nickel industry. Kalgoorlie, which is the major centre of the goldmining industry in Western Australia, has been on the map of this country for a long time. It has produced a large quantity of gold. Figures on this aspect have always been . available. They have been published in the report mentioned by the honourable member for Melbourne Ports (Mr Crean) that was put out by the President of the Chamber of Mines of Western Australia, Mr Brodie-Hall. These figures have been well tabulated. The goldmining industry has contributed over a number of years to this country’s wellbeing. This sort of changing scene in Australia at the moment is to be found in not only the mining areas but also in many other areas - for example, the agricultural area and the industrial area. It is therefore necessary to look at this matter on a broad basis across the whole of Australia to see where we are in fact going.

A tremendous amount of private capital has been invested in the mining field in Western Australia. There are people who say that nothing is being done about decentralisation in Australia. I would like those people to take a trip to Western Australia and see just what is being done about decentralisation. Whole new towns have been developed in various parts of that State. Private industry has spent tremendous sums of money-it has been assisted by government, of course - in the development of many centres throughout Western Australia. It is in this light that one must look at the future of Kalgoorlie and where it fits into the total mining scene in Western Australia. I believe that, in the light of the circumstances prevailing in Western Australia at this time, the Government should, in the assessment it is undertaking, bring to the fore the facts as they exist at the present time. Nobody, however good he may be, can look into the future and define exactly what is going to happen. But information is of course available to the Government today of developments around the world, such as currency developments, manufacturing developments and so on, which should enable it to assess to some extent what the future holds - the near future, at least - for the mining industries in general in conjunction with the other industries in Australia. The Government should then be able to assess the overall effect the present situation will have on not only Kalgoorlie as a city, as I think it is, but also the people who reside therein, who are also in my book important. I believe that when that assessment is made and the Government comes to a conclusion about the overall situation as it affects the total mining situation the people affected no doubt will be taken into consideration.

Mr WEBB:
Stirling

– I rise to support the proposal of the honourable member for Kalgoorlie (Mr Collard), submitted as a matter of urgency, for the provision of an increase in the amount of the gold subsidy. The honourable member has been most persistent that the subsidy should be increased in order to save the gold mining industry from extinction. He has shown today that it is most urgent now to increase the gold subsidy not only to save an industry that is in its death throes but also to prevent many hundreds more workers being added to the unemployment pool in Western Australia. The honourable member has shown very clearly that if this subsidy is not increased it will mean a drop in the population of the area affected by the closing of the gold mining industry of between 25 per cent and 30 per cent.

The only action that will save this industry is for the Government to heed the pleas of the industry for an increase in the subsidy from $8 to $12 an ounce or a rise in the official price of gold which has been fixed since 1934 at $US34. These are the only actions that can get the remaining producers in the gold industry out of trouble. The United States of America has already refused to increase the price of gold. So the onus of saving the industry rests squarely on the shoulders of this Government. It was announced a few weeks ago that Australia’s second biggest gold producers, the Mount Charlotte mine, operated by the Gold Mines of Kalgoorlie (Aust.) Ltd, and the Norseman mine of

Central Norseman Gold Corporation NL, would be phased out of operation. Without the increased subsidy Hill 50, the only other remaining gold mine, will be in difficulty and will no doubt follow suit.

The Treasurer (Mr Snedden) said that it is not the responsibility of the Government to look after each individual’s electorate. He said that the honourable member for Kalgoorlie was looking after his own electorate but that it is the responsibility of the Government to look after the interests of this country, and it should be doing so in the case that has been put before the House today. The Treasurer also said that it was. the State Government’s responsibility to act in regard to this industry. The State Government has already taken some action. It has provided what is known as a retention allowance for the purpose of keeping tradesmen employed in that industry, when they were in danger of being put off. so they could be passed into the nickel industry. But instead we find that now the nickel industry also is in trouble. This is causing quite a lot of concern in Western Australia and in the gold mining industry. At the annual meeting of Hill 50 in December the chairman, Mr Stubbs, stated that it was desirable to keep the mine in operation because of the possible future economics of gold production and the possible utilisation of the plant for nickel.

The situation in regard to nickel has changed almost overnight. Poseidon and Kambalda are reducing their work force. It is pretty definite that Poseidon will be shelving production plans for Windarra for 2 years - until 1974. Mr Graham, the Deputy Premier of Western Australia, said in Perth yesterday that he would not be surprised if this were the case while the present economic situation prevails. It would conform to a world-wide pattern, he said. If this Government has refused to increase the gold subsidy because it was expected that any effects from the closing of the gold mining industry would be compensated for by nickel mining taking up the slack, that argument has fallen by the wayside. As the honourable member for Melbourne Ports (Mr Crean) pointed out, the Prime Minister (Mr McMahon) used this argument a few months ago. Nickel mining is finished for the time being at least.

What will be the effect if this Government does not increase the subsidy for gold mining from $8 to $12 an ounce? It will mean that at least 25 per cent of the area’s population will have to move elsewhere. The population of Mount Magnet will drop from 800 to about 200. The population of Norseman will drop from 1.600 to about 800. These people and their families will have to go elsewhere to look for work. They will have to leave their homes which they will not be able to sell in such circumstances. As a repercussion stores, service stations and many other businesses will be affected. No doubt some will have to close down. So more unemployment will be created. Where will these unemployed people drift to? The obvious place for them to go is to the metropolitan area in the hope of finding some employment. But the employment situation in the metropolitan area is already very bad, as has been pointed out in this House in a previous debate. In fact if is bad throughout Western Australia.

The Employment Situation Review for October 1971 shows that the number of registered unemployed in October 1971 was 6,488 compared with October 1970 when it was 3,554 - an increase of nearly 3,000 in a period of 12 months. The number of people in receipt of benefits in October 1971 was 1,389 compared with October 1970 when it was 526. There has been a big jump there. When we look at vacancies we see that there are 6,488 unemployed and only 2,336 unfilled vacancies as recorded in that report. In Western Australia we have 4,152 more unemployed than there :irc jobs vacant. There are nearly 3 applicants for every job. What is the position going to be if the ranks of the unemployed are to be swollen by a drift of hundreds more unemployed from the. gold mining areas?

The honourable member for Kalgoorlie showed that gold production has fallen by 200.000 ounces since 1967: So the requested increase in the subsidy, from $8 to SI 2 per oz. would cost no more than the amount that the Government was paying in subsidy in 1967. The amount involved would be about $1.5m. ls this such a great amount to prevent unemployment and to save the gold mining industry? This Government has already increased the wool subsidy by $30m - I think it makes a total now of Si 16m - and this could be a yearly disbursement to that industry. Here we have a contradiction. The Commonwealth Government is increasing the subsidy to the wool industry by $30m but is refusing to save the gold mining industry by increasing the subsidy by $1.5m. Is there an answer to this? The Country Party tail was wagging the Liberal Party dog in regard to the wool industry but on this occasion apparently it i.t not making any effort at all to help the interests which it claims to represent in this Parliament - the people in the country.

When we compare the 2 products we find that wool has been losing ground in the face of competition from artificial fibres. On the other hand we have a product for which no substitute has been found. Gold is the only proven commodity that is acceptable throughout the world as an unconditional method of final payment. Dollars and sterling have been acceptable only as long as they have been as good as gold. This Government has an opportunity now to save the gold mining industry by the expenditure of $1.5m in additional subsidy, and to save a further inflow of workers to the McMahon unemployment pool. If it declines to take this action it will stand condemned in the eyes of the Australian people.

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

– Order! The discussion is now concluded.

page 3561

SEWERAGE RETICULATION AND TREATMENT PLANT, TENNANT CREEK, NORTHERN TERRITORY

Reference to Public Works Committee

Mr CHIPP:
Minister for Customs and Excise · Hotham · LP

– 1 move:

That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, the following proposed work be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for investigation and report: Construction of a sewerage reticulation and treatment plant, Tennant Creek, Northern Territory.

The proposal involves the installation of a gravity sewerage reticulation system with branches for house connections and the installation of a pondage treatment plant. The estimated cost of the proposed work is $900,000. 1 table a plan showing the locations of the various components’ of the proposed work.

Mr CALDER:
Northern Territory

– I support the motion and commend the Government, particularly for the expedition with which it has taken up the matter of the reticulated sewerage scheme for the town of Tennant Creek. I hope, too, that the Public Works Committee can look at Katherine and Tennant Creek at the same time. Tennant Creek is a town of some 2,500 people and it is estimated that the population will double in the next 5 years. It is a widely spread copper mining town with some gold production. In relation to that aspect I was interested to hear members of the Opposition talking about a gold subsidy, and I hope that the Government will review its policy on that. I congratulate the Government on the speed with which it has brought this matter forward and I urge it, and the Public Works Committee, to consider the installations at Katherine and Tennant Creek simultaneously.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 3562

QUESTION

SUSPENSION OF STANDING ORDERS

Mr BRYANT:
Wills

– I move:

The honourable member for the Northern Territory (Mr Calder) has just pointed out how fast this Government is on sewerage. The point I want to make to the Parliament this afternoon is how slow the Parliament is on its own affairs. I am moving the suspension of Standing Orders because it seems to me there is no other way in which one can bring before the Parliament for effective discussion the Parliament’s own business. The position about our Standing Orders is this: First of all, Government business takes priority. If one goes through the Standing Orders one can ee here and there the executive direction of the Parliament in that Government business has absolute priority. The Leader of the House (Mr Swartz) regards the Parliament as his own private concern and, in general, the non-ministerial members of the Parliament and their general business is of little account. But there is provision for general business. Every so often it occurs. Every second Thursday it ought to occur.

Every so often it is suspended, but occasionally the general business of the Parliament and its membership does come before the Parliament. There is occasion . when private members can raise matters, as we have just had in the debate on a matter of public importance. There is machinery for doing it. It is done quite consistently, and I believe it is a very important part of the Parliament’s operation. But there is no provision in the Standing Orders, in the machinery of the House or in the way in which we run the affairs of this Parliament for the business of Parliament itself. Therefore, this afternoon I am raising this question through this motion for the suspension of Standing Orders.

Last year the Standing Orders Committee. which is the instrument of this Parliament for examining its own ‘ relationships inside the Parliament, the way in which it will handle the nation’s legislation, reports and so on and our relationships with one another and the Ministry, examined a number of matters and tabled a report on them in the Parliament. I think the report is dated some time in June last year, lo any institution that ought to have been priority one. There ought to be nothing which takes precedence over the business of the Parliament itself. This is the first clement of it, and yet it has been languishing on the notice paper for about 15 months. As a matter of fact, I am raising the question in this way this afternoon because there seems to be no other way in which one can do it. Back in August on the anniversary of having raised this matter here’ before I intended to ask this question:

I refer to the report of the Standing Orders Committee presented to this House on 18th August last year - that is over 12 months agowhich is now languishing on today’s notice paper.

It had a different number then. The question continued:

When will this matter be brought forward. . . . 1 reminded the House that we decided to have free votes on Standing Orders matters. But I did not get the call. One is verylucky to get the call on occasions when one wants to raise matters at question time, so one is driven to the point where one has to stop the operations of the Parliament. I believe I have done so honestly on this occasion. Honourable members might say: ‘Why not do it tomorrow’ or

*why did you not do it yesterday?’ I chose this occasion for various reasons which I circulated to honourable members. 1 understand some honourable members opposite have given consideration to the question of standing committees. I understand some of them support it. I was told that one of our colleagues was given good publicity on the national news. He is big time. He is in favour of several committees. Thinking the matter over, how can he get that matter forward? He would be uphill in the way in which we operate at trie present moment. Therefore, my solution to that problem is to bring on the existing notice on the notice paper and then he can move his idea as an amendment.

This afternoon during question time an honourable member opposite asked the Prime Minister (Mr McMahon) whether either he or the Government had given the matter any consideration. One of the principles adopted as a result of the decision of the right honourable member for Higgins (Mr Gorton) was that on Standing Orders questions we ought to have a free vote. 1 recall that during a sitting of the Standing Orders Committee - this is not in breach of confidence - the question came up about what we would do, having made the decision. I recall the right honourable member saying: ‘I think on these matters members ought to decide for themselves and have a free vote’. I believe this is essential. It is a non-partisan matter over most of the area of the Standing Orders and the procedures of this place, and that is the way it ought to be. What of our present Prime Minister? He said that no paper has been before Cabinet. Apparently no paper has been before anybody so far as he is concerned.

On the back of the notice paper we see a list of the members of the Standing Orders Committee. The list includes Mr McMahon. I presume it is the same Mr McMahon who is the Prime Minister of this country. The other members are Mr Speaker, the Chairman of Committees, the Leader of the House, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, Mr Anthony, Mr Bryant, Mr. Drury, Mr Duthie, Mr Scholes, Mr Whitlam. That is a most powerful group. One would reckon that anything in which they were interested would go with a bang and would take off like a rocket.

But not on your life; it has been languishing on the notice paper for over 15 months. The Prime Minister said nothing had been before him. The history of the matter is this: The Senate established an effective group of standing committees. The Senate examined the system and started with 2 or 3 committees. A committee of the Senate considered standing committees and its report was circulated as Parliamentary Paper No. 2 of 1970. That is available to the Prime Minister himself.

In the course of the debate last year, as a result of the deliberations of the Standing Orders Committee, I brought the matter before the House. I moved a motion for the establishment of standing committees and 1 said that a paper had been prepared and circulated to the Standing Orders Committee and to every member of this House including the Prime Minister himself. I forget what rank he held then, it was either Treasurer or Minister for Foreign Affairs. I presume he is on the mailing list. I asked that this paper be printed and the honourable member for Bradfield (Mr Turner) asked:

Is this a paper which the honourable member has prepared himself?

I said:

No. This has been circulated. It was presented by Mr Speaker.

Mr Speaker said:

This was a paper circulated previously to all honourable members in my name. The honourable member for Wills in moving his motion is more or less suggesting a system along the same lines as that contained in the report which 1 distributed some time ago.

The Prime Minister can find that report himself on page 405 of Hansard of 24th August 1970, which I presume is readily available even in the Prime Minister’s office, if he has noticed that Parliament is still in session.

Therefore, I believe that we should suspend the Standing Orders of this House. Perhaps it is possible for the Leader of the House to give us a guarantee that the matter will be brought on for effective discussion, but we should suspend the Standing Orders of the House so that the matter can bs brought on because - I believe - I will not debate the question of committees here - that it is necessary to suspend Standing Orders so that the Parliament can discuss its own affairs. The matter must be brought on. 1 believe that the House of Representatives is rapidly becoming a second rate legislature, particularly in relation to the work the Senate is doing. The situation has come to a pretty pass when the Parliament’s own affairs can lie on the notice paper for 15 months. Probably if somebody had moved in 1786, if that had been possible, that » fleet of 13 ships be established to colonise Australia, it would still be on the notice paper. I ask honourable members to vote for the suspension of Standing Orders so that the Committee’s report, in particular in relation to the establishment of standing committees, can be brought forward for effective discussion and decision.

Mr GRASSBY:
Riverina

– I second the motion. I think the honourable member for Wills (Mr Bryant) has done a service to the Parliament in raising this matter at this time. There is an urgency about it that transcends any matters of party political advantage or disadvantage. The urgency is that we have reached a stage where the House of Representatives is now the second chamber of the Australian Parliament. It is very much a secondary chamber. This has come about because the Senate has taken the initiative to inaugurate a committee system which is getting down to the real work of administrative government and to giving the Parliament its proper role in the legislative and administrative sense of the nation. I draw attention to the fact that at the present time it is possible in the Senate to probe deeply and pertinently into every department of State. I venture to say that you, Mr Speaker, would agree - and I think all members of the Parliament who have thought about this would agree - that the debate on the Estimates in the House of Representatives is not a debate on the Estimates at all. In fact if there is any reference made to the Estimates it is almost by accident.

This state of affairs is bringing the Parliament of the nation into some contempt for this reason, that year after year we marshal here a phalanx of the most senior public servants and the permanent administrators of the nation: They sit here hour after hour while we in fact take the opportunities which are given to us in the debate on the Estimates to debate everything but the Estimates themselves. I plead guilty to doing this because I take these opportunities which are afforded under the forms of the House to bring before the Parliament matters which I feel are urgent on behalf of the people I represent and the nation as a whole. I make no apology for doing this. I do not castigate any honourable member for following the example set over the years.

It is not just a matter of an individual’s performance in this regard. The individual follows his conscience in these matters. He follows the dictates of the needs as he sees them of the people whom he represents. But if we look at it as parliamentarians we find that the Estimates debate in the House of Representatives is not a debate on the Estimates at all, and it never can be. Honourable members may say, ‘Well, this has been going on for some 70 years so why move now to suspend the Standing Orders to do it as a matter of urgency?’. There is this urgency, Mr Speaker, that the Senate has already taken the lead which is making for an imbalance in the duties and responsibilities of the Senate, lt is very likely that in a very short space of time there will be a committee of the Senate which will examine probably the most important matter in our country today, and that is the matter of foreign investment, its costs and benefits to the nation. The indications are that the Senate will have such a committee; it will either refer this matter to that committee or it will establish a committee and go ahead on the basis of the present committee system to examine this most important matter. What will be the position here? The position in this place is that we have not the machinery that is now established in the Senate. Do not think for one single moment that I am denigrating what the Senate is doing. I entirely applaud its initiative and I applaud the way in which it is getting down to legislative and administrative matters which are the province of the House of Representatives. These matters are also the province of the Senate. The members of the Senate are discharging their obligations as senators, both to the nation and to the people but we are not, with respect, doing this because the very nature of the apparatus that we have which makes it impossible for us to do it.

I suggest that this is the correct procedure. Ideas of this type should be discussed at length and debated in the forum which is established for that purpose within the caucus of the Opposition parties or within the joint meetings of the Government parties. Ideas which are formulated and recommended at those meetings can then be submitted to the Standing Orders Committee for consideration and then for report to the House for consideration by the House. This procedure is already been put under way by the Government parties. I suggest that if the Opposition wishes to consider this matter under what I believe would be the right procedure it should discuss this matter in its own caucus and then see that a proposal is submitted to the Standing Orders Committee, which is the right vehicle for the submission of a report to the Parliament. That is merely the background of the report that was submitted by the Standing Orders Committee and the amendment that was proposed by the honourable member for Wills.

Whilst I am sure we have some sympathy with the honourable member for Wills - I know of his desire to bring this important matter forward - he should follow the procedures I suggest. However this is not the matter we are really debating at the present time. We are debating the suspension of Standing Orders to allow matters other than those that are on the notice paper to be debated. We have some very important business on the notice paper at the present time. We on this side and I know honourable members opposite are waiting to commence the debate on some very important housing Bills and other matters of great importance. Whilst we recognise and take on board the points that have been raised by the 2 honourable members who have spoken, I can assure them that the matter they have raised is already under consideration on the Government side of the House and some submission will later be made to the Standing Orders Committee when we have had time to examine the situation fully. I only suggest that the Opposition should adopt the same procedure. In view of the circumstances and the fact that the Government wishes to proceed with the business of the House, we cannot accept the motion as proposed.

Mr FOSTER:
Sturt

- Mr Speaker-

Motion (by Mr Swartz) put:

That the question be now put.

The House divided. (Mr Speaker - Hon. Sir William Aston)

AYES: 54

NOES: 49

Majority…. . . 5

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Question put:

That the motion (Mr Bryant’s) be agreed to.

The House divided. (Mr Speaker - Hon. Sir William Aston)

AYES: 49

NOES: 54

Majority.. . . 5

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

page 3568

STATES GRANTS (HOUSING) BILL 1971

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 4 November (vide page 3037), on motion by Mr Kevin Cairns:

Thatthe Bill be now read a secondtime.

Mr UREN:
Reid

- Mr Speaker, I move:

The Bill before the House seeks to amend an Act which has an historical background in this Parliament. It was first introduced by a Commonwealth Labor government under the Prime Ministership of Mr Chifley. At that time an agreement was entered into between the Commonwealth and the States under which the States would construct dwellings for workers on low incomes. The policy at that time was that the Commonwealth would charge the States an interest rate of 3 per cent. It was also the policy that no person should have to pay more than one-fifth of his weekly income for rental of that home. That interest rate of 3 per cent was retained from 1945 until 1956 when a new agreement was entered into and the Conservative Government changed its policy to the extent that it charged the States an interest rate which was1 per cent below the existing bond rate. Last year the bond rate rose to 7 per cent so, of course, the Commonwealth charged the States 6 per cent interest. Under the legislation we are now considering that Government intends to abolish the1 per cent interest rebate and to charge the States the existing bond rate, the rate which is paid on loans made for State public works.

Under this legislation the Commonwealth Government will make available to the States an accumulative grant of $2.75m a year tor the next 5 years, which means that it will provide a direct accumulative grant of $2. 75m in 1971-72, $5.5m in 1972-73.$8.25m in1 973-74,$11m in 1974- 75, rising to a peak of$1 3.75m in 1975- 76. Also, the Government has staled that it will make available to the States a flat grant of$1. 25 a year for rent rebate purposes. That, of course, will be provided in the 5-year period which I have mentioned. The accumulative grant will be spread over a period of 30 years, whereas the loan under the original agreement was spread over a period of 53 years. I do not wantto go into the sliding scale of interest rates, because that is a technical matter. I know that the Commonwealth Minister for Housing (Mr Kevin Cairns) had more than one meeting with the State Housing Ministers. In fact, the State Housing Ministers were not particularly happy in the early stages. In fact, some of them and also some Premiers were not happy even at the conclusion of the discussions, although some Premiers felt that they had fared better than they had under the previous arrangement.

In the time available to me I want to deal with the Commonwealth Government’s attitude to low cost housing. On 29th September 1970 the former Minister for Housing, Senator Dame Annabelle Rankin, 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.

I want to deal with that statement made by a former Minister, the priorities - or lack of priorities - of this Government and the way in which this Government is not facing up to the great social problem of providing housing for low income earners. Later 1 hope to deal in some detail with the social consequences of the Government’s policy on housing which flow to certain sectors of our community. If one analyses the Government’s policy on housing one finds that in 1954-55 the Budget allocation for housing reached a peak of 2.68 per cent of the total Budget appropriation. Last year, 1970-71, this had fallen to 1.75 per cent. If the Government wanted to increase its expenditure on housing to the percentage of the budget appropriation spent on housing in 1954-55, it would have to spend another S75m; that is, it would have to increase its expenditure from $142m to $217m. In other words, this Government has allowed the public sector of the housing industry lo slip further and further behind.

The pressures on young people acquiring homes are becoming more difficult every day. If one examines the figures for home construction in 1954-55, one finds that 22 per cent of all homes which were built in that year were constructed by public authorities with the encouragement of the Commonwealth Government. But in 1970 the number of homes built in the States by the public sector of the housing industry represented only 9.8 per cent of the total homes constructed. This is the sick record - and I use the word ‘sick’ advisedly - of this Government. Why does this position exist? In this regard I refer to what was said by Dr Max Neutze, a well known research worker at the Australian National University, as reported in the ‘Australian Financial Review’ of Thursday, 4th November 1971. He says that the real problem is that the rising cost of land and high mortgage loan interest rates are making it increasingly more difficult for young couples to buy their homes or land.

What is the situation? If young people cannot afford to buy their homes through the private sector, more and more will be forced to make an application to the only place where they can obtain a home. That is the State housing authority. How does one buy a home today? For instance, I will deal with my own State of New Sou:h Wales and my own city - Sydney. Throughout the metropolitan area of Sydney the average price of a block of land is $8,000. In the working class area in which I live - Guildford - a block of land cannot be bought for less than $7,500. The average cost of houses that were built last year in the Metropolitan Water Sewerage and Drainage Board area - the. area from Kiama in the south to Brooklyn on the Hawkesbury in the north and to Emu Plains in the west - was $11,600. So the approximate average cost of a block of land and a house in the Sydney metropolitan area is over $19,000. But assuming that young people can afford to save a sum of. say, $4,000 - that is a very hard amount to save - to close the deposit gap. a Joan of $15,000 from the permanent building societies at 8 per cent interest requires a monthly repayment of $1 15.

Mr Kevin Cairns:
LILLEY, QUEENSLAND · LP

– Over how many years is this?

Mr UREN:

– This is on repayments over 25 years. This means that they would need a weekly income of between $110 and $120 a week. When one examines the average weekly earning rate of all wage earners in this country one sees that it is about S84 a week. When one looks at the report of the Commissioner of Taxation and finds that at least 70 per cent of all wage earners earn less than the average weekly earnings one sees how many people are disqualified from getting- such a loan. Dr Neutze says that homes have been priced outside the means of young people. Consequently, they are being forced to make applications to be placed on Housing Commission lists. Throughout the nation there are now nearly 90,000 people registered on Housing Commission lists. This Government brings down this proposal and says: ‘Of course, this is our solution’. I am not denying that it is not a little nudge forward. One would have to acknowledge that. After all, we have had 22 years of mismanagement from the Government.

Recently, I was reading the speech of the late Mr E. J. Ward, a former housing spokesman of the Labor Party when he was dealing with the applications on the New South Wales Housing Commission lists in 1956. When the housing agreement was renegotiated in 1956 there were 30,000 people waiting for homes. Today, many years later, what do we find? After 15 years we still find 37,000 applicants outstanding. This Government says that it has placed a priority on housing. I do not consider that this is good enough. It is about time that this Government met its responsibilities. I want to analyse the figures that are available. It is a very difficult aspect to analyse. For instance, I believe that in the first year of operation of the new agreement for 1971-72 it will be found that a $2.75m grant, which is a cumulative amount, and a flat amount of $ 1.25m will be provided making a total of $4m. But the Minister for Housing knows that it cost the State Government authorities alone S3. 9m for rent rebate last year. That excludes South Australia which does not keep accounts in this respect. We know, of course, that the States lost the one per cent subsidy which last year was worth about $1.29m. I believe that in the first year of operation of the new agreement this State Government is worse off than what it was in the previous years.

I want to try to analyse the inflationary trend during the next 5 years over which this cumulative amount is to be provided. I have tried to obtain an estimate, of the Commonwealth’s expenditure on housing at varying rates of interest. I ask permission to have 2 tables incorporated in Hansard.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Hallett:
CANNING, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– Is leave granted? There being no objection, leave is granted. (The documents read as follows) -

Mr UREN:

– The first table projects the trend of growth of total Commonwealth expenditure during the years 1967-68 to 1970-71 into the years 1971-72 to 1975-76 and assumes that the Commonwealth is to allocate 2 per cent of total expenditure to housing. The comparison is then made of the interest that would be paid in the first year, in each case, at interest rates of 7 per cent, 6 per cent, 4 per cent and 3 per cent. This is shown in a projection based on linear regression and a projection based on logarithmic regression. It is difficult and complex to project what future growth will be and, of course, what the cost will be. The estimate of cost involved is a conservative estimate because it is estimated that the Government budgetary expenditure on housing would be only 2 per cent of total expenditure. But as I pointed out, this Government was spending 2.68 per cent back in 1954-55. So I think I can say that the estimates are conservative. They have under estimated what the expenditure should be. Of course, to catch up on the backlag instead of the allocation being 2 per cent it should be 3 per cent. For 1971- 72 the estimated total Commonwealth expenditure is $8.8 thousand million. By 1975-76 it will be $11.5 thousand million. The estimated expenditure on housing should rise from $176.7m in 1971-72 to $230m in 1975-76. I will deal only with the figures in relation to the interest burden on the analysis contained in the lineal regression table. I might say that the figures in the logarithmic regression table are slightly higher. However, both sets of figures can be examined in Hansard. At an interest rate of 7 per cent the cost rises from $12.4m in 1971-72 to $16.1m in 1975-76. But if we use the interest rate of 3 per cent charged under the old Chifley agreement, the savings in 1971-72 would be $7.1m. We are giving the States only $4m in total. So the States would be getting far more under the old Chifley agreement at 3 per cent interest. In 1975-76 the savings would be $9.2m. Of course, it could be argued that the sum of $13. 5m in 5 years’ time would be a little more. But this argument does not take into consideration the great burden of the rising costs of land. This Government has not encouraged action to stem the rising cost of land. Therefore, I believe that the figures that 1 have projected show the inflation that has occurred in land prices in this period.

I refer to the land position in developmental areas in Sydney. I am quoting these figures from the report of the Housing Industry Association: dated August 1971. The cost of a block of land at Penrith in 1969 was $2,500. It has risen in 1971 to $6,000. This is an increase in 3 years of 140 per cent. In Blacktown the cost of land has risen by 97 per cent in 3 years. The cost of land at Campbelltown has risen by 168 per cent in 3 years. This increase in land costs reflects the policy of this Government on this subject. If time were available to mc I would deal in more detail with the subject but I wish to refer to some of the social aspects which are involved in housing. The State housing authorities with the assistance of the Commonwealth Government should be dealing with the problems involved. They are not dealing with those problems.

In my amendment, 1 refer to the question of low income, earners. I spoke about those people who are called ‘no-hopers’. We have problems with migrants as well as with Aborigines, deserted wives and others. I commented earlier that CommonwealthState housing agreements have been in operation since 1945. Until the recent study of the State housing authorities by Dr M. A. Jones, these agreements had not been subjected to much scrutiny in terms of their goals as social policy and in terms of the degree to which they have satisfied these goals.

Dr Jones’s thesis, ‘The Role of the Australian State Housing Authorities in Low Income Housing’, earned him the award of a degree of doctor of philosophy from the Australian National University. Dr Jones argues that the State housing authorities in practice distinguish between the ‘deserving’ and the ‘undeserving’ poor in the allocation of public housing, with the undeserving poor being largely excluded from benefiting from State housing. He concentrated on specific social problems, for example, that State housing programmes effectively exclude those in all categories of the undeserving poor. This Bill does not deal with the problems examined by Dr Jones.

One major group amongst the undeserving poor is families who, because of their social instability or their tendency to fall into rental arrears, are excluded from public housing. These are the ‘problem’ families who frequent public and voluntary welfare agencies with a variety of social disabilities, such as alcoholism, children at risk, employment instability, marital problems and so on. A reasonable argument can be advanced in favour of the policy by which State housing authorities exclude problem families from public housing. As far as people in rental arrears are concerned, the housing authorities have to service their capital and regular payment of rent is necessary for this to be carried out. I might say that $ 1.25m does not meet this commitment. As the Minister knows, it is costing in excess of $4m a year now.

It can be argued with respect to the social problems of these families that housing authorities are not social welfare agencies and are not organised to solve the social disabilities of problem families. It is unfair that other public housing tenants should be required to put up with the nuisance created by problem families. However, this position does not cut across the fact that problem families have, or can have, an acute housing problem in addition to their other problems - the Bill does not solve that problem - and that under the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement these families are effectively excluded from receiving public assistance with their housing problem. That is to say, all that the present situation tells us is that public housing authorities are an unsuitable vehicle for assisting problem families with their housing needs. The further question of whether or not these families should be dented public assistance with housing is left untouched. .

One possible answer to the question is to the effect that these people are only ‘nohopers’ anyway, and are undeserving of assistance:, they will not do anything to help themselves. A contrary point of view is that these people are very often in their present situation for reasons beyond their control, and that they have a special call upon community support and assistance. If this viewpoint is adopted, and if it is also accepted that public housing authorities are not the appropriate vehicle for helping problem families with their housing needs, it is necessary to evolve new forms of assistance for these families with their housing problems. It is about time that the Commonwealth itself met these commitments. What appears necessary is extensive research into the housing difficulties of problem families and into possible mechanisms whereby public assistance can be provided in order to overcome difficulties.

Another group of undeserving poor who receive little, or rather, no assistance from State housing authorities are ‘skid row’ style single men. State housing authorities have a general policy of not providing assistance to single people below pensionable age; even if they did accept single people below that age, they would still exclude ‘derelict’ single men on social grounds. On the size of this problem, one finding reveals that there are approximately 2,500 such single men in Melbourne at any one time, for example. These men are often quite literally homeless, apart from an occasional night in a shelter for homeless men. If they have some income they are likely to be housed in sub-standard accommodation. These people have an acute housing need but, as with problem families, their housing need is inseparable from their complex of other social problems.

Amongst the deserving poor, there are also some groups who are not particularly well- served by present public housing policies. One important such group is southern European migrants, who are under represented amongst those in public housing accommodation. This situation obtains even though there is no discrimination against these migrants in the allocation of public housing. The explanation of the situation is to be found in the fact that these migrants are heavily dependent upon their ethnic sub-culture and are 18th to be dispersed indiscriminately within public housing areas. These migrants find strong social needs to live amongst their extended families, friend* ft om their former village, ethnic shopping facilities, theatres and clubs, and to accept public housing would involve the breaking of these many social bonds. They need low cost housing but unfortunately very many of them have insufficient money to afford new or relatively new housing, together with the long term, relatively low interest mortgages associated with such housing. Instead they are forced to buy old, inner suburban housing, for which normally they are forced to obtain finance from finance companies at high interest rates and over relatively short terms. I take as an example the fringe banking institutions. Some of these fringe banking institutions charge interest rates in excess of 10 per cent fiat which is about 20 per cent reducible.

Southern European migrants want public assistance with their housing problems. An alternative approach is to accept that social and cultural differences exist between various nationalities, that these differences are strongly rooted and perform a socially very important role, and that social policies should take them into account rather than ignore them. If this second approach is accepted, it would be necessary to research the housing problems of migrants in some depth - this has not been done in this legislation or in other legislation by this Commonwealth Government - with a view to formulating mechanisms whereby assistance can be provided for them. One possible mechanism would be to make provision for other sources of finance for the purchase of old inner suburban housing than those which are presently available. This is a pressing problem. The Melbourne poverty survey found that high repayments for housing was an extremely important factor in precipitating migrants into poverty. A further important factor in migrant housing is that southern European migrants have made a very important contribution to the renewal of inner suburban areas, through extensive renovation of the housing stock and the shopping centres, and have also halted the population decline in those areas; but this has led them into assuming considerable financial burdens. 1 ask: Why is the Commonwealth housing authority, in co-operation with the States, not used to purchase already existing terrace housing in inner suburban areas, particularly the inner suburban areas of Sydney and Melbourne, for renovation and letting, leasing or sale to immigrants or other people? The manner in which Aborigines are treated and the high rentals they have to pay for housing is also worthy of consideration by the Government. A congregation of Aborigines is living under terrible conditions in houses in Redfern which should be acquired by the State and renovated and leased back to those Aborigines. They should be examining housing in all areas. Some fresh thinking is necessary but none is forthcoming on the part of the Government. No real examination is being made of the social problems which exist in our community. The priorities which this Government has adopted insofar as the welfare of the community is concerned have been very poor indeed.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Hallett:

Order! The honourable member’s time has expired. Is the amendment seconded?

Mr Armitage:

– Yes, I second the amendment and reserve the right to speak later, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Mr BURY:
Wentworth

– The honourable member for Reid (Mr Uren) has followed the same course as he has followed in this House for many years. He assumes that the Government has unlimited funds to spend on, in particular, housing and that resources are unlimited. Having, in the first place, assumed that endless public money is available to do what he wishes to be done he proceeded to argue what could be done with that kind of foundation. But one cannot begin to understand or solve the housing problems in Australia until one has first faced up to the essential reality that resources are strictly limited and that the public money available is, similiarly, strictly limited. The honourable member for Reid is, of course, personally a very kind and generoushearted, grandfatherly figure. He is kind enough to want to do all these things and silly enough to think that they are practicable.

Mr Uren:

– 1 am glad 1 am silly enough; at least I have a heart.

Mr BURY:

– 1 have never doubted the honourable member for Reid’s heart, but unfortunately the realities of public finance and responsibility are inescapable. One of the things that the honourable member for Reid did not face up to is the fact that the areas available in the inner areas of the larger cities - Sydney and Melbourne in particular - for housing arc strictly limited and are becoming year by year scarcer and scarcer. It is inevitable that as the demand for this land increases the price which has to be paid foi; it will also increase. I am not saying that in defence of all that goes on within this sphere. I am saying it because the real reason why housing is becoming more difficult and more expensive it that land is becoming extremely scarce.

I wish to deal with one or two matters which have been raised if not by the honourable member for Reid certainly at his instigation by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Whitlam). Firstly, I understand - the honourable member for Reid certainly will correct me if I am wrong - that the Australian Labor Party would if it were in office subsidise the interest on home mortgages by 2 per cent. What a lovely thing to do! Let us examine one or two of the consequences which would flow from such a policy. Firstly, the bigger the mortgage the bigger the subsidy one would receive from the state. Saving would, of course, be no longer a paying proposition. One of the reasons why people save is to pay off their house as quickly as possible. But under such a scheme they would get a 2 per cent interest concession. One can readily visualise that most enterprising people - and these things spread very quickly through the community - would ensure that, whatever else they owned, they had the largest possible mortgage they could have on their houses because, with the lower rate of interest, they could undoubtedly invest their funds elsewhere at a much higher rate of interest. The generous donation offered by the Australian Labor Party would have to come from public funds.

There are other aspects of the Labor Party’s policy which it is said would, if realised, ease the problem. The Leader of the Opposition has indicated that if the Labor Party were in power it would institute a public inquiry into the inducement of people to have fewer children. If that policy were successful it would, of course, alter the housing problem. The amount of accommodation required would be very much less. I would like to suggest, as something of a diversion at this point of time, that the tendency to buy propaganda from overseas and think that it is immediately relevant to Australian conditions is both absurd and quite contrary to our national interest. It is true that in other countries - particularly the overcrowded countries, many of which are in our part of the world - the standard of living and of welfare generally is bound to fall if there is no limitation of the population; but that is not true of Australia. In fact, it is starkly and obviously untrue. If we are going to populate this country - and we still retain the ambition to do that in our own time and under our own terms - the best people that we can seek are our own natural-born children.

I think the honourable member for Reid really missed or failed to bring out the main point of this Bill. Over the years there has been under the Commonwealth and State Housing Agreement a 1 per cent concession on interest. That concession has been nominally for the purpose of enabling the States to provide more housing for the lower income groups but, things being what they are, it has been in fact generalised over the whole operations of the housing commissions in the various States and has not been specifically and sufficiently diverted to- the people on low incomes. The way in which this legislation is drafted will mean that such assistance as the Commonwealth gives will go directly and immediately towards providing housing for the lower income groups. In particular it will be directed towards meeting the shortage of cheap rental accommodation for families of inadequate means.

The old system never really achieved this result. That is understandable. In many of the States - in fact, in most of them - housing is essentially provided by housing commissions and the housing commissions are mostly house construction authorities. Being engaged in that operation, what they like to do is to construct as many houses as possible and sell as many of them as they can in order to invest those funds in building still more houses. This is a very understandable approach but it is not one which really aims at the same thing as does this Bill, that is, to provide cheap rentals and cheap housing for those who are most in need. The honourable member for Reid referred to housing commission lists. Housing commission lists are notoriously most unreliable. It stands to reason that the demand for the cheapest house is virtually unlimited. Nowadays housing commissions build good houses in many cases and there is a big inducement for people to sell their houses and get into housing commission houses at a cheap rate. If one goes through these lists - periodically the people in charge do go through them - one finds that they are very much padded. If one went through them with an eye to the income received by those 37,000 applicants, one would form a very different impression of the demand.

The Bill provides direct assistance to the States. It is true - the honourable member for Reid touched on this lightly - that the first reaction of the States was not one of pleasure. This is understandable, because at first they did not precisely understand the proposal. It so happens that in South Australia, which has a Premier of the same political persuasion as the honourable member for Reid, there is an extremely capable and efficient housing set-up. The man who is in charge and has been for many years, Alex Ramsay, commented publicly on these proposals immediately he heard them. I think that his comment was published in the ‘Advertiser’ of 19th August, very hard upon the Budget. He realised immediately what benefits they would bring to the States and recorded his comments publicly to that end. On 20th September Mr Dunstan, the Premier, quantified the proposals and said: “This new deal means that the concession on housing going to the States will be raised from I per cent to nearly 2 per cent”. Th;s was just a quick reaction.

Mr Uren:

– The difference between 3 per cent and 7 per cent is 4 percent.

Mr BURY:

– I am quoting this figure from Mr Dunstan. Mr Dunstan is advised by people who calculate proposals with much more exactitude than the honourable member for Reid does. That is what he said. Of course New South Wales welcomed the proposal. 1 realised this from the reactions. There were some slower heads in other States but when the facts were explained by the Minister for Housing (Mr Kevin Cairns) they were very anxious to welcome the scheme. Unfortunately the census figures in relation to housing, which will be very revealing in this respect, are not yet out. We are not able to see them yet. But when we do, it will be very interesting to comb through them. lt is fairly evident to me at least that Australia, whatever its deficiencies, now has the best housed people in the world with more accommodation - and quite high quality accommodation - per head than any other country. If when the census comes out this cannot be confirmed I will withdraw that statement. But this is clearly the position at present. The housing industry is in quite good shape. Housing programmes in most States are continuing. Plenty of money is currently available for housing. But there is perhaps evident some slight falling off in demand and this is probably due to the underlying factor that we have invested such a huge proportion of the national income in housing in the last 20 years that we have caught up very largely with the huge stream of immigrants and at the same time have greatly increased standards.

This position at the moment means that people are looking very closely at the costs. Costs are rising for various reasons. Apart from the scarcity of land there has been a huge increase in wages in the last 12 or 18 months which has added to costs. There has been an increase in the cost of building materials. Other factors enter into it. But also, in order to pay for these things, there has been an even larger proportionate increase in the income receipts of those who are engaged in buying and renting housing. So the outlook at the moment is quite serene. Various fears have been expressed in some quarters by people who fear that we are moving into a down-turn. But overall that is a question for another day. There is no reason at all for any pessimism in the housing industry. I support this measure very strongly. 1 congratulate the Minister for Housing upon the way in which he has persuaded the people involved to accept this course and has improved the basic situation for the lowest income groups. This is essentially the basic social improvement involved in this legislation which, apart from the direct grant for cheaper housing for these groups, also provides for a payment of $1.25m a year for rental assistance. Over and above all these things the new payment arrangements means that the Commonwealth will meet the 0.25 per cent sinking fund contribution and thus will very largely take over the sinking fund obligations, which would amount to $1 14m over 53 years. In practice these sums depend on what the States decide to spend on housing. An important incidental factor is that this responsibility is now placed where it squarely belongs - in the hands of the States. The States will now decide through the year and at any time that it is appropriate what they will allocate from their loan funds to housing. We have got out of the old system whereby the State Premiers used to come here once a year and used to have to nominate what proportion of their total loan funds should be allocated to housing. The Bill will give the State authorities a very much greater say and initiative in how they spend their loan funds and how they set their priorities, not just at the beginning of the year. If necessary they may switch them during the year without any formality. I oppose the amendment and I very strongly support the Minister and this Bill.

Mr ARMITAGE:
Chifley

– As I mentioned earlier, I second the amendment moved by the honourable member for Reid (Mr Uren). This Bill allocates to the States a $2. 75m cumulative grant over a period of 5 years. That $2. 75m in the first year is in lieu of the allocation of $1.29m under the previous agreement which was in the form of a 1 per cent interest rebate on the bond rate. On the face of it this would appear to be very beneficial to the States. When one has a careful look at the second reading speech of the Minister for Housing (Mr Kevin Cairns) and at the Bill one cannot help but wonder why the whole system has suddenly been changed and why the interest rebate proposals have been dropped, particularly when this apparent camouflage makes the proposal appear on the surface to be very beneficial to the States. But if we look at it carefully it would appear - I understand that the $2.75m is cumulative over the first 5 years after which the legislation will come up for review - that over the S year period the extra amount above the $ 1.29m, which represents the 1 per cent interest rate rebate, will take account of increased costs and demand, and that over the whole period the States would be getting much the same benefit as they have received in the past. However, this is extremely doubtful - I think this is where the crunch of the issue is - as costs are now spiralling as they have never spiralled since the end of the war.

Furthermore, the demand for housing from the State authorities is also likely to increase at a very great rate for the simple reason that young people today cannot possibly afford to meet the excessive costs of land - I will go into that aspect in more detail shortly - which are spiralling way out of control, as well as the costs of home building which are also spiralling dramatically. For this reason, if we look carefully and deeper under the surface here I think it will be found that this apparently very beneficial attitude as far as the States are concerned, as this has been based on what happened on the last 5 years and it is estimated, therefore, that the conditions of the last 5 years will more or less remain constant and continue on into the next 5 years, does not take into account this excessive spiralling of costs. Accordingly I think that in the long term the States will not be as well off as they were even under the 1 per cent interest rebate system. I believe that the interest rebate should have been retained and, in fact, increased along the lines mentioned by the honourable member for Reid, that is, to a 2 per cent rebate.

On the present bond rate of 7 per cent this would provide housing loans at an interest rate of 5 per cent. This would be a much fairer system and would ensure that the States under all circumstances, instead of just being given an allocation or a grant estimated to keep up with increases in costs and demand, would receive a grant which would keep in line with estimated costs and demand in the future. I cannot help feeling that this is the reason why the Government has changed this system. When it comes down to the rental rebate - incidentally, this was in the agreement originally entered into by the States and the Chifley Labor Government and was dropped by this Government in the past - it is not cumulative at all; it is constant at $ 1.25m a year over a period of 5 years. For this reason it takes no account of increased costs of land and building nor of increased demand. In other words, the actual value of this rental rebate, will steadily reduce.

I would like to deal with a couple of points in the amendment moved by the honourable member for Reid. He dealt very adequately with the fact that it is the responsibility of government to meet the housing needs of those sections of our community which are so disadvantaged. He referred to low income earners, pensioners, migrants, Aborigines, deserted wives and similarly disadvantaged people. There is no doubt that under the existing framework there is insufficient capacity for the States to meet the demands of these disadvantaged sections of our community. Clause 2 of the amendment states: acquire existing dwellings for restoration and allocation by rental or sale.

I think this is one of the most important proposals which has ever come before this House in respect of the allocation of funds to the States for Housing. I think this would be most important, for example, in the acquisition of tenement houses in some suburbs. Some people, not only southern Europeans but also a large number of our younger people, like to live in these types of bornes. This would also help to overcome the great problem which I have mentioned before in this Parliament which is created by concentrating on very large housing developments and bringing in people from similar income groups. This occurs because entry to these housing commission areas in New South Wales is subject to a means test. For that reason most of the people in those areas are of a similar income group and are being forced to live together in the same environment. 1 think this has been criticised not only by myself but also by other members of this House.

Not for one moment do i have any complaint whatsoever about the types of homes being built. For example, in the Mount Druitt housing commission area the type of home being built is excellent. 1 could not call this one of the concrete jungles which have been referred to in the past. Furthermore, community leadership there is excellent. People are working with local community organisations in order to improve living’ and environmental conditions and particularly to assist the young children in these areas. The community spirit is very good and nobody could criticise it, but 1. think most people agree that it would be far better if the housing commission acquired some sites in large private housing estates. For example, at the present time behind where I live at Seven H ills ‘ some 2,000 home sites are being released and i believe that some of those home sites should have been set aside for housing commission development so that people from different income groups and environments could live together.

Let me refer to the case of a young chap I know who is doing a very important job for this country today. He immigrated from England as a boy. His parents were fortunate enough to get a housing commission house in Normanhurst. He went to the Normanhurst Boys High School and obtained a Commonwealth university scholarship. He said to me: ‘If I had nol had to compete against all those other boys in that school, boys whose parents had the wherewithall to give them every opportunity, and if I had not been forced to do as well as they did I do not know that I would have ever obtained that Commonwealth university scholarship or been equipped in the way I am today to do. the job I am doing.’ That is just one human example which is well worth looking at because I believe we must not have one massive housing commission development. We should consider interspersing them with private developments. I think that some of the land in these estates being developed by the large developers should be acquired by the State housing authorities for housing commission homes. In this way we could intermix people and we would not set up a group of people who are within a certain range of income or of any one environment because this cannot bc to the advantage of the lot. I say this although 1 represent large sections of the community including the Mt Druitt and Seven Hills area in which community organisations have been set up. The work these people do in these organisations is extraordinary in an effort to uplift the standards, the environment and opportunities of the children of the people in those districts. The achievements would be far greater if the proposal which I have suggested were to be implemented.

For that reason I think that the motion to acquire existing dwellings for the purpose of restoration and allocation by way of rental or sale would not only help to overcome a demand by southern Europeans and some young people for older types of dwellings such as the tenement dwellings mentioned by the honourable member for Reid, but would also ensure that we could start once again to have people of different income groups and different environments intermingling so far as housing commission housing is concerned.

I am deeply concerned at the incapacity of State housing authorities to meet the demand for housing. For this reason I believe that a great problem is being created for the young people of Australia with the excessive interest rates now being charged for housing loans and also the high land prices. As an example I refer to the very large estate which is now being opened up in Seven Hills, in the western suburbs of Sydney. Land in this areas was purchased at $3,300 a block less than 3 years ago. Now with the new estate which is being developed - work upon it is about to proceed - 1 understand that the land is to be sold for $10,000 to $12,000 a block. Surely a rise from $3,300 to $10,000 or $12,000 in a matter of 3 years is a very excessive increase. That is the type of spiralling n( land costs which is occurring today. For this reason young people simply cannot possibly afford to meet this excessive cost of land, the excessive increases in building costs and the excessive increase in interest charges.

When the Chifley Government went out of office the average bank rate was 4± per cent interest. Today it is 8i per cent. In (hose days the main sources of supply of housing finance were the banks and building societies and also a few insurance companies. Today all the fringe banking organisations are making loans on second mortgages, etc. at very excessive rates. The result is that today more and more young people are renting half a house or a flat. This type of accommodation is not conducive to having young families at a time when they ought to have them. In addition to this we have today a false shortage of land. The Sydney Metropolitan Water, Sewerage and Drainage Board is acting in the capacity of a planning agency because the New South Wales State Planning Authority will not release land until such lime as that Board agrees to provide sewerage. Therefore it is not the State Planning Authority which is the planning organisation but the Water Board.

The Water Board is unable to keep up with the demand for sewerage services right throughout the Sydney metropolitan area. This in turn is creating a false shortage of land. In addition to this false shortage of land there are large tracts of land tied up right throughout the western suburbs of Sydney by a few large developers who are not prepared to release this land until such time as the price of the land appreciates so that their profits will increase very considerably. This, of course, in turn also creates a false shortage of land. In order to assist in the housing finance field and to assist the young people of Australia the Government and the Treasurer (Mr Snedden) in particular should have a discussion with the Reserve Bank of Australia with a view to obtaining the release of 1 per cent of the statutory reserve deposits and at the same time the Reserve Bank could issue a directive to banks in general to plough this released finance into the housing sector. 1 think there is far too much concentration on the construction of commercial buildings particularly office buildings. We have seen instances of this for some time now. It has been said that we will have a complete glut of office accommodation in years to come because so much of the overseas funds which are pouring into this country today is being ploughed into the construction of office accommodation. We are not using the existing powers of the Reserve Bank to channel this investment into other forms of construction. We have existing powers under the foreign banking exchange regulations. These overseas investments should be channelled into other fields such as housing. We should be using the power that we have. The Government has great financial capacities and great financial controls which it can use if it >:o wishes but it is not prepared to do so.

The Government could direct that some of the funds which are now coming into this country be channelled away from the construction of commercial buildings thereby bringing about a transfer of nien and materials into the housing sector. At the same time to provide the necessary finance 1 per cent of the statutory reserve deposits should be released. The Reserve Bank could issue a directive to the banks that the funds concerned be ploughed back into the housing sector. In this way we would ensure that the younger people in our community who today are very badly off and who are finding it virtually impossible to obtain housing would be given more opportunities. No longer do we see many young couples purchasing their own home or a block of land on which to build a home at the time of their marriage. Today young people get married and live in some poky little flat hoping that in the years to come they will be better abie to look after themselves. For those reasons I commend the amendment moved by the honourable member for Reid and I hope that the House will agree to it.

Sir JOHN CRAMER:
Bennelong

– It has been said many times that a leopard never changes its spots. Those who have just listened to the honourable member for Reid (Mr Uren) and the honourable member for Chifley (Mr Armitage) would know that over the long period since we have had housing legislation in this Parliament the principles to which those honourable members adhered back in 1945 and of which they boasted this afternoon have not been changed in any shape or form. Those honourable members still believe in government ownership, government direction and the nationalisation of housing. I do not blame them; that is their policy. They should let the public know that that is what the Australian Labor Party stands for.

The honourable member for Reid said that this was an historic occasion. As the honourable member said, Labor introduced the first Commonwealth and State housing agreement in 1945. The honourable member placed great emphasis upon the Chifley rate of interest - you know, the 3 per cent - as though it were something peculiar to the Chifley Government or to Mr Chifley or the Labor Party, lt just so happens at the time that this legislation was first introduced the interest rate was 3 per cent, which was at that time the long term bond rate of interest. Throughout the legislation dealing with housing the States have received funds on the basis of the ruling long term bond rate of interest with the exception that when the Labor Party first introduced the agreement in 1945 it gave no rebate of interest whatever to the Stales. Interest was charged at the long term bond rate. However in the legislation introduced by Labor there was an arrangement whereby the Commonwealth paid a certain percentage of the subsidised rent to certain people according to their income. That cost quite a bit of money. But there was no subsidy on the interest.

We tend to forget these things. I happen to know a fair bit about this matter. The newer members do not seem to remember the old Act. In 1945 the Labor Government tried to set up a Commonwealth housing commission which was to be authorised to resume land all over Australia, to build all the homes in Australia and to allocate the homes to people on a rental basis, The first Act introduced by the Chifley Government, of which honourable members are so proud, made no provision for home ownership. Its only provision was for rental houses. To my way of thinking this is to the eternal discredit of the Labor Party. In the broad sense, this approach is consistent with its socialist policy. The Chifley Government was giving the people no free choice in relation to where they lived or the kind of home tha: they wanted. The Commonwealth housing commission which the Chifley Government tried to establish was challenged legally, and it was only after it was found to be unconstitutional that the Commonwealth and State Housing Agreement was arrived at between the States and the Commonwealth. This came about only after the Labor Government found that it could not get away with the complete nationalisation of home building. 1 am giving the history of Commonwealth housing legislation.

The original Commonwealth and State Housing Agreement was for a period of 10 years. There was no provision for home ownership in it. This Government had to suffer the difficulties of that Agreement until it expired in 1956. In 1956 we brought in a new Commonwealth and State Housing Agreement. The terms of that Agreement were on the same basis. The interest on money advanced to the States by the Commonwealth was to be at the long term bond rate, but we then introduced a I per cent interest subsidy to the States. In the first 2 years of the Agreement 20 per cent of the amount advanced was to be set aside for the home builders account, and after 1958. 30 per cent was set aside for the home builders account. lt is extraordinary that neither the Labor Party’s leader in housing matters, the honourable member for Reid, nor the honourable member for Chifley, who prides himself of some knowledge of housing matters, has said a single word about the home builders account or what the building society movement in Australia has done for housing. Again this is consistent with the policy of the Labor Party. It does not want home ownership. We must never let honourable members opposite forget what was said by Mr Dedman when the first Act was passed. He was challenged by this Government when it was in opposition and Labor was in government. He said: ‘We do not want to build a nation of little capitalists’. This stands always as Labor policy. Honourable members opposite do not want to build a nation of little capitalists. This is the background history of this legislation.

Under the 1956 Agreement housing commissions were set up and they received their money on a 53-year term. It is interesting to note that in the 15 years since then $l,509m has been advanced to the States for housing purposes. This is a prodigious amount. Out of that amount over $485m has been allocated to the building society movement to enable people to become home owners. 1 think these figures are quite outstanding. The 53-year term enabled a revolving fund to be created in the home builders account, which meant that the money was used twice over, or more than twice over because some of the building societies lent on a 21-year term and some lent on a 28-year term. By means of a revolving fund the money was re-used before it was repaid. This was of very great benefit to the States and to housing generally. This Government has done a magnificent job in the way it has handled this matter.

Now we come to a change and we are now to approach the matter in a different way. Instead of the Commonwealth borrowing money from the people and then lending it to the States the States are to be allowed to borrow under their own loan programme. This is an entirely different setup. Under the new legislation there will be no Commonwealth and State Housing Agreement. All the necessary machinery is contained in the Bill before us. The States will receive a very substantial direct cash grant of $2.75m per annum cumulative over a period of 30 years, so that at the end of 30 years this Government will have committed itself under this Bill to an expenditure of over $4 12m. This is a very substantial amount This grant is being given in place of the rebate on interest, which has been a feature of the legislation since 1956. It must be used by the States in relation to the loans they have to raise under their own loan programme, which are of course approved by the Australian Loan Council.

In addition the Government is giving another grant for a period of 5 years - I presume we will renew it after that - of $1.25m a year. This is specifically for the purpose of rent rebate. This is very good. Under the terms of the Bill 30 per cent of the moneys granted must go directly to the home builders account, whereas under the old Agreement 5 per cent of the money that the States received by way of loans, from the

Commonwealth had to be set aside for the provision of Service homes. That provision is not included in this measure. Under this Bill 30 per cent of the grant is to go to the building societies or the home builders account and the requirement that 5 per cent be set aside for Service homes is eliminated altogether. The Commonwealth will pay directly for its Service homes. So this is an additional advantage, lt is a better condition than the I per cent rebate.

I am not happy about one thing, and 1 want to express my belief. The Minister for Housing (Mr Kevin Cairns) knows what it is. 1 believe that under this new legislation the building societies lose the advantage of the revolving fund. I think the Minister should look at this aspect. Originally the Commonwealth made money available to the States over a period of 53 years. The term of this new grant is for 30 years. Although the States will not have the advantages of borrowing over the long term of 53 years, as has been mentioned by the honourable member for Wentworth (Mr Bury) this afternoon, the States will receive the benefit of the Commonwealth’s sinking fund contribution over a period of 53 years. I think there may be some loss of benefit for the building society movement because of the term of the loan. The previous term of 53 years enabled a revolving fund to operate before, repayment, whereas under this system that may not be possible. I ask the Minister to look into this matter for me.

The honourable members for Reid and Chifley stated facts that we all know. The price of homes has gone up and the cost of land has increased but they made no effort to put their finger on the cause of this, nor did they suggest how the problem may be cured or overcome. The Government knows these things; it knows what is happening. There are potent reasons, particularly in relation to land prices, why it is happening. It would take quite a long time to go into the background of this matter, which is very familiar to me, but certain outstanding points are involved, one of which is the interference by governments in the free flow of the availability of land.

Dr Gun:

– I have heard that before.

Sir JOHN CRAMER:

– Yes, I have said it before. People forget; they talk about what they paid for a block of land in days gone by - 20 years ago - and so forth, but, in those days, local government did not require land developers to provide kerbing, guttering, properly formed and macadamised roads and footpaths. In some subdivisions, developers were required to guarantee that electricity, water and sewerage would be installed and had to give the necessary guarantees of revenue to the sewerage and water boards. All these items were not impositions upon the cost of land as they are under subdivisions which proceed today. 1 believe that Australia has reached the stage, in relation to housing and the price of land, where local government is being asked to bear far too much responsibility and com. The councils still rely entirely upon the revenue which they obtain from the rating of properties. Local government, as the third tier of government in the Australian setup, should share in the general revenue of the nation so that it might be assisted in certain respects. I believe that this is important. Local government councils are continually pressed to provide child welfare establishments and associated social requirements. They cannot be expected to do ali these things. I am not thinking only of the social programme; I am thinking of the effect that it has on increasing the cost of land.

Dr Gun:

– You have been reading Cough’s diary.

Sir JOHN CRAMER:

– No, I know this situation well. I have been in local government for 25 years and I know what goes on. I am concerned about the increases in rates. While all councils, because of increases in properly values, will say that they will reduce rates by so much in the $1, they all will lake advantage of the opportunity to increase this revenue from increased land valuations. On top of that, as the honourable member for Chifley rightly said, there are the State planning authorities which do not allow subdivisions to proceed unless there is the availability of sewerage and a guarantee of its cost to the sewerage and water boards. As a result of this, land has been in tremendously short supply and it is because of the unavailability of land that competition has not existed and prices have increased. This situation has been encouraged.

Many people are screaming about the increased taxation on motor cars in New South Wales but J think a most deplorable thing which is affecting every State is the land tax system. I played a great part in having this tax abolished in the federal system but immediately this was done the tax was imposed by all the States. It has reached such proportions that today this dreadful tax is affecting tremendously the cost of land. Something must be done about it because it cannot go on. I know of cases in certain areas - Lane Cove in my own electorate is one - where on some properties, because of municipal rates and taxes, plus water and sewerage rates and taxes, plus the special tax which is imposed for the purpose of creating parking to meet certain commercial conditions, plus the land tax, the total taxation burden is greater than the rental received from the property. In other words, the owner of a property, with all his commitments, receives no revenue for the capital he has invested.

Mr Foster:

– You are worried only about your own revenue, that is all.

Sir JOHN CRAMER:

– I am not thinking of my own revenue. The honourable member would think of his revenue in this situation. He wants an increase in salary; I know that he is a great advocate foi such an increase. Everybody is entitled to a decent return on his capital. If money is placed on fixed deposit or in banks, a certain return is expected from it. Property owners are accused of trying to rob people but this is not so. They are prepared to accept a reasonable return on their capital but today they are not getting it. They are subsidising people all over this country and are receiving no return for the money that they have invested in properties.

Many things should be done to rectify the kind of anomalies which are arising. For instance, there is a need to examine the taxation system. In my opinion, there is a need for the Government to do more than it has been doing to stimulate the availability of lower interest rate money to the building society movement in Australia. I think the building society movement is the best possible vehicle in which people should be encouraged to invest because it is perfectly secure and is backed in every way by the Government. This is the kind of movement which the Government should be encouraging. Time does not permit me to go into the whole of this field but. one of the things I should like to see the States do - it would greatly contribute to a reduction in the cost of land - is to deal with the question of land tax and to substantially reduce this tax, or, if possible, to eliminate it altogether, because it has a dreadful effect not only upon the price of land but also upon the encouragement of investment in real estate in Australia.

Sitting suspended from 5.57 to 8 p.m.

Mr FOSTER:
Sturt

- Mr Speaker, I claim to have been misrepresented.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Does the honourable member wish to make a personal explanation?

Mr FOSTER:

– I do. During the course of question time today a question was directed to the Postmaster-General (Sir Alan Hulme) relative to the appearance on a television programme of a person who is most certainly widely known now as a result of that programme, Mr Matteson and of the Attorney-General (Senator Greenwood). During the course of the question and the answer today 1 interjected and stated that that person Matteson was in the gallery last night. The honourable member for Kennedy (Mr Katter) has claimed that it was my responsibility to draw the attention of the House to the fact that I believed that person lo be in the gallery, that I ought to be ashamed of myself, and that I ought to be apprehended by the Commonwealth authorities for lacking in my public duty. I might explain that after this House rose last night I visited the Senate and listened to the adjournment debate. There once again I observed in the gallery the person whom I believed to be Matteson. 1 also noticed that the Attorney-General was in the Senate last night and also observed this person.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member is giving a recital of a great deal of factual information, but he is not explaining to the Chair at this stage where he has been misrepresented.

Mr FOSTER:

– I will come to that point.

Mr SPEAKER:

– f think that the honourable member will have to come to it fairly quickly.

Mr FOSTER:

– Yes, I will do that. I want to come to the point in this way: I deemed it was not my responsibility to do as the honourable member for Kennedy has suggested because of the fact, as I have just stated, that I observed the person, whom I believed to be Matteson also being observed by the Attorney-General. I consider it was his responsibility, more so than it was mine, to do what the honourable member for Kennedy has suggested.

Dr GUN:
Kingston

- Mr Speaker, harking back to the States Grants (Housing) Bill, I wish to support the amendment moved by the honourable member for Reid (Mr Uren). The present proposals will mean some improvement compared with the previous 5 year Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement and it is for this reason that they have the support of the South Australian Government and of the South Australian Housing Trust. My own misgivings about the Bill do not concern the contents of the Bill itself, but rather what the Bill does not contain, and I shall deal with this matter a little later. Speaking for my own State of South Australia, I believe that the 5 year allocation will enable the South Australian Governments programme of intensive building activity in the public sector to continue. The building industry in general in South Australia is in a healthy condition. I refer to a document which was placed on my desk last night entitled Commonwealth Treasury Information Bulletin’ for October. It mentions the healthy state of the building industry in South Australia especially since the Dunstan Labor Government took office in the middle of 1970. This is a very fine tribute to the Dunstan Government in South Australia. The honourable member for Angas (Mr Giles) sneers at this, but I invite him lo look at the figures on page 8 of the document to which I have referred. As I have said, this is a very fine tribute to the Dunstan Government. If I might digress for a moment, I would like to support the views of the South Australian Premier who said that conditions in our States - indeed in all States - will decline very markedly unless the Commonwealth Government takes action to stimulate the economy.

The most important activity of State housing trusts and State housing commissions is to provide housing for people with limited incomes. The fundamental problem today is that housing costs, especially outside the public sector, are greater than people can afford. The South Australian Housing Trust has carried out some very interesting and valuable investigations of incomes of families obtaining rental housing. I have here the result of the most recent study covering the 5 week period to 1st October 1971, in which 412 families were allotted rental homes. 1 ask leave to incorporate in Hansard the result of this study.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Is leave granted? There being no objection, leave is granted. (The document read as follows) -

The study for September revealed - 43 or 10.9 per cent earning $40 or less per week 147 or 35.7 per cent earning $50 or less per week 247 or 60 per cent earning $60 or less per week 324 or 78.6 per cent earning $70 or less per week 340 or 82.5 per cent earning $75 or less per week 72 or 17.5 per cent earning more than $75 per week

Dr GUN:

– This income study is even more staggering when it is realised that it excludes pensioner flats and includes the Housing Trust’s more ‘affluent customers.

The latest annual report of the South Australian Housing Trust gives an account of an income study of families accommodated in rental or rental-purchase houses over the last 18 months. The study dealt with family incomes and incomes of male heads of families. In the figures on family incomes, the greatest concentration was in the $51 to $60 a week bracket. More than 46 per cent of the families earned $60 or less a week. For male heads of families the commonest income was $42.50, and 62 per cent of male heads of families were earning between $41 and $60 a week. The figures of the Commonwealth Bureau of Census and Statistics reveal that during the period covered by the survey, average earnings per male unit were around $72 a week. So the conclusion which the South Australian Housing Trust drew is not a surprising one. The Trust stated: lt is obvious that the vast majority of families applying to the Trust for assistance cannot afford to buy their own houses, or even pay the relatively high rents that prevail today. Even as far as the Trust is concerned, with the increased interest rates and the higher costs being incurred in the construction of houses, it cannot fix an economic rent for its new houses within the capacity of the majority of its applicants.

The South Australian Government has had to overcome this problem by using capital funds to subsidise rents for low income earners. In other words, the rise in interest rates has been such that the Housing Agreement money, lent at an interest rate of 1 per cent below the bond rat;, slid required that an excessive rent would have to be charged if that loan were to be serviced. So the rent had to be subsidised further. Notwithstanding all this, however, the South Australian Housing Trust still incurred a loss of $275,000 on its rental operations in the last financial year. In this context I point o-it that this loss would not be covered by the non-recurring grant of S6.25m being provided in this Bill to enable State housing authorities to reduce rents. The annual allocation is SI. 25m, of which South Australia is to receive 12.2 per cent. According to my arithmetic, this works out at just over $150,000 a year, which would not cover the last annual deficit on the existing rental accommodation. It is a start, but it is not enough, and it will probably mean an even greater shortfall over the next 5 years.

But as 1 mentioned earlier, cost of housing outside the public sector are now so great in relation to people’s earnings that a very great strain is being placed on the shoulders of State housing authorities People are being required to switch to the public sector in order to obtain homes. The 1970 annual report of the South Austraiian Housing Trust contains some very interesting points. In one section it states:

The current rate of applications for rentalpurchase homes is higher than at any time in the last 3 years. During the past year, 2,497 applications for rental-purchase homes were received. . . .

In relation to rental accommodation the report states:

In the year ending 30th June. 1970. 10,037 applications for rental accommodation were received. For the first time in the Trust’s history, the number of rental applications registered exceeded 10,000. Since the 1965-66 financial year, the average number of applications received per week has risen from 125 to 197.

This pattern has been maintained in the last financial year. According to the latest report, the number of applications for rental accommodation exceeded 10,000, and 2,336 applications for rental-purchase homes were received. This is something which 1 am sure all my South Australian colleagues, and probably my colleagues from the other States, would also know. It is that there is tremendous pressure on- the public housing authorities for low income housing. We all know of the Long waiting time that people have to suffer because of the shortage of housing in the public sector of the economy. As the South Australian Premier has indicated, the new arrangement will assist the Housing Trust of South Australia in its programme of accommodating low income earners. Previously, housing was made available at the equivalent of 2 per cent below the bond rate, but only by diverting capital funds. Under the new arrangement, it will be possible now to subsidise new rental accommodation to the equivalent of 2 per cent without having to reduce the volume of building by diversion of capital.

Having said that the programme is acceptable to the South Australian Government, 1 would like to mention one or two misgivings which I have of my own. Perhaps I am unduly suspicious, but I am at a loss to work out why the Commonwealth Government has chosen this particular method of altering the Housing Agreement. The new proposals were drafted without consultations with the State governments, and I feel obliged to ask the Minister what his motive is. I am definitely not satisfied with the explanation given in the Minister’s second reading speech. I cannot believe that the Minister is serious when he says that the assistance will now be more readily identified. I think I can say without fear of contradiction that this new arrangement is very complicated. So I want to know what the Government is up to, and I ask the Minister to answer this point when he replies.

Frankly, I suspect that this may be the first sign of the Commonwealth Government’s intention to vacate the field of low cost housing. The break has been made with providing housing money at low interest rates and non-repayable grants maybe the sweetener. I hope that the Commonwealth is nol going to say in 5 years time that there will be no more money for subsidising housing. I hope that the Commonwealth does not tell the States in 1976 that the bond rate of interest is to prevail because the States accepted it in 1971 and that from 1976 the State governments can subsidise housing out of their own funds.

This may sound far fetched, but this is precisely what the States are now being told in relation to education. They are being told: ‘Finance the schools yourselves’. Perhaps 1 am too suspicious, but the wording of the Minister’s explanation sounds suspicious. 1 ask the Minister to give a guarantee that further assistance will be forthcoming in 1976, especially earmarked to assist low cost housing. That is, of course, in the unlikely event of the Liberal-Country Party coalition still being in office in 1976.

I would like to know about the future of the $6,250,000 grant. This is a straight out social service payment to help poor people pay their rent and it deserves support. But what happens after 1976? Is this grant just another sweetener to buy the States off while the Commonwealth vacates the field of providing housing at less than the bond rate of interest?

I would like to address myself now to the broad question of housing policy. The first aspect is the rising . cost of land. I believe that this is the most important aspect requiring attention by the Commonwealth Government, lt requires that assistance be given to the State governments to acquire broad acres so that land can be developed by or under the supervision of public authorities so that the proceeds from the sale of the land or, better still, from the lease of the land can be used for further acquisition. In other words, it would be a revolving fund, that is, a once-and-for-all outlay. If this can be done for Canberra, why cannot it be done elsewhere? I refer to a question I asked on this matter of the previous Prime Minister, the present right honourable member for Higgins (Mr Gorton) last year. I said:

I preface my question, which is addressed to the Prime Minister, by referring to the fact thai the city of Canberra as well as providing an excellent example nf metropolitan planning, has stable and even falling land prices. Does the Prime Minister agree that this is mainly due to the acquisition, subdivision and planned development of land by the Government, or rather by a Government agency? Does die Government propose lo pursue the same policies in the development of Canberra’s satellite city of Tuggeranong? Does the Government consider that similar action by State governments is any less desirable? If so, does the

Government consider that the States have the resources to carry out such planned development? If not, is the Government willing to discuss with the State governments the feasibility of setting up revolving funds so that the State governments can acquire lands for urban development which will be both orderly and free from land speculation?

I feel that Mr Gorton’s reply was a flippant one and does not bear repeating at this stage. But I ask the Commonwealth now to look at this question seriously. I know that the present Minister for Housing has certain phobias about public acquisition of land. He calls this ‘socialism’. Whether it is socialism or not, if it is good enough for the citizens of Canberra, it is good enough for other citizens. It does not mean centralism. It means making a onceandforall outlay to help State governments buy land to develop in the community interest.

This problem is doubly urgent with the pressing need for decentralisation. There has been a lot of talk about this in recent years and the need for action is now becoming urgent. I refer to the ‘First Report of the Task Force on The Price of Land’ by the Australian Institute of Urban Studies. It points out in the case of Adelaide that figures cited by a firm of subdividers show:

In 1962 there were 23,000 serviced lots and 40,000 unserviced lots in the Adelaide metropolitan area. In 1970 only 3,000 serviced lots were created but 7,000 were consumed. Now there are only 8,000 vacant serviced lots in existence. This represents one year’s supply of lots; and not all of these are necessarily available for purchase. Some concern was expressed in Adelaide that, unless action is taken, a large and rapid increase in prices may occur in the near future.

So I suggest that urgent Commonwealth assistance is needed to help buy the broad acres for the establishment of a new growth centre in South Australia. I believe that the Commonwealth must act now on this matter on 3 broad fronts. Firstly, it must act to help State governments to find the finance to purchase the broad acres to set up new growth centres. Secondly it must help with the decentralisation of Commonwealth Government departments. I have particularly in mind the National Biological Standards Laboratory which I believe now is to be consolidated into one site. I do not see necessarily why this should be in Canberra. That is just an example. Thirdly, I believe the

Commonwealth should make available the know-how of the National Capital Development Commission to assist in co-ordinating all services for economic and efficient development of new growth centres. In my view, new growth centres should not be established too far from existing cities, otherwise it will be too difficult to resist political pressures to all continued development on the fringes of the big cities. The new cities should be distinct from the old, but close enough for commuting by rapid rail or road transport. I believe that the best site for such a centre in South Australia is in the McLaren Vale area. Another matter on which 1 believe urgent Commonwealth action is required is in the broad area of interest rates. 1 do not have time to cover this area. It has been mentioned by other speakers on the Opposition side.

I would like to deal now with the second part of the amendment moved by the honourable member for Reid which concerns, broadly, assistance to the States Ibr urban renewal. The first need here is for research. I remind the Minister that at the Housing Ministers’ Conference in 1967 the then South Australian Minister for Housing, the late Mi Frank Walsh, moved that the Commonwealth be requested to provide $lm for the States to investigate housing areas requiring renewal. This motion was carried unanimously by the State Ministers for Mousing and the then Commonwealth Minister for Housing, the former Senator Dame Annabelle Rankin, agreed to submit it to the Government. However, no money has been forthcoming for this purpose, even though I understand the matter has been raised at Housing Ministers’ conferences in the meantime. I ask the Minister to indicate when he replies whether he is prepared to forward these proposals to the Government.

I have here a copy of the speech on legislation introduced into the South Australian Parliament yesterday. The South Australian Premier mentioned that a significant Commonwealth provision had been sought towards the capital cost and capital losses arising from urban renewal. This question of urban renewal has enormous social implications, as we all know. I am sure that no-one, or almost no-one, wants a repetition of the high rise buildings that ure now blotting the landscape in the inner suburbs of Melbourne. I have had an opportunity to have a look at these at fairly close hand. I. remember in 1966, [ think it was. I bad to do a locum for a general practitioner in the suburb of Footscray. I had to visit some high rise areas there. I felt that they were absolutely horrifying. I hope that this sort of social experiment will not be repeated anywhere else in Australia and I hope never again in Melbourne either. 1 would like finally to draw the attention of the House to an account in ‘The Review’ of last Sunday. I suppose the Minister would not read that paper. He might regard that as a rather naughty magazine. But there is a report there by one Andrew Burbridge the social policy officer employed on a series ot housing policy studies by the Brotherhood of St Laurence and the Fitzroy Ecumenical centre. He discusses Government loans to encourage rehabilitation of existing inner suburban homes. This report indicates that if existing houses bad been acquired and rehabilitated more people would have been rehoused in Melbourne between 1965 and 1970 which is the period during which the high rise’ building programmes were implemented. Not only would that have happened but also costs would have been lower.

For these reasons I particularly commend the honourable member for Reid for the wording of the amendment that he has moved. 1 refer specifically to the second part of the amendment which states that assistance should be provided to the States to enable them to acquire existing dwellings for restoration and allocation by rental or sale, 1 support the resolution by the State Ministers for Housing for assistance along these lines. 1 support the amendment most enthusiastically. T hope that the House also will do so.

Mr IRWIN:
Mitchell

– I will not deal with the addresses that have been given; rather would I like to say something positive and intelligent in regard to the matter before the House. I support this Bill, the purpose of which is to give legislative effect to the proposals for housing assistance to the States as revealed by the Treasurer (Mr Snedden) in his Budget Speech and as agreed to by the State Minis ters for Housing. As the Minister for Housing (Mr Kevin Cairns) indicated when he presented this Bill to the House, it represents the greatest change in housing policy in Australia for more than a quarter of a century. What is more important is that it provides for a substantial increase in the level of Commonwealth assistance to the States for housing over the next 5 years.

The principles contained in this Bill were agreed to by all 6 State Housing Ministers at a meeting with the Federal Housing Minister in Sydney on 17th September of this year. Prior io that meeting detailed discussions had taken place on the Commonwealth’s offer for the next 5 years and State Premiers and Treasurers were made aware of the Commonwealth Government’s intentions in regard to housing assistance at the annual Premiers Conference and Loan Council meeting in Canberra in June. The Treasurer announced details of the offer in the Budget and the Commonwealth Minister for Housing met his State colleagues, late in August to consider the offer. A meeting of Commonwealth and State Housing and Treasury officers was held also to discuss details of the new scheme. Despite what (he Opposition claims, there was a full and frank discussion of the Commonwealth proposals before they were agreed to.

This Bill replaces with a non-repayable grant the former I per cent interest concession granted to th”. States for money borrowed tor State housing schemes. The grant will amount to 52,750,000 a year payable for 30 years in respect of each year’s housing programme over the next 5-year period. In total - and this is the figure we are particularly interested in and proud of - this will give the States more than $4 1 2m for housing, by way of direct grant, over the next 34 years. This is a significant improvement on the former agreement, lt will enable the States to construct more homes. The States will retain the right to determine the amount of their annual Loan Council borrowings which are to be devoted to housing purposes. I commend the Government upon safeguarding the rights and the responsibilities of the 6 States in this regard.

We operate in this country under a federal system. It requires State government and Federal government co-operation. The

States have their responsibilities, as does the Commonwealth. This Bill preserves the right of the States to decide their own housing programmes. I believe this is particularly necessary, because the housing needs and problems of each State are not the same. In some States the demand is greater in developing areas in the country than it is in the other States. This Bill ensures that each State will continue to tackle its own housing programme and to meet its own particular needs.

What a contrast this policy is to that of the Opposition. The policy of the Labor Party in relation to housing is a centralist one. lt is also socialist. Under a Labor Government, particularly if the honourable member for Reid (Mr Uren) was the Minister the States would have few rights and even fewer responsibilities in regard to housing. That would not be in the best interests of Australia or its people. This Government is to be commended for its continued commitment to the federal system in relation to housing matters.

The basic grant that the Government will give the States also will enable them to benefit from the Commonwealth sinking fund contribution of 0.25 per cent. The worth of this contribution, which is a new proposal and is in addition to the basic grant, cannot be exactly estimated. But I am assured that it is likely to be of the order of Si 14m over the 53 years during which Loan Council Borrowings are repayable. Coupled with the additional benefits of the basic assistance grant, the sinking fund benefit will enable the States to devote more funds to housing, particularly for those who are in the greatest need of assistance in acquiring a home. The Government also proposes the payment of $ 1.25m a year for each of the next 5 years to the States by way of rental assistance grants. This will help the States to reduce rental costs to those families they regard as being in need of assistance. In the next 5 years, some $6.25m will be made available. The problem of high rents which are a burden on low income earners is a very real one. It is one that must be faced up to by housing authorities. This new proposal - it did not exist under the former arrangement - is a step in the right direction. My own State of New South Wales will receive more than $2,218,000 in rental assistance grants. 1 am certain that the New South Wales Housing Minister, Mr Stephens, and his officers, will see that this amount is put to the best possible use.

I am told that the total benefit to New South Wales from the basic housing grant over the next 34 years will be more than $138m. This is by far the highest of any State. The New South Wales Housing Commission had established a good record under the administration of Mr Stephens and the Chairman of the Commission, Mr Jim Bourke. No doubt the State’s grant from the Commonwealth will be put to the best possible use by the Commission. I was particularly pleased to see that Mr Stephens fully understood the Commonwealth’s offer, and was able to see the additional benefits that it would bring. I refer to the condition that the States allocate, under ordinary circumstances, at least 30 per cent of their allocation for housing to a special Home Builders Account. This was a condition of the former agreement. This has been appreciated by leaders of the housing and building co-operative societies. In fact, the President of the Australian Council of Co-operative Building and Housing societies, Mr B. H. Knowles, who is a leader of the housing industry, said when the housing discussions were taking place that it was vital that at least 30 per cent of the advances and grants be channelled through the societies and other approved organisations. The Commonwealth has ensured that, under normal circumstances this policy will continue into the future. This is a very welcome part of this legislation. Building societies have a most important role to play in the housing of the people of Australia. Their role has been growing over the years, particularly in recent times. Thousands of young Australians have been able to finance their homes through the terminating building societies. The societies provide a very good community service. In fact, during the last financial year nearly $42m was developed by these societies for housing finance. That is a significant proportion of housing expenditure in this country. In fact, on the national average, nearly 96 per cent of borrowers from terminating societies are in receipt of less than the average income. They are the only non-government authorities designed to help only those on the lower income scale.

The comments by the leader of these societies on the effects of this agreement on the housing industry are particularly important. Mr Knowles said: lt appears that the Commonwealth’s new housing proposals were an improvement on the present Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement.

He went on to say that terminating building societies had a vital interest in the new financial arrangements which were being discussed in regard to housing. He said the societies looked to a continuing flow of funds to the home builders’ account to enable them to continue their important role of providing housing finance to those in the low and moderate income bracket. Mr Knowles, and the many public spirited men and women who have formed terminating building societies, can rest assured that the Commonwealth Government will continue to ensure that they’ have access to funds through the home builders account.

Another aspect of the’ Bill before the House is that it provides for a new arrangement regarding homes for servicemen. Tn the past, the States were required to set aside up to 5 per cent of their housing advances from the Commonwealth for the construction of housing for servicemen. This affected some States more than others. My own State, of course, was particularly affected by this requirement. The Ministers accepted the Commonwealth’s proposal that in future the Commonwealth advance all the funds for housing for servicemen. Details of this scheme are being worked out. Again, this will enable the States to devote more of their housing funds to welfare housing programmes. The Bill must be considered in its total context. So must the offer by the Federal Government which has been accepted by the States. It takes 3 parts. Firstly, there is the basic grant, which is a significant improvement. Secondly, there is the rental assistance grant, which is an entirely new welfare proposal, and one which is designed to help those in the greatest need. Thirdly, there is the new provision regarding Service housing, which is intended to assist the States to allocate more funds to welfare housing proposals.

Those who understand the full details of the new arrangement - it is apparent that the Opposition does not - appreciate the advantages it gives over the former housing agreement. The Premier and Minister for Housing in South Australia, Mr Dunstan, has publicly recognised that the new arrangement does contain increased benefits. No one would suggest that he has any political affinity with the Minister, but he is fair-minded enough to see the advantages that undeniably lie in the new proposals. It is a pity that the same cannot be said for the members of the Opposition. I congratulate the Minister on the new arrangement and on bringing negotiations with the States to a successful conclusion. The Bill deserves the support of the Parliament. I commend it to honourable members.

As 1 still have a few minutes available in which to speak, 1 wish to deal with the amendment proposed by the honourable member for Reid. In the first part of his amendment he proposes that the Commonwealth Government provide the States with adequate funds to enable them to meet the special housing needs of low income earners, pensioners, migrants, Aborigines and deserted wives and similarly disadvantaged people. As I have just pointed out, under this legislation these people will be catered for in a better way than they have ever been catered for under any housing agreement brought in by the Commonwealth or the States. In the second part of his amendment the honourable member for Reid proposed that the Commonwealth Government provide the State with adequate funds to enable them to acquire existing dwellings for restoration «nd allocation by way of rental or sale. .

There has been much said today about the price of land. The high cost of land in my own State of New South Wales - I can only speak about that State - was brought about by an Act of Parliament passed by a Labor government in 1951 which gave effect to the Cumberland County Council scheme, which was later superseded by the State Planning Authority, lt is to the everlasting disgrace of the present Liberal Government in New South Wales that it has perpetuated this wretched piece of legislation which is the basis for the high price of land in New South Wales. But for this wretched piece of legislation, which is a slur on the statute books of New South Wales, land prices never would have soared to the heights to which they have soared. It created wrongdoing, corruption and bribery. People in special circumstances knew what was going to happen and what area was going to be released. Anzacs and men of the 1st and 2nd Australian Imperial Force were robbed of their birthright. A type of socialism was brought about. The very first thing the Liberal Party of Australia should have done upon its return to power in New South Wales was to have this legislation erased from the statute book. It is the reason for the high price of land.

Once one puts anything under the counter one creates a black market. Such a black market has been created in New South Wales. Thousands of blocks which were subdivided between the First and Second World Wars and even before that are at present lying vacant and not being built upon because of zoning restrictions. Zoning is the great evil. I understand that since the practice of zoning was introduced in Victoria some 3 or 4 years ago land values have soared some 300 per cent to 400 per cent. People should be allowed to live where they desire to live. What right do we have to interfere with anybody? If a person is satisfied about living in Riverstone, where thousands of blocks are available at a reasonable price, why should anybody deny him the right to work out his own destiny? That is an example of socialism in its worst form. Thousands of blocks of land are available in the County of Cumberland in New South Wales but the wretched zoning restrictions to which I have referred restrict building on them. Those zoning restrictions will bs lifted later on, but when they are, certain other restrictions will be placed on the subdivider or the person who buys the land.

It is the non-availability of land that has created the terrible land price increases in New South Wales. I could speak at length about this matter. I fought the wretched Cumberland County Council and the State Planning Authority with all the vigour and determination I had on this issue. I have had a great deal of experience in regard to housing and I would say that, having regard to the construction, the amenity and the design of houses, the home purchaser is getting much better value today, dollar for dollar, than he did 9 years ago.

Mr WEBB:
Stirling

– I rise to support the amendment so ably moved by the honourable member for Reid (Mr Uren), the substance of which is as follows:

That all words after ‘That’ be omitted with a view to inserting the following words in place thereof: this House is of opinion that the Commonwealth Government should provide the States with adequate funds to enable them to -

meet the special housing needs of (a) low income earners, (b) pensioners, (c) migrants, (d) Aborigines and (e) deserted wives and similarly disadvantaged people and

acquire existing dwellings for restoration and allocution by rental or sale’.

The amendment is well worthy of the support of this House. As the Minister for Housing (Mr Kevin Cairns) stated, the purpose of the Bill is to make direct grants to the States to help them to continue to provide housing for low income groups. It replaces the arrangement which formerly existed under the Commonwealth and State Housing Agreement. The States have agreed to this new method of financial assistance but I am sure that none of the States agrees that the amount of financial assistance is sufficient for its housing needs. Western Australia, for instance, needs more finance to provide adequately for the housing needs of those on lower incomes, for those on pensions, for migrants and for others, as is proposed in the amendment.

I understand that the Premier of Western Australia has asked for $10m to provide housing for Aborigines. The housing of our Aborigines, no matter where it might be, is far from adequate. Professor McDonald, of the Faculty of Child Health at the University of Western Australia, has stated that an Aboriginal baby has 6 times more chance of dying before age 1 than a white baby. He went on to say that preventive measures should include an improvement in living conditions, housing and nutrition. I emphasise ‘housing’ because that is what the Bill deals with. I hope that the Government will give sympathetic consideration to the request from the Premier of Western Australia. Increased finance not only will provide homes where they are urgently needed but also will help to provide work for the many hundreds of building workers in that State who are unemployed. I am dealing particularly with Western Australia because other honourable members have spoken about some of the other States and have dealt with this matter generally.

Western Australia needs financial assistance to provide single accommodation. In that State single accommodation is provided for single women after a long waiting period, but lack of finance prevents such accommodation being provided for single men. This Government should give consideration to that point and should provide additional funds for accommodation for single men. They are an important section of the community and accommodation should be provided for them. I ask the Minister to give consideration to that point. The Federal Liberal Government’s credit squeeze of 1970 dealt a severe blow to housing in Western Australia. It resulted in the number of new houses and flats started in Perth during that year dropping by 35 per cent as compared with 1969. This was revealed in figures released by the Commonwealth Statistician in April last. They show that the total fell from 17,101 to 10,996. The value of buildings started in Perth fell by $42.3m to $ 112.7m.

The ‘Housing Quarterly’ shows that for the June quarter 1971 private housing and flat commencements dropped to 2,687 from 3,407 in the June quarter of 1970, which is a drop of 21 per cent. These figures are revealed in the document put out by the Department. The drop in Government house and flat commencements for the same period was from 413 to 289, a drop of 30 per cent. The total drop in commencements for the June quarter 1971 as compared with the June quarter 1970 was from 3,820 to 2,976, a drop of 21 per cent. These figures are all contained in the Housing Quarterly’ for June 1971. That document goes on to say:

Commencements in the June quarter fell by about 630 or by 18 per cent. Government house commencements fell by nearly 660 to about 250. the lowest quarterly number since the September quarter of 1959, and commencements of Government Hals fell by more than 200 to about 40. Commencements of private flats fell lo about 140. the lowest quarterly number since the December quarter of 1962; private flat commencements have fallen in 7 of the last 8 quarters. The only sector in which commencements increased in the June quarter was private houses by 15 per cent to nearly 2,550.

The document continues:

Approvals rose by 6 per cent in the June quarter after falling successively in each of the proceeding 6 quarters. Private houses approved in creased by about 640 or 27 per cent, which was more than might have been expected because nf seasonal influences and nearly 10 per cent more than in the same quarter of the previous vear. The number of private flats approved more than doubled lo about 440, checking a downward ‘.rend which began 6 quarters earlier. Approvals of Government dwellings fell by 671 to 197 - 23 per cent of their March quarter level and the lowest number since the March quarter of 1959.

What this report emphasises is that, whilst private accommodation has not been affected, to some extent Government dwellings are falling each quarter. The document goes on to say that the marked increase in private dwelling approvals was largely due to the approval in April of 524 private houses and flats for construction in the Pilbara region. That, of course, is where the mining development is going on. The important point is that both commencements and approvals for Government houses and flats show a big drop. That is what we are discussing in this debate

In Western Australia there are over 13,000 people on the State Housing Commission books awaiting accommodation. The Waiting period for a purchase home or a rental home is about 4 years. Emergent cases - people living on verandahs, in caravans, in houses required by their owners or in condemned houses - have to wait a long time before accommodation can bc made available to them. This includes people who may have a court eviction order against them. The amount authorised under the Bill will not be sufficient to meet the urgent needs of the many thousand*, on the State Housing Commission books wim are waiting to purchase or rent a house and these are the people in the lower income groups.

The Government regards housing finance as an economic weapon. When the economy is a bit slack finance is provided for additional housing, but never enough to meet the needs of the people. When the economy has recovered and the need for housing is at its greatest the Government cuts back on housing finance. Finance for housing should be based on the needs of the community and should not be used as an economic weapon in the stopgo policy of this Government. Overall there is a steady deterioration in the number of houses that can be built for those on low incomes, and this report reveals that that is so. In 1968-69 the State housing commissions in Australia built only 8,488 dwellings although there were over 51,000 applications lodged during that year. There was a lag of over 76,000 at the end of 1968-69. This is a serious situation for those on low incomes. They cannot afford high rents. Their only hope of owning a house is to buy it through the State housing commission.

I was interested in a statement made by the then Minister for Housing on 16th July 1970. She said:

The fact thai the overall decline in home building activity that has occurred has produced a barely significant increase in unemployment amongst skilled workers, apart from bricklayers in Western Australia.

That was an important point because J raised it during the course of a debate at that time and said that once it starts with bricklayers it passes on to other sections of the building industry. At this stage 1 want to quote a letter which appeared in the ‘Daily News’ of 11th November. It was from Mr H. R. Fletcher, Assistant Secretary of the Building Workers Industrial Union. He said:

The difficulties confronting the building industry are important to the whole community so both the general public and our Governments should be made aware of what is happening.

The bricklayers’ section was the first to be hil by unemployment.

Some employer organisations had been very active recruiting bricklayers and 720 assisted migrants were brought here in the years 1966 to 1970 inclusive.

The figure for carpenters was 700 and approximately 3 of them are needed to each bricklayer.

In December 1969, 3,100 bricklayers were officially listed as working in the major part of of State’s building industry. In March 1971 this was down to 2.307.

Because of the unemployment and bad conditions in their industry many bricklayers have either left the Slate to return to their former homes, gone to Eastern States or are working outside their trade in Western Australia.

Taxpayers’ money was spent to get them and the employers concerned and their Governments must accept the responsibility for a work shortage and now the loss of these tradesmen.

That reference is, of course, to the former Liberal Government of Western Australia and to this Government because the Labor Government in Western Australia has been in office for only 8 months. The letter continued:

Carpenters have commenced going through the same cycle and thousands of workers will become unemployed if the Federal Government refuses to release the necessary finance to make sufficient work available.

This is why builders, architects, workers, their unions and other people directly concerned with the industry are trying to persuade the Federal Government to change its policy.

Bricklayers are, of course, naturally the first affected when housing restrictions apply, but it soon has a snowball effect as is shown in that letter and the rest of the building industry suffers as a result. At that time it affected bricklayers, but now, as is indicated in that letter, it is affecting all workers in the building industry, so much so that the secretary of the Building Workers Industrial Union has asked the Prime Minister (Mr McMahon) to send the Minister for Labour and National Service (Mr Lynch) to Western Australia to investigate unemployment in the building trade on the spot. The union has also asked for $30m to stimulate the building industry. The fact that cannot be ignored is that the building industry has been hard hit by the policy of this Government. The building workers in Western Australia are expecting about 1,000 unemployed by Christmas, and that is a lot of unemployed in one industry. According to what we have heard in the debate tonight, this applies not only to Western Australia but also to the other States. A headline in the ‘Australian’ of Saturday, 6th November, stated: ‘Builders warn of industry “vacuum” in year’. The article states:

The construction industry last night warned the Federal Government that unless it takes prompt action there will be a serious recession in the industry.

The warning was issued by the president of the Australian Federation of Construction Contractors, Mr C. Sexton, who said the Government failed to understand the importance of the industry in the economy.

Mr Sexton criticised what he called ‘the longstanding and almost traditional habits of governments to use the industry as a whipping horse whenever the economy shows signs of overheating’.

Surely that is an important matter that we have been stressing in this Parliament. Referring again to Western Australia, every section of the building industry has unemployed members. The position as regards unemployment in that State is bad and, as was pointed out in an earlier debate today, it will become worse as a result of the gold mining industry phasing out and the workers in that industry coming to the city unless the gold subsidy is increased. The October monthly review of the employment situation shows that the number of registered unemployed in October 1971 was 6,488. In

October 1970 it was 3,554 so there has been an increase of 2,934. Those on unemployment benefits in October 1971 totalled 1,389. In October 1970 the number was 526, so there has been an increase of 863. Looking at the number of unfilled vacancies compared with the number of registered unemployed, we see that there were 2,336 unfilled vacancies, so we have nearly 3 unemployed workers in Western Australia at the present time for every vacancy that is available on the books.

The Western Australian Government has asked the Commonwealth Government to make it easier for people to own a home. It has been suggested that housing loan interest up to a given figure be made a tax deduction to help young married couples, as is the case in the United Kingdom. Young couples trying to buy a home have their biggest financial problem ia the early years of their marriage. It is a reasonable suggestion that they should be assisted. Interest rates on housing loans should also be reduced. Land speculators have been making huge profits at the expense of home builders. Land prices are more stable now but at an excessively high price; and they have just started to jump again. Land prices have jumped considerably since 1950. In some areas land has doubled its price each 5 years and in other areas doubled its price in less than that time. Land prices in residential areas of Perth are higher than in any other city except Sydney. This unfortunate situation arises when many people with moderate incomes over-extend themselves when buying a house. Unfortunately, they want to keep up with the Joneses. Salesmen seeking a commission should be restrained from encouraging home seekers to buy a house beyond their means.

The credit squeeze and the increase in interest rates have made it more difficult for young couples to buy homes. More and more couples are having to borrow housing finance at high interest rates and this has been happening for some time. Some are paying mortgage brokers I2i per cent, and in some cases 14 per cent. This is because a little while ago - in 1970 - the building societies and the banks were forced by this Government to restrict lending for housing. The rate of 12i per cent is about 4 per cent more than charges made by building societies and about 5i per cent higher than some bank rates. This Government should be forcing interest rates down, not forcing them up. As the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Whitlam) pointed out in an earlier debate dealing with this subject, 75 per cent of all housing loans from institutional lenders are now made at rates of interest which in total substantially exceed the value of the loan itself. The cost of interest on an $8,000 savings bank loan in 1949 totalled $4,456. It now totals $8,440 on the same loan. It is also pointed out that 24 per cent of all home buyers are obliged to secure an average of $2,000 from fringe lenders outside the banking system at very high interest rates.

The proportion of flats being built to houses is excessive. A recent estimate stated that in Western Australia a flat was built for every 2.2 houses. I get complaints - I suppose other members do, too - from families who have had their names down tor a State housing commission house and have had to accept a (flat. What sort of life is it for a family with young children having to live in a flat? Living like that is responsible for some of the growth in child delinquency. These are the slums of tomorrow. I cai) them terraces built on end without backyards. When calculating the extent to which the housing position is deteriorating each year it is necessary to take into account both the increase in population and the demolition of existing houses. It is estimated that in Western Australia 1,000 houses are condemned each year and demolished to make way for factories, offices, freeways and the like. Apart from the natural increase in population there are those people who come from overseas and this places an added burden on the States.

Immigration is the responsibility of the Commonwealth Government and therefore the housing of these people should become a Commonwealth responsibility and the Government should provide funds for this purpose. The number of migrants entering the State of Western Australia is high in proportion to the population and this places an added burden on the State. Instead of helping the people to secure homes, this Government has been responsible for making it more difficult. The credit squeeze has made housing finance more difficult to secure and it has forced up interest rates.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Lucock)Order! The honourable member’s time has expired.

Mr KATTER:
Kennedy

– I would like first of all to commend the Minister for Housing (Mr Kevin Cairns) for the intensity of his dedication to the framing of this Bill. I feel that no-one is more qualified to understand the human requirements of the ordinary every-day Australian when it comes to matters of housing because no-one has had to provide housing for a greater number of people in a family unit than has the Minister himself. I rather believe that the Minister, like myself, acts on the basis that people are more important than policies and even more important than parties. 1 think it would be wise to dwell for a moment on the attitude of the Australian Labor Party in regard to housing because certain trends in the altitudes of the Opposition might produce some rather interesting changes in the whole concept of housing. For instance, quite recently there began a move within the Labor Party- it is gaining momentum - which may produce the sort of house that has, instead of 2 towels marked ‘His’ and Hers’, 2 towels marked ‘His’ and ‘His’.

There is another very popular trend amongst the newer members of the Labor Party - 1 respect the older members of that Party - who are adopting the increasingly popular attitude which no doubt will culminate in abortion on demand. Well, I do not know where that will end. Will they want houses at all? This, of course, introduces some very novel ideas when it comes to matters of housing but the Bill itself indicates quite clearly that this Government has continued over a period of years to provide a standard of housing, both in quality and in numbers, that has pretty well become the envy of the whole world. T do not say that just to attract praise to the pretty wonderful record of this Government. 1 do not have to do that; the Australian people appreciate it. If we have any doubts about the appreciation by the people of Australia of this and other policies of the Government I suggest that it is interesting to look at recent election results. In the most recent election result at Ascot there was a 10 per cent swing against the Labor Party. It suffered a terrible defeat in the Northern Territory.

This is sad because many of the most fundamental principles of the Labor Party were cherished in the Northern Territory. Then, of course, we had the disaster for the so-called Labor Party in Queensland. 1 would tike particularly to dwell on one aspect of housing requirements in Queensland. When looking at the figures for the housing contributions to the States one might be immediately struck by the amount for Queensland which does not appear to be commensurate with allocations to the other States. But one must appreciate the fact that most of the centres that are developing quite dramatically in Queensland were developed on the basis of the new infrastructure provided by the various mining organisations, lt is interesting to note the commencement of this whole concept in regard to housing. 1 will not refer to everything else that goes into the infrastructure such as transport and so on. In my own headquarters at Mount Isa the whole concept not just in Australia but in’ the whole world began. The first barracks provided for employees, and their houses, vere provided in Mount Isa.

To this day in some of the great mining centres of the world - I have in mind the US, particularly the new Henderson mine some miles from Denver in the Rockies–’ one sees only the actual mining development. As regards housing one does not even see a hutch. I suppose this has offset to a very great degree what would be t’ie normal requirements for housing. However, here is a danger in itself, because the initial housing requirement in these centres- I again refer to Mount Isa because it is the city which I know best - has been exceeded. There are many people around Mount Tsa who are not directly associated with the mining development itself. It is these people, along with many of the employees of the mining company, who are in desperate circumstances for housing.

My office in Mount lsa is like a bureau. There are people coming in daily to plead for assistance to obtain a home for a man. his wife and perhaps some children. One of the things which I particularly put to the Minister tonight is that it would be a great contribution to assisting young people’ if there were bureaus at which they might inquire about housing provisions. So many housing schemes and so many benefits have been formulated and are available as a result of legislation introduced by this Government that most young people just do not know what is available to them. Recently at an auction for blocks of land in Mount Isa a few lots were left unsold. I imagine the reason for this is that young people do not know what finance or other assistance is available to them. I plead with the Minister to regard as a very special case the growing and emerging centres such as Blackwater, Moura and Mount Isa. It may be said that housing is being provided at a very rapid rate in these centres, perhaps more specifically by the companies themselves but frequently by arrangement between the companies and the State Government, but there are still many people who require housing. This number will increase despite the Opposition’s attitude: ‘We will all be ruined’, says Halloran. We hear the great cry of woe that is going up in regard to industry in this country. Everyone who has a sane attitude in regard to the economy of this country realises that this is in the short term and we will be out of the woods and our economy will be as virile as it ever was in a very short space of time. I extend to the Minister an invitation - which I assume he will accept - to visit these mining centres over the next few months. I would like him to come up when the climatic conditions are at their worst because this is when one appreciates how terribly necessary it is to have comfortable, airy and air-conditioned housing. If I may put it on record, it was my great privilege to introduce an air-conditioning scheme in my own town of Cloncurry which has resulted in just about every home in the town being air-conditioned. I suggest that local government organisations should have a look at a scheme such as this one so that homes may be air-conditioned in inland areas of this country where the climatic conditions are harsh and where it is not unusual for temperatures to vary between 105 and 115 degrees week in week out. I might mention that this type of heat is much more tolerable than the sort of thing produced in Canberra, particulary in this chamber. It would be a good idea to assist these people in inland areas completely, by eliminating the sales tax on air-conditioning units. The sales tax is little enough now; however, it is still there, lt would be good if a scheme such as this could become a general and standard scheme for communities such as we have in the inland of Australia which are subject to great heat conditions. Not only does air-conditioning of homes in these centres provide better climatic conditions but it also eliminates dust and this is a big benefit for housewives in those areas.

One of the most convincing statements made after the last meeting of Commonwealth and State Housing Ministers was that made by Mr Hodges, the Minister for Housing in the Queensland Government. It is interesting to see what he finally said. When he got back from the meeting he stated:

While we have had some very frank discussions with the Commonwealth I must in all fairness to the Commonwealth say that 1 do not doubt for one minute the sincerity of its desire to assist the States in housing low and moderate income families. 1 must further say that in some respects there arc advantages to the States in the new Commonwealth proposals.

Add that statement to the comment by Mr Dunstan, the Premier of South Australia, and we realise that the States themselves are at last content, or nearly so, with the Commonwealth proposals. It is an achievement in itself to make the States content about anything with which the Commonwealth has something to do. Our Minister is apparently acceptable in the eyes of the State governments.

I appreciate that the Queensland Government, like all other State governments, has its resources strained almost to breaking point. I suppose most of the States are doing a splendid job in allocating available financial resources to housing. Whatever be the reason and whatever be the necessary financial arrangement. I say quite emphatically that something must be done about housing for railway employees in the State of Queensland. I imagine that my comments would apply to many other States. During last week when the House was not sitting I went along the railway line in part of my electorate, and I was appalled at the conditions under which some of those men had to exist. In one centre they had tried everything except strike action in an endeavour to obtain better housing. They said to me: ‘It looks as though we will have to employ strike action’. I said: ‘If you do, use my name as commending your strike action’. They went on strike the following week and there was not a murmur from anyone. J was one of the first to say: “By hell, they had every right to go on strike’.

In conclusion there are 2 points I want to make specifically. Firstly, 1 want the Minister to examine closely the system of companies providing housing for perhaps the hard core of a population in a town and then, as the growth of this area begins to snowball, there are people on the fringe of the town who are not able to get housing. lt is pretty distressing to see this happen. I ask him most specifically to look into this matter with the object of perhaps providing some special funds. I know it is easy to talk like this, but unless we have people correctly housed we will have discontented people, lt is bad enough having discontented people in the great urban areas on which the Australion Labor Party, or what now purports to be the Australian Labor Party, concentrates all its efforts. It is much worse to lack adequate housing out in (he distant areas which constitute my electorate. The second point I make is that railway employees in many isoloted areas of Queensland cannot continue to live in the circumstances in which they live at (he moment. Their housing is not fit for ti well trained horse-

Mr GARRICK:
Batman

– I support the amendment moved by the honourable member for Reid (Mr Uren), lt is readily apparent that this Bill expresses without inhibition the Government’s cavalier attitude towards the human housing needs of what ‘he Minister for Housing (Mr Kevin Cairns) describes as persons of low or moderate means. These people of course do much of the toil to create much of the wealth of this nation. There was a time when the Commonwealth and State Housing Agreement was the hope not only of persons of low or moderate means, whatever (hat might mean objectively, but also of the well to do members of this nation who give this Government much of its electoral support. These latter believed that man’s nature is not only immutable but also such that the naked and unshamed pursuit of private profit is the mechanism which brings about social evolution and historical change. But of course those who have done well under the system have some doubts, so their guilt is salved by their expression of noblesse oblige. So while engaging in the unbridled pursuit of private profit, they are sometimes benevolent enough to regret the socially necessary hardships that the pursuit of private profit imposes on so many of our people.

It is little wonder then that the Minister panders to the consciousness of these benevolent souls when he says in his second reading speech:

We believe that the Commonwealth should continue to assist the States to provide housing for persons of low or moderate means.

This sentence should properly be expressed: ‘We believe that the Commonwealth should continue to do as little as we have been doing to provide housing for persons of low or moderate means’. In his following sentences he says:

But the assistance should be provided in a different but more readily identifiable form, so that the amount of benefit being provided can be seen by all.

The meaning of these sentences is that the more things change the more they are the same, and that the purpose of the change is merely to make that which is rotten appear beneficial. Instead of trying to make things seem different or better than they are, the Commonwealth Government, should use its abundant powers to take positive action lo ensure that the basic human needs of a house on a piece of ground should be the right of all. No one would want to make it obligatory for everyone to live in a house, but there are more than a few who are making it obligatory for the low income earners to live in a high rise fla’. It is sad that all too often the human need for basic accommodation results in people accepting with gratitude a flat in a 20-storey high rise vertical filing cabinet. Beggars cannot be choosers. And the hope of self-actualised, autonomous life in the privacy of a place of their own in a garden of their own is dashed. The majority of people who live in them would prefer not to live in these 20-storey abominations.

There is no doubt that their existence can be attributed, firstly, to the needs of the central business district. This is clearly an instance of persons being used to satisfy the demands of a human creation. It is one of the forms of 20th century human sacrifice. Secondly, it can be a attributed to the need to reduce the demand for housing. Most public servants are dedicated decent persons devoted to their jobs. However, they are condemned for good or ill to act within a given context. Consequently, it does seem that they have no choice but to abstract a demand lor housing from a demand from human being for houses to bring up children, and in which to enjoy a private lite. Thirdly, it can be attributed to the needs of technocrats to test their ability. It is only human that our technocrats would want to test their abilities. While it is not particularly human for one section to satisfy its vanities at the expense of those who are powerless, it is disgusting that politicians, who by definition are people oriented should permit them to do so.

Why the Government has neither encouraged nor demanded of the States experimentation in the design of low cost housing to allow for the changing needs of families amazes me. But of course it does not surprise me. It may have escaped the notice of the Government that less than half a century ago a 2-bedroom villa, with perhaps an enclosed front verandah, satisfied the needs of most families. This is not the case today. The demand is for much greater variation to meet the demands of the various members of the family, even though families have decreased in size. These needs apply to the families of low income earners also. This Bill offers no evidence that the government is aware that families are not standardised, lt appears to be totally unaware that low income housing, more than any other, should provide for flexibility of use. The Government has been equally tardy in encouragement or demand upon the States for experimentation in the areas of construction methods, and in materials used. Of course the building industry appears to be very conservative in matters of design and materials.

Even people without long memories will readily appreciate that new developments in the building industry meet with prejudice. There are plenty of people who without considering the merits, if any, of concrete, or plastic, or steel sheet houses, will condemn them out of hand in favour of brick veneer constructions. Yet it is not so many years since people of equal wisdom gratuitously disparaged brick veneer houses, affirming that they would not stand up in a strong wind. Perhaps Australia’s building industry has not recovered from the tumult and the fury that ushered in the brick veneer, and for that reason the Government may not be prepared to encourage experimentation. But whatever the reason for its reluctance, we are not prepared to say that to know all is to forgive all. The Government has a responsibility to provide houses for our people - houses which will enable them to live a good life. Therefore it should demand that houses be designed which meet people’s needs.

The Commonwealth has the power to lay down the conditions under which it makes funds available to the various State housing authorities. In one sense it has played a positive role in ensuring that the Victorian Housing Commission makes available public housing for those on low incomes. However, the Victorian Housing Commission has been doing this in the inner areas of Melbourne in a totally unacceptable way. It has in many instances, with a terrible heartlessness, deprived low income groups of houses which they did not want to part with, so much so, that as recently as August of this year, no fewer than 250 residents of Fitzroy which is in my electorate marched in protest into the Brooks Crescent area, where the Commission was attempting to have a demolition order placed on the street so that the houses could be torn down to make way for another high-rise ant-hill; in answer to the demand for more houses. One of the residents pointed out to the protesters that it was ironical and incongruous that potentially good houses should be pulled down against the wishes of the owners to make way for flats.

The Commonwealth should insist on some money being made available for the renovation of houses in a state of disrepair. It has failed to respond to the needs of people for funds to renovate existing houses. Many people presently residing in the inner suburbs have made clear their satisfaction with their houses, in every particular but one, namely, their need for renovation. As we travel through these areas, we see evidence of successful renovation. But also we see the results of brave attempts which have ended in failure. While in many instances the failures result from lack of informed knowledge, they frequently result from too little money being available to do the renovation properly. On the basis of any cost-benefit equation there are excellent grounds for the Government to insist that a large sum be made available to house owners or purchasers for renovation at low interest. Furthermore, failure to take steps to ensure that funds are made available for renovation, encourages the Victorian Housing Commission to press on with its wanton destruction of what is potentially good living accommodation for accommodation which is less conducive to the good life.

Consider the variety and diversity that renovation would preserve, not only for the sake of keeping things because they are old. hut also keeping them for the good effect that variety and diversity have on the imaginations, not only of adults, but also of the children growing up in the community. In the inner suburban areas which are part of my electorate are uninteresting land masses which nature has left unadorned, but also which man in his buildings has made, if not beautiful to the trained eye, at least exciting and entertaining to those who enjoy novelty and variety. Here we can see Californian bungalows. Spanish mission houses, Queen Anne houses with their broken picturesque roofs, with False gables and frilled ridges, ‘boom’ style houses with their slate roofs hidden behind stucco balustered parapets, and the Italian influence in houses with their proud slate roofs, and iron porches with cast iron lace. There are a mixture of these, with factories of various sorts and sizes, of churches with a gothic touch, and others displaying a Norman style, while a few are modern, and shops whose purposes and styles are as varied and seemingly unconnected as its houses, gives the community a vitality that 1 regret is being undermined by uncertainty about the future.

Many of the residents do not care about this community. They see it as a mess of old run down houses and they will sell out for flat development, which also will add to the variety of the community. But many are prepared to hold fast to that which they have, even at some cost for renovation, and this Government should ensure that they are assisted to do just that, lt is worth comment here that the Minister’s predecessor. Dame Annabelle Rankin, on the occasion of an address to the building and construction forum in Melbourne on 29th September last year said that factory production of homes might well accelerate by the late 1970s to satisfy anticipated growth which the skilled building labour force might not be able to meet. While not particularly relevant to this matter. I should just like to say in passing that the former Minister’s observation that the skilled building labour force might noi he able to satisfy the anticipated growth will not prove to be the reason for factory production, rather than the fact that fewer and fewer skills are now required as a result of the division of labour and the growth of technology.

The relevant aspect of Dame Annabelle’s observation is the recognition that the factory production of houses is not far off. She evidently forgot that factory production of houses is old hat in th:s country. There are numerous steel houses, built during the Chifley Governm nt period of office, much to the chagrin of the conservative elements of the building industry, and of course there is the Victorian Housing Commission’s Holmesglen factory for the production of concrete houses. I believe that this factory previous y employed 400 men but now has only 80 on its staff. Members will know that the Victorian Housing Commission’s prefabricated concrete factory at Holmesglen, is the only war-time munitions factory in Victoria which has been converted to a peace-time use. This factory’s activities should be extended. This Government should insist that the Holmesglen enterprise should not only be extended to provide low cost housing, but should also be permitted to compete with private enterprise in all aspects of building. It also should be permitted to make and sei] concrete housing components under contract to speculative builders and retail outlets. As a building material, concrete is as good as the best, and better than most. Given a free hand there is no doubt that the Holmesglen factory- could do much to provide late 20th century housing for Australians.

Only myopic vision and lack of openness to the future - not constitutional impediment - prevents this Government from insisting on the States doing the following: Firstly, extending the Holmesglen prefabricated concrete factory’s activities to include competition with speculative bi,i.d:rs; secondly, ensuring that provision is made for expert advice and the granting of loans for the renovation of houses in the inner suburbs; and, thirdly, taking positive steps to ensure that low income houses, which inevitably are small, have sufficient inbuilt flexibility of design to m?2i the changing needs of families. While I cannot speak with authority about the qualities of the other State housing authorities, there is no doubt that the Victorian Housing Commission is a much better body than its public image would suggest. Instead of being blamed for the shortcomings in the policies of both the Commonwealth and State Governments in meeting the immediate needs of thousands of Australians, the Commonwealth should insist on its being given a chance to prove itself. The policies should be changed along the lines I have suggested.

Referring again to Dame Annabelle’s address to the building and construction forum in September of last year, I would draw honourable members’ attention to her intention to ask the States to use more of the Commonwealth advances for housing needy families on the lowest income scales. One should have thought that the proper policy for the Government to pursue in this regard would be one of suggesting initiatives along the lines I have suggested which would enable the States to make better use of existing resources on the one hand, and on the other hand should more than that be required - more than that is required - the Government should make funds available. The responsibility for ensuring that every Australian is housed as a member of an affluent society in the latter third of the 20th century is a Commonwealth responsibility. Only the Commonwealth Government has the powers to ensure that families are raised in an environment that does not place strains on the other needs of the families. We do not want a situation wherein the whole family has to go to work to pay for a house. I regret that this is a position that pertains in far too many families in my electorate. The grants being offered to the States under this Bill are insufficient to do that which should be done. But worse, this Bill and the Minister’s second reading speech make explicit the Government’s failure to recognise the enormity of the problem that confronts a low income family. The Minister said:

Advances under the housing agreements with the States have been used to provide reasonablypriced rental accommodation for low income families and to assist these families to own their own homes by the offer of low-deposit long term loans at a concessional rate of interest.

While I would not like to see the rule applied very rigidly, and would agree that a slightly ambiguous wording does give room for negotiation, I would like lo know precisely what is meant by ‘low income family’, because in my own State a person who docs not earn considerably above the minimum wage is not considered as a purchaser, as he cannot afford under the prevailing conditions to make the purchase repayments. Furthermore, many people who are experiencing great difficulty in making ends meet are considered to be earning too much to qualify for a housing commission house.

The Minister cannot justify his Government’s indifference to the plight of low income earners. He may rationalise, of course. It looks good to say that provision is made for low income earners. One of the Minister’s stated reasons for altering the existing arrangements is to make the Government’s inhuman policy look good. But analysis shows that this Bill sets out cynically to hoodwink those whose interest in the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement is cursory. It certainly cannot hoodwink those thousands of families anxiously awaiting a place of their own.

The Government’s concern for low income earners should be expressed through its willingness to ensure th-tt no annual repayment exceeds one-fifth of the purchaser’s annual wage, and that the interest rate does not exceed 3 per cent. In the sentence which follows the one I have just quoted, the Minister says:

We believe that the Commonwealth should continue to assist the Slates to provide housing for persons of low or moderate means . . .

He does not say whether this housing should take the form of flat units or villas. The Minister’s silence in this regard I consider ominous for the expectations of many low income earners.

Tt is not unlikely that there will be a reduction in the numbers of houses built for sale to low income earners, and it is certain that there will be a rise in rents. No lesser authority than the Minister for Housing in the Victorian State Parliament was reported in the Melbourne ‘Sun’ not so many days ago as saying that housing rents and repayment instalments could rise under the terms of this Bill. In ‘.he Parliament of that State, in referring to the rental assistance grant, he said: i feel i should point out to the House that whilst the $331,000 per annum to be received by Victoria is welcome, it should be realised that last year the cost of rebated rentals to this State was $1,834,030, and, if my forecast that loan applications and rentals must increase is realised, this cost to the State will certainly increase. We would have hoped that the new Minister for Housing in the Federal Parliament would have ushered in a new deal in housing. Regrettably, this was not to be. What we have is the same nondescript wine in new bottles. The Minister has ignored a fundamental truth, which was expressed at the building and construction forum last year:

We cannot hope to eliminate poverty, or to derive full benefit from improved health and education services without making proper provision for housing. lt is hypocritical for us to celebrate national affluence and prosperity while so many Australians are so wretchedly ill-housed, or so impoverished by Hie cost of housing.

Proper housing for all is the foundation and prerequisite of genuine national prosperity.’

The Government makes no insistence in this Bill, despite its undoubted powers to do so; to really tackle the housing problems of this nation. Its genuine concern in this matter would have been expressed in the demand that provision be made for the extension of the activities of the Holmesglen factory; the provision for advice and loans for the renovation of houses; and the insistence on experimentation to ensure flexibility of accommodation in low cost housing. Its failure to do so condemns it as a government and renders this Bill unimaginative, archaic, and inadequate.

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– The debate on the States Grants (Housing) Bill 1971 is nothing like the inspiring debate which one would expect it to be. Some 15 or 16 years ago I started to make my first speeches on housing in this place, and 1 think it is a fair thing to say that I have never heard a less inspiring debate on housing than the one which is presently taking place. There is an atmosphere of despondency over the whole Parliament. On previous occasions the view has been taken that there has been an opportunity for the Parliament to breathe life into the next Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement, but the fact is that we will not have any more Commonwealth-State Housing Agreements. We have reached the end of the tether. We have had these agreements for 26 years. There has been a Commonwealth involvement in housing and a preparedness on the part of the Commonwealth to help condition the States’ attitudes to housing. But now, as I have said, we have reached the end of the line - at least while this Government remains in office.

Conversely, the policy of the Australian Labor Party is to stimulate a very vigorous Commonwealth involvement in housing and an effective partnership with the States. We propose that there should be a Commonwealth Department of Housing, Urban Affairs and Regional Development, and we have a very highly developed programme which is designed to give effect to those objectives. But the innocuous provisions in this Bill demonstrate the pathetically puerile outlook of the Government and the Minister for Housing (Mr Kevin Cairns) in respect of the housing needs of the Australian people. Stripped of its verbose verbiage and reduced to its basic principles, this new measure represents nothing more than an inadequate handout to the States to meet the crushing and rising interest burden on the State housing programmes. The proposals do not even provide for adjustments to meet future increases in the bond rate and the interest rates which will be paid as a consequence by the States. The proposals contained in this Bill are to represent the Commonwealth’s main contribution to housing for the next 30 years - if there is no change of government. That is to say, from now until the turn of the century - to the year 2000 - Australians are to be deprived of major Commonwealth initiatives designed to overcome the nation’s housing needs.

Without leadership and financial support from Canberra the States, for example, can never build a new city; they can never get people out of the expanding slums in the great cities, nor can they provide houses for the rising generations. Yet this indifference which has already crept through the ranks of the Government regrettably seems to be sweeping through the Parliament. Nothing in this Bill - this new McMahon line on housing, the 1971 Liberal master plan for the next 3 decades - is designed to slacken the spiralling cost of building land which has alreadyrisen in State capitals by 150 per cent over the last 10 years and which is now rising at unprecedented rates. Yet this is supposed to be the vision splendid - the hope of the homeless which has been eulogised by some honourable members opposite. They appear to be compatibly uninspired bv the Minister for Housing. The act of making public funds - taxpayers’ funds - available for housing can be wasteful unless governments ensure that the principle of value for money is upheld. But this Government just does not seem to care what is happening to this money, and 1 will talk about this aspect shortly.

An inevitable sequel to this Bill is that the S2.75m which the States will receive each year as compensation for the higher interest they are required to pay for their housing loans, will be swallowed up in rising land costs, and this will be reflected in the rental and purchase price of homes built by State housing authorities throughout Australia. The fact of the matter is that the States sought from the Commonwealth money at 4 per cent interest to build homes for low income earners.

Mr Uren:

– That was in November 1 970.

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– That was in November 1970. as my colleague the honourable member for Reid has mentioned. But instead the Commonwealth has imposed a 7 per cent interest burden - an unprecedented interest rate, as I think the Minister would be prepared to concede, although I think he might find it safer to say nothing at all. The Commonwealth has abandoned the principle of providing a concessional rate which is 1 per cent less than the ruling bond rate, and I think the Minister would agree that that is a proper thing to say. To compensate for the higher rale of interest, a gram of S2.75m .a year is to he made to the States over the next 30 years. The immediate reaction to these proposals has been disappointment on the part of the State Ministers for Housing, ft was hoped that after 25 or 26 years experience with other State housing agreements the nev. scheme would he based on an effective Commonwealth-State partnership with the Commonwealth accepting a proper share of responsibility. What has happened in fact? No new ideas are embodied in the new scheme and the best features of the old scheme have been abandoned.

I was interested to see what the Sydney Sun’ had to say about this matter. The political correspondent for that paper, Mr John O’Hara, soon after the State Ministers had reported to the Press what the Commonwealth intended to do in this matter, said:

State Government circles expect the new CommonwealthStates housing agreement for lowincome earners lo break down within a year because of rising land and housing costs.

Mr O’Hara went on to say that this was the real reason why the Sta’.es had decided to accept the scheme. What a terrible thing. The States have accepted it because they believe it will break down. The only way to stop the Commonwealth is to blow the whole thing up and start again. Mr O’Hara went on to state:

According to Government sources, this consideration lay behind the New South Wales acceptance last Friday of Commonwealth dictated agreement terms.

In other words, it was only accepted because it would prove a failure. He went on to contend that Mr Dunstan and the New South Wales Housing Minister, Mr Stephens, were ‘Operating on the conviction that their Status needed immediate aid financially from the Commonwealth, and that the terms of this aid, after 12 months, would become manifestly inadequate’. The Sun’ claimed that Mr Dunstan acted on the conviction that the situation would change dramatically after the next Federal election with a Labor government in power.

There is the situation. The States have reluctantly agreed to acquiesce in this matter because they know they cannot possibly carry on under the proposals which are the subject matter of this Bill. The whole arrangement is going to come crashing down within 12 months or less. There will be a hopeless situation in regard to housing the low income families in the various Sta es. The Premiers believed that accepting this agreement was the only way they could get the Commonwealth to consider the implementation of an effective scheme. There is not one piece of evidence to show that the long queue for State housing authority homes will be reduced because of this Bill. In fact, there is every indication that the queue will get longer and longer. In New South Wales, the waiting time for a 3-bedroom home now stands a’ 4 years, and for elderly single people at about 6 years. At the end of June this year that State had no less than 37.641 applicants listed for 3-bedroom homes. Each year the list of outstanding applicants grows longer in New South Wales and the situation generally is the same in every other State in the Commonwealth.

This Bill does not even specify that additional funds will be available for the total State works and housing programme. How does the Prime Minister (Mr McMahon) and the Minister for Housing at the table - this nonchalant Minister - reconcile this disinclination to assist States with housing with the bulging Budget surplus which I think stands at a record level of $630m. Is it unreasonable that the State Housing Ministers are expecting the Commonwealths coffers to be opened to help them alleviate what is now the worst housing crisis in Australia’s history? What is the reason why this has not been done? The Commonwealth seems to be completely indifferent and quite incapable of acting on any of the matters which are causing this housing situation to deteriorate. A short time ago I was looking at a newspaper cutting which is headed ‘6.9 per cent Cost Rise in Housing’. This article says, in effect, that the cost of materials for housing building in the 6 State capitals rose by 6.9 per cent in the 12 months to August 1971. Is the Minister concerned about that? He must know that this increase is being passed on to young couples without much help from this Government. In Melbourne and Brisbane the cost rose by 7.8 per cent. In Adelaide it rose by 7.5 per cent, Perth 6.8 per cent and Sydney 5.6 per cent. In that year the cost of a number of very important building components rose at a staggering rate. Steel prices rose by 9.9 per cent; cement by 9.6 per cent; concrete mix and sand by 9.4 per cent; and timber boards and joinery by 8.1 per cent. Of course, housing is the first casualty when these prices are allowed to spiral in this way. In the United States of America action is taken by the administration to keep the price of such basic com modities as steel and cement at a reasonable level. But there is no preparedness to do anything along these lines here.

I remember very well the right honourable member for Higgins (Mr Gorton) when he was Prime Minister in March of this year making a statement expressing concern about the deployment of our resources in the building industry. He was very concerned that there was a tendency to utilise so much of our resources in the building of great office blocks - nondwellings. I think at that time the expenditure in the dwelling areas had fallen by about 6 per cent. He raised this matter by way of a special statement. He said in the statement of 5th March:

The Treasurer and I met this morning for discussions about the growth in the private nondwelling building construction area which, as I indicated in my address to the cation on 29th January last, is one of the matters we have under examination in our attack on threatening inflationary growth.

He went on to say that he met representatives of the building industry and learned that the value of office blocks on which construction commenced in 1969-70 was S263m. He said that he wanted this curtailed. He said that there was 11.2 million square feet of office space being provided and that this was significantly greater than the annual demand for new office space. He went on to say that the Treasurer and he had agreed to arrange regular quarterly meetings with representatives of the industry so that this matter could be brought under effective control and that reports would be given on the results of these meetings. But the attitudes which were espoused by the Prime Minister of the day, the right honourable member for Higgins, have now been abandoned and the present Minister and the Government just do not seem to care how we utilise our resources. Here again, we have a matter for very great regret. As I look through the schedule of areas where land prices are soaring I can have only great pity for the young people in Australia.

Yet it is staggering that while land prices are rising in all the other capital cities land prices in Canberra have remained steady for about 5 years. Here we have the most apparent lesson of all which the Government is quite unprepared to take to heart. We could do the same kind of things in the States as we are, in fact, doing in Canberra where we have the advantage of utilising Crown land on a leasehold system. There being vast areas of Crown land available for development in other States, we should be able to invoke a similar system there. But instead we read as 1 read here from an article in the Sydney ‘Daily Mirror’ of land prices rising in the Belrose-French’s Forest area from S5.600 in 1963 to $13,564 today. In Ryde and Epping land costs rose from $4,000 in 1962 to $16,000 in 1968. In Sutherland these costs increased from $5,680 in 1962 to SI 2,000 in 1967. So the Figures go on and on and on.

Young couples within my own electorate some 17 miles from Sydney are now paying between $10,000 and $15,000 for a block of land. This Government just does nol seem to care about this situation. Approximately 68,000 marriages in which the bridegroom is under 26 years of age occur each year. Imagine the plight of the-.e people. These couples are blessed and sanctified by the church but almost completely disregard by the Commonwealth Government. Once, until 1950, a developer might enter an area, clear it of a few trees, (rump a bit of gravel down and then the land would be ready for a house to be erected on it. Now, as someone said this afternoon, all kinds of requirements apply. There is a need for sealed roads, kerbing and guttering, the provision of water and sewerage and allocation of parts of an area for development as parks and playgrounds. Sometimes some 10 per cent of an area is set aside for this purpose. Experts say that the cost of these extra amounts on average to approximately $3,000 a block.

The cost of development of roads, footpaths, kerbing, guttering and parks at one time was met by ratepayers. But these costs became a burden on ratepayers when calculated on a municipal or shire basis. This situation now is that the cost of these developments falls on individual couples and the price of the land they purchase is increased accordingly. It seems to me that some special consideration must be taken of this fact. The Australian Labor Party proposes to do something towards that end. We know of the burden of interest rates. We propose to assist young couples in this regard. We will assist particularly those who, in the early years of their married life, are paying so much by way of interest charges. A home buyer now must pay twice as much in interest as he pays in meeting his loan commitment. One in every 4 home buyers is forced now to outlay more than one-third of his weekly earnings to pay off his borrowings for house and land.

This measure is a most disappointing one. I believe that the Australian housing situation will degenerate in a most serious way. I only hope that the Minister will take the opportunity to see what comparable countries are doing. In other countries, national governments are playing an effective role in an effective partnership with their states to meet the current problems of the day and to introduce necessary panaceas to meet the problems which young people and people in particular categories are experiencing. I commend to the House the amendment which has been moved by the honourable member for Reid which advocates special consideration for the housing needs of pensioners, migrants, Aborigines, deserted wives and similarly disadvantaged people.

Mr HANSEN:
Wide Bay

– 1 rise to support the amendment moved bv the honourable member for Reid (Mr Uren). This Bill has been described by the Minister for Housing (Mr Kevin Cairns) and other Government speakers in this debate as representing a change. But how much of a change does it represent? Since this measure was first publicised the Minister has adopted a stock phrase. He used it tonight when interjecting to the honourable member for Hughes (Mr Les Johnson). The Minister said: ‘You do not understand the Bill’. He said the same thing to the Queensland Minister for Housing, Mr Max Hodges. When Mr Hodges complained that the States were being let down, the Minister for Housing said: ‘You do not understand the Bill’.

To enable honourable members to understand the purpose of this Bill, I put it to the Minister that he should follow the example of his predecessors. When the first Minister for Housing in this Government, the honourable member for Wentworth (Mr Bury), who held the portfolio in 1964 and 1965, and the former Minister for Housing, Dame Annabelle Rankin, introduced measures of this nature, and particularly legislation associated with the home savings grants scheme, they issued explanatory memoranda which to some extent enabled people who were interested in a Bill to understand it a little better. My understanding is that the grant over 30 years represents the equivalent of the 1 per cent interest rebate over the 53 years duration of the loan. But, in effect, this does not take into account the actual amounts that might be sought by the States because the amounts of the grants in lieu of the 1 per cent rebate have been fixed for a 5- year period.

The housing industry has always been considered as the barometer of the economy. We find a falling off in housing - not so much in the building trade generally - when the economy is tightened. The honourable member for Wentworth in 1965 stated that to dampen down housing because of undue expansion in other sectors of the economy could distort our ultimate priorities for survival. The same honourable member earlier this afternoon, when he followed the honourable member for Reid in this debate, criticised the Australian Labor Party policy which proposes a subsidy of 2 per cent in respect of interest repayments on a home for the first 10 years of those repayments. He said that people might keep up their interest repayments so that they might obtain this 2 per cent rebate and invest their money elsewhere. My knowledge of most people who are purchasing a home on a mortgage or who are buying a home from a State housing commission is that they have not money to re-invest or to speculate in this way. The honourable member for Wentworth stated that taxpayers’ money cannot be used to support private people. But taxpayers’ money is being used by way of this grant to support people and to provide them with cheaper housing.

In his amendment, the honourable member for Reid has made special mention of lower income earners, pensioners, migrants, Aborigines, deserted wives and similar disadvantaged people. T do not think that any member of this House, irrespective of the type of electorate that he represents, has not at some stage or other come across people of this type. It is generally accepted that one-fifth of the earnings of a low wage earner is the maximum that he can spend on housing and still provide adequately for his family. We believe that the States have been able to live up to their responsibilities in this regard. What is happening in fixing the grant is that the States will not be encouraged to enter into higher borrowings to provide housing of this type because no encouragement is offered to them to increase their borrowings in this regard. When they received a ratio of reduction on the I par cent rebate on interest, there was encouragement but now no encouragement is given because the amount that is divided among the States is fixed for the period specified in the Bill.

The Bill ako provides for a noncumulative grant of Si. 25m each year for the next 5 years, totalling S6.25m, which is to be used, to quote the Minister: . . for the purpose of reducing rents for families in indigent circumstances’. I presume that the States have met the costs of these rebates from profits from the operations of housing authorities. My reason for believing this is to be found at page 60 of the Commonwealth Grants Commission 37th Report of 1970. Under the heading ‘Housing Finance’ the report states:

Tasmania is the only State to bring into its budget the profit of its Housing Authority and the cost of rental rebates. In that Slate the cost of the rebates exceeds the profit arising from other aspects of the Homing Department’s activities, in other States the profit is at least sufficient to cover the cost of any such concessions. lt also stales:

In support of its suggestion Tasmania claimed that ‘in the standard States, mainly because of their large scale operations, the activities of the Housing authorities are profitable, even after making rental rebates’. It also claimed that profits retained and made available for further housing development represents interest free money available for the construction of houses which can be rented or sold on the same basis as houses built with interest bearing loans’.

I ask the Minister: How was this profit made? Was it made by charging higher rentals than were necessary? Was the profit to meet the rental rebate made by increasing the prices of homes which were offered for sale? Will the fact that the States are now to receive $ 1.25m to meet the cost of providing a rental rebate instead of having to find the money from the profits of their own operations mean that there will be cheaper rental rates and will it mean that the overall price of homes will be reduced? 1 do not know the answer to those questions. I would like to believe that this will be so hut, if the usual trends are followed, T do not think it will be.

Some mention has been made of wage rises affecting the cost of building houses. My colleague, the honourable member for Hughes, referred to increases in the wholesale prices of building materials. The Treasury Information Bulletin’ of October 1971 states at page 19:

The wholesale price index of materials used in house building increased by 1.1 per cent between June 1971 and September 1971. In the 12 months to September. this index rose by 7.3 per cent. The largest increases during this period were recorded in the. group indexes for steel products (11.0 per cent), cement products (9.8 per cent) and concrete mix, cement and sand (8.5 per cent)

In view of . those rising costs one might wonder why no arrangement has been made for an alteration in the rebates that will be going to the States by way of grants. lt has been said that the States are all agreeable to this legislation. . The fact is that a second meeting had to be called of the Commonwealth and State Ministers for Housing. We have heard pious utterances from supporters of the Government of Commonwealth-State co-operation instead of federalism. It should be remembered that, as the Commonwealth holds the purse strings, the State Ministers for Housing had no more option than did the wheat growers or dairy farmers who were told to reduce their production. They had to accept the Commonwealth’s demand. It was simply a matter of no money being made available if no co-operation was given. If is very easy to obtain co-operation when one is holding the purse strings. Irrespective of the thoughts of the various Ministers for Housing in the States and their opposition to the Commonwealth’s proposal they had a job to do and the Commonwealth was holding out on them. It was therefore very easy for the Commonwealth to obtain the co-operation of the States. I suppose many of the members of the Australian Country Party will agree with me that the best way to get a poddy calf to drink its milk is to let it go without it until it is hungry. A similar situation applied in regard to the negotiations beween the Commonwealth and State Ministers for Housing.

I can readily understand why certain Ministers for Housing are happy about the percentage of the grant they will receive. I can equally understand why others, like Mr Hodges of Queensland, have expressed disappointment. The percentage of the grant is fixed for 5 years. So too, though on a different ratio, is the percentage of the grant for rental rebate. Neither makes any allowance for variations in the demand for housing or increases in costs in the States. The demands for housing in Western Australia and South Australia have tapered off to some degree. When a Labor government is restored to office in Queensland next year there will be an unprecedented demand in that State for Government housing. I would prefer to see the percentage varied over a shorter period than 5 years.

The second part of the amendment which the honourable member for Reid has proposed requests the Commonwealth Government lo provide the States with adequate funds to enable them to acquire existing dwellings for restoration and allocation by way of rental or sale. Anyone who has had any experience of trying to purchase a home will admit that it is very hard to obtain a loan for homes which are IS years of age or older. Parents of families which have grown up and left their homes to live elsewhere or to get married, often find themselves in a home which is larger than they need and which requires a considerable amount of upkeep. As they get older and find i’. getting more difficult to look after their homes so they often move into smaller ones. These larger homes are generally within the inner city areas. Because of their location they are usually serviced and do not require, as the honourable member for Hughes pointed out, channelling and kerbing and all the other service facilities because they are already there. But anyone who is interested in purchasing one of these homes will find out as soon as he goes to a bank or any other lending authority that as soon as the age of the home is mentioned he is asked immediately for a substantial deposit. That immediately puts off most young couples, particularly those in their twenties.

More people are now marrying in their twenties. People are marrying at a much younger age. These people have not usually got the deposit which is necessary to buy the type of home to which I have been referring, although it is often cheaper than other homes which are available to them. Perhaps such a home will need some repairs as time goes on. Nevertheless these people are young enough to face up to this problem. This type of home would suit them better because it is larger. These homes are what one would regard as family homes. Lots of young people are interested not in a little 2-bedroom flat or home unit but in larger homes in serviced areas. Many of them would be able to buy these homes if they were available on a lower deposit or if such a body as a State housing authority were to buy them and make them available to these young people on the same conditions as these bodies make available homes which they themselves construct. If this were done the local authorities would not be faced with the task of having to provide services on the fringes of the cities. One also would not find dead hearts in the cities because the inner areas would be alive with people. These people would not be crowded into high rise home units. They would be young families who are prepared, because of their work and because the type of home suits them, to live in homes in these areas. However, these young people are at the moment debarred for financial reasons from acquiring these homes. I believe that, in particular, the second proposal put forward by the honourable member for Reid is worthy of the attention of the Government. I have much pleasure in supporting the Opposition’s amendment.

Mr KEOGH:
Bowman

– I rise this evening to support the amendment moved by the honourable member for Reid (Mr Uren). As appears from the terms of that amendment, the Opposition believes that the Government has continued its long standing practice of failing to provide for the housing needs of Australians at an economic rental or purchase price. We looked forward for some months earlier this year to a new housing agreement which was being prepared for the consideration of the States. I, like so many Australians, had hoped that the new agreement would show a revitalised interest by the Government in the housing needs of Australians.

It is not the Opposition’s intention this evening to oppose this measure. Wc find ourselves in a position, which the States also face, in which we must reluctantly accept the Government’s proposals and allow the passage of the Bill through the House. We are in a position similar to that of the States when they were confronted by the Commonwealth and found themselves with virtually no alternative but to accept the agreement presented to them by the Commonwealth. In some respects certain States found advantages in the proposals that were put to them. However, in other respects the proposals were most unacceptable to them but they had virtually no alternative to accepting the Commonwealth’s proposals.

The Bill should have been the result of a beneficial arrangement planned in consultation with the States. However, it is not so. On 22nd April this year in this House the Minister for Housing (Mr Kevin Cairns) gave a clear understanding to the House that the Commonwealth would confer with the States for the purpose of preparing a new 5-year housing agreement. That promise, something of a departure from the usual practice of the Government, many of us thought was to be in line with the announced intention of the Prime Minister (Mr McMahon) to introduce a new approach to Commonwealth-State financial relations. The promise was soon to be broken. The proposed conference with the States was never held. Instead of consultation before the preparation of the agreement, this arrangement was conceived in secrecy by the Government. It was then thrust upon the States in a blatantly deceitful manner, leaving them little alternative but to accept it. Although small adjustments in the original proposal were forced on the Commonwealth by the States in ths discussions that were subsequently held at the instigation of ‘he States, there was little adjustment to the original proposals, as we see in the Bill that is now before the House.

Together with other members ot the Opposition I have spent a great deal of time endeavouring to understand this very complicated measure. I believe that it is an unnecessarily complicated document, obviously designed to confuse those who try to interpret it, obviously designed to appear of great benefit to the States, but yet of very doubtful benefit in either the short or the long term. Most of us realise that the comments that were made by several of the State Housing Ministers showed very clearly their attitude towards this new arrangement which the Commonwealth now proposes. The Queensland Minister for Housing, Mr Hodges, in commenting on the agreement said last November that the Commonwealth promised that there would be no change in the scheme that was then in operation, He said that the Commonwealth, despite its promise to hold consultations with the States, had not done so. He said: ‘What they did was call us down and tell us to take it or leave it’. Such was the proposal of the Commonwealth to hold a conference with the States and to put forward a new attitude in CommonwealthState financial arrangements.

The Opposition had hoped that, at this time when legislation was necessary to continue the provision of financial assistance to the States for housing, the Government at least would have put forward a scheme that would have clearly and definitely shown the great mass of Australians dependent on this method of finance for their housing needs that it had a genuine desire to answer their problems in a helpful and advantageous way. When dealing with the Commonwealth-State housing negotiations the Minister for Housing said on 21st August:

This is a completely new welfare proposal.

Let us look at the type of welfare proposal that has come from the Government. Let it be a warning to everybody between now and the next election when the Government proposes, as it will propose, new approaches to many of the current national problems that if this type of proposal is any indication of what the people can expect from the Government all they will receive will be the same type of treatment that they have received continually from Liberal governments over the years. This evening we have seen an illustration of the attention and the concern that is given by the Government to the problems of housing in the States. As in so many instances I have seen here before, after 2 or 3 members spoke on behalf of the Government it ran out of wind and left the rest of the debate to the Opposition. Without the speakers on this side of the House the debate on this very important matter would have lapsed long ago.

In proposals in this field of responsibility and in many others the people of Australia can expect to receive the same unfortunate treatment and to have inflicted upon them, as they have had inflicted upon them by this Government, the same treacherous trickery designed to benefit nobody but the Commonwealth Government. An obvious question presents itself. 1 invite the Minister, in reply, to answer it. Why did the Commonwealth drop the previous arrangement, especially after giving an undertaking to the States that there would not be any change in the proposals that were to be put before them for the 5-year agreement? Why did the Commonwealth drop the previous arrangement whereby it advanced money to the States at the concessional rate of I. per cent below the current long term bond rate? 1 should like to take this opportunity to assure all those who will be in need of housing in the future that the Australian Labor Party certainly cares about their needs. My Party is proud of the policy it recently developed and put forward at its very successful 29th Federal Conference in Launceston. I have not noticed this evening any honourable member opposite producing copies of the Labor Party policy and putting it forward in their discussion of this matter. This is quite often done by them when they feel they can take some advantage from the Labor Party’s printed policy. We are very proud of our housing policy and we are proud that it is available in printed form for all Australians to know the proposals that the Labor Party will put into effect after the next election.

In the meantime the dead hand of liberalism has fallen heavily in the production of this arrangement. What more could be expected of this tired, complacent, distrusted Government, rent by factionalism and split by the personality clashes that we see from day to day and from week to week, which constantly displays its incompetence to cope with the present day needs of this nation not only in housing but in many other respects? This agreement is singularly significant for what it has not faced in the matter of Australia’s future housing needs rather than for what it has provided for the sections of the nation most in need of the type of assistance that they should expect to get from a CommonwealthState housing agreement. Where is the concern of the Government shown for the low income earners, the pensioners, the migrants, the Aborigines, the deserted wives and the similarly disadvantaged people? They are the very types of people for whom such an agreement as this should be providing definite measures of assistance in the future.

Recently Megan Stoyles wrote a series of 2 articles in the ‘Australian Financial Reivew’ on the national housing policy. I had intended to deal at some length with those articles this evening but f understand that the Government is anxious to proceed with further business of the House and wishes to conclude this debate. But I just want to mention one of the matters that was referred to in this article which was printed at the time the State Housing Ministers were to meet with the Commonwealth Minister for Housing in Sydney. It reads: . . when Suite Housing Ministers come to Sydney on Friday lo argue about the fine print of the next Commonwealth-State housing agreement to last for the next 5 years, it is safe to say they will not be arguing the broader question of what s national housing policy is supposed to do or where it n< going.

The philosophy of a house and garden for all families which can afford a deposit and regular repayments is as central to housing policy and administration today as it was in 1918.

The virtues of such a life are still espoused despite complex urban problems facing Australia in the 1970s. 1 think this typifies the housing agreement that has been put forward by the Government, the approval of which we are considering this evening. The Government has not caught up with the passage of time. It has not caught up with the needs of vast sections of the Australian community depending so totally on the financial assistance that should be forthcoming from a Government which should be showing national leadership to overcome the problems of housing in Australia.

Mr FOSTER:
Sturt

– Tonight we have before us the question of housing, and the first thing I want to draw to the attention of the Minister for Housing (Mr Kevin Cairns), now that he has just wan- dered back into the chamber to resume his seat at the table, is the fact that we are discussing this matter in the presence of very few Liberals. How many Liberals have we got in the place?

Dr Patterson:

– None.

Mr FOSTER:

– Yes we have, there are 3. The honourable member for Bennelong (Sir John Cramer) is there along with a couple of Country Party supporters. Even the flash 8 per centers are not in very good attendance tonight. First of all, 1 want to say that the Government’s attitude towards housing has not done much over a great number of years. Let me quote from the speech that was made in 1949 by the Prime Minister of the day, Mr Menzies as he then was, the leader of the Liberal Party endeavouring to achieve office, which he did. and that Party remained there since then to the unfortunate lot of the Australian people. He said:

Except in relation lo the Territories and Wai Service Homes, the direct responsibility for housing is with the State governments. But the Commonwealth must accept large obligations of assistance. There is already a Commonwealth-Slates Housing Agreement. We will seek its amendment so as to permit and aid ‘little Capitalists’ to own their own homes.

We will attack the basic causes of under production. . . .

The Government has done nothing. 1 would throw this speech back over to the Government side of the House if there was anyone there to catch it, but there is not. The fact is that the Government has done nothing in regard to the basic necessities or to remedy those ills which have been associated with the industry for so long. In addition to that, it has not recognised its obligations to the people in the community who are desirous of Owning their own homes. Liberal Party supporters have sat here and said what their policy is, and by saying that and not producing a policy in any depth or with any forward view to it they perhaps thought that that was just good enough in this day and age. The honourable member for Bennelong, an old speculator from way back, made millions out of almost rackets that have been going on for years. He gets up in this House from time to time and makes a speech on housing. He cries crocodile tears about what the local councils do. He does not give a damn what the local councils do.

All he worries about is that the investors get more than their fair share of the cake, and that is what is usually-

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Cope:
SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES

–

Order! The Minister is on his feet.

Mr Kevin Cairns:
LILLEY, QUEENSLAND · LP

– Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise to order. The honourable member for Sturt suggested that the honourable member for Bennelong, with respect to his housing activities, made millions from the rackets for years. That is almost an exact quote of the words that he used, and I ask that they be withdrawn.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! I ask the honourable member to withdraw.

Mr FOSTER:

– 1 withdraw the plural. The fact of the matter is that it is about time that those on the Government side who flourish the policy of the Australian Labor Party on matters of defence and try to drag the wool over everybody’s eyes, as they did yesterday in this chamber after the Prime Minister (Mr McMahon) had made some sort of a statement on his jaunt overseas, were refuted. What then does the Australian Labor Party intend to do? What is the purpose of its policy? Much of what is intended is embodied in the amendment now before the House which was moved by the honourable member for Reid (Mr Uren). The fact is that the Australian Labor Party policy provides:

to tenants or purchasers who through bereavement or injury become unable to meet a prescribed economic rental or repayment;
to bereaved or invalid persons who cannot secure housing within their means; and
to institutional lenders to reduce by 2 per cent the rate of interest paid in the first 10 years of marriage.

We will amend the Aged Persons Homes Act to permit grants to the States for homes or infirmaries for the aged which are now so lacking in many areas. Under the Aged Persons Homes Act at present we have a concentration of aged persons homes where there are no infirmary, domiciliary or recreational facilities of any kind. We will, of course, remedy that. We will remove the anomalies from the Home Savings Grants Act. I will not deal with that aspect to any great extent because a debate will ensue on it later. We will reduce home mortgages by granting S200 for each child born during the period of mortgage. We will promote regional devel opment and provide housing land at the cost of sub division and servicing and construct housing estates with such community amenities as the Commonwealth provides in the Territory.

I pause there for a moment because I want to tell the Minister once more - I think I said it to him the other week - that here in this area of so-called land develop-, ment is one of the most shocking outrages that the young people of the community have to put up with. As I have said before, we have had cases where land requiring no development has been bought at a certain price by a speculator who has put it on the market. He has wanted to sell only 30 lo 50 per cent of the blocks. He has then withdrawn the rest from sale until such time as homes have been built on that 30 to 50 per cent of the blocks that he has sold. Then he has asked double and more for the blocks that have not been built on. Honourable members will see this in every capital and principal city in the Commonwealth. It has been going on for years Some people in the community often say: We wish we had had the foresight to buy land on the fringe areas of the metropolitan area.’ Perhaps what they fail to realise is that the opportunity still exists. It is not right that these practices should be allowed to continue. The policy of the Labor Party is to purchase this land and make it available at cost to future home builders, home owners and what have you.

This Government has done nothing other than to turn its back by saying with an air of absolute indifference: ‘This then is the responsibility of the States. We will have nothing to do with it whatsoever.’ This is not the correct and proper approach. My time has been cut down and 20 minutes is not enough time to deal with a matter such as this. I have been advised that the gag will be applied shortly. This is typical of the Government every lime we get an opportunity to discuss something of merit. This is typical of the lousy attitude of the Government as was shown last April. As soon as there is an opportunity for members on this side of the House to debate anything for 10 minutes, along comes the Deputy Government Whip md says: ‘The gag is to be applied, and if you want your colleague to get up for 10 minutes cut your time in half.’ I say to the

Leader of the House (Mr Swartz), red faced though he is, that this is damned effrontery

Mr Giles:

– Say something.

Mr FOSTER:

– Get over to the other side. Mr Deputy Speaker, how many times have you seen me reach into my drawer and pull out my copy of the report of the Joint Committee on Constitutional Review? I will continue to do so. It is disgraceful that the recommendations of this report have not been put into effect. The Government did damn-all with the report. What did this report that cost £500,000 - not dollars - of the taxpayers’ money say about housing? Why should I not accuse the Government of being absolutely hypocritical in its approach to the problems of our people? The report states:

As the Committee has repeatedly mentioned, Australia suffers from a shortage of capital to meet all demands for capital for nationally important objectives. In the post-war period, housing has been one of the activities which has suffered severely on this account.

What has this Government done about this? Absolutely nothing. It continues:

In these circumstances, there is always a tendency for the rate of interest to rise adding thereby to the financial burden which the home purchaser or constructor has to assume.

The Government has done nothing about that aspect of the report. It continues:

Generally, rates of interest on loans for housing purposes charged by lenders operating outside the banking system are higher than rates of interest which (be banks charge. There is, for example, evidence of high cost borrowing by persons eligible to participate in the War Service Homes scheme but who are awaiting finance from that source.

Of course the Government has done nothing to reduce interest rates. It has kept escalating them. The report continues:

The Committee considers that it is for the good of the public of Australia that the rates of interest on moneys borrowed on the security of real estate should be reasonable. Adequate housing of the nation is still far from a reality in Australia.

My colleagues have dealt with the huge waiting lists which exist in all the States so that position still pertains. The. report continues:

Commonwealth action directed against excessive interest charges would make some contribution towards the provision of more adequate housing. As in the case of the other recommendations discussed in this Chapter, the subject is nol one which readily lends itself to separate- 1 draw the Minister’s attention to this -

State regulation.

Recommendation as to Rates nf interest

Accordingly, the Committee has recommended that the Commonwealth Parliament should have power, concurrently with the States, to make laws with respect to rates of interest and other charges payable in connection with loans obtained upon the mortgage or other security of land. lt is to be observed that the proposed constitutional alteration refers to charges in addition to rates of interest. This is because moneys made available to borrowers can be charged against them in various ways not described as interest.

The Commonwealth Government has not done and will not do anything to put into effect that recommendation. This is obvious from the attitude of the Government today, from the type of Budget debate we heard last year in this chamber and which was repeated this year although the Minister for Housing is somewhat different. This is brought about by the small-mindedness of the Prime -Minister who wanted to give jobs to his mates. That is why the Minister for Housing is now sitting at the table as the Minister in charge of this portfolio. That is the only change.

I would suggest to honourable members that perhaps they ought to take it upon themselves to get a copy of a speech made by the Premier of South Australia last week in regard to the manner in which the Commonwealth is carrying on, not only in regard to housing but in the whole budgetary field, the manner in which the Budget is drawn up, the manner in which it was presented and the manner in which it has been allowed to be debated in this House. I support the amendment moved by the Opposition. I suppose that once again the Government will see this as a numbers game, and it does have the numbers, unfortunately, at the moment. The Government will have its will as far as this House is concerned. 1 conclude by saying that this Government had abdicated its responsibility to the vast majority of the Australian population, namely people under the age of 30.

Mr SCHOLES:
Corio

– The purpose of this Bill is to replace the CommonwealthState Housing Agreement with proposals which the Commonwealth Government regards as suitable. But the States were upset at the lack of consultation between the Commonwealth and the States prior to the introduction of these measures. 1 think that the States still feel uncomfortable and are dissatisfied with the fact that the Commonwealth has decided to act in what can only be described as a highhanded manner in regard to the CommonwealthState Housing Agreement. The States fully believed, following upon the passage of a Bill through this Parliament last year to extend the period of the previous Agreement in order that further consultations could take place between the Commonwealth and the States, that it was the intention of the Commonwealth to negotiate for a new agreement. This was the opinion of the States and I think they were quite justified in having that opinion.

Instead of doing this the Commonwealth, without prior consultation with the States or without giving any information to the States on this matter, introduced a totally new scheme to which, I understand, the States have now agreed. I suppose if you are placed in a situation where you are offered something and told: ‘Take it or leave it. That is our proposition; it is better than nothing’; you would agree to accept it. But there are certain aspects of this scheme that concern me, and also aspects in regard to the manner in which the scheme was introduced. I am not the only one who is concerned even though the Minister for Housing (Mr Kevin Cairns) has said that the State Ministers for Housing are now happy. When introducing a housing Bill in the Victorian Parliament Mr Meagher, the Victorian Minister of Housing, said:

Prior to that date, the States had considered over several conferences the basic needs of a continuing arrangement and, quite rightly in my opinion, expected that the Commonwealth would consult with them in due course. Instead, the Federal Budget spelt out the new conditions, the basic principles of which were declared by die Commonwealth Government to be non-negotiable.

In other words, whether the States liked it or not they had to accept it. That is not my statement; that is a statement by a Liberal, the Victorian Minister of Housing. It was made on 11th November 1971 in the Victorian Parliament. It is a relatively current statement and it is a statement which would have been made by a person with a knowledge of all the circumstances involved.

I would like to refer to one or two other areas. Firstly, the grant of $2.75m a year in lieu of the 1 per cent interest subsidy may over the period involved be more beneficial or less beneficial to the individual States. But what concerns me is that the percentage basis of allocation is fixed for a period of 5 years, irrespective of the expenditure of a particular State. If one looks at the percentages which are to be offered, it is a pretty shocking indictment of a couple of governments in Australia or there must be some other reason. We heard tonight one of the most novel apologies for the Country Party Government in Queensland which was made by the honourable member for Kennedy (Mr Katter) when he referred to the reason why the Queensland percentage on housing in the previous 5 years - which, I understand, is the basis of the figure in the Bill - was so low.

It concerns me that the State of Queensland is to receive 7.7 per cent of the amount of money to be allocated under this Bill. This 7.7 per cent does not represent anything like the population ratio in that State. In fact it is only a little less than half of what that State should receive if population ratios were adhered to. For the next 5 years, irrespective of whether or not the State of Queensland increases its housing expenditure, it will have a fixed limit on how much Commonwealth subsidy it can receive. However, if a change in government takes place next year the Agreement is not renegotiable nor is it variable. Tt may be that another government, placing different priorities on housing, would increase the Commonwealth allocation to Queensland on the basis of its population. If this were done Queensland could be penalised for 4 years because of the activities of a previous government and not because of any future activity. 1 am told that this is unlikely to occur but it is quite possible. With such an extremely low level of expenditure I think it is desirable for Queensland to increase i’s housing expenditure. I am told that Queensland operates on a 2-tier system of expenditure on housing. It may be that some of the Queensland expenditure did not qualify; I do not know. The allocation for Queensland is completely out of proportion in relation to the normally applied ratio.

There are one or two other matters which I think are of considerable importance. One is the recognition in the Bill that high interest rates are to prevail and no action is to be taken to counter them. The assumption in the Bill is that approximately a 1 per cent reduction in interest will be available to the purchasers of housing commission houses and houses built through the lending institutions. At current rates of interest this leaves an amount of 6 per cent to 7 per cent interest to be paid on the construction of dwelling houses. This rate of interest is usurious and places housing in the luxury field within the current price structure. A person who borrows $12,000 for a house at 7i per cent, which is about the cheapest rate that a person could get-

Mr Uren:

– Where does he gel that from?

Mr SCHOLES:

– He cannot get it through any Commonwealth institution. They still live in the dim dark ages where they think that $8,000 or $9,000 is a relatively good figure.

Mr Uren:

– Where can he get $12,000 at 7i per cent.7

Mr SCHOLES:

– If a person can get $12,000 at 7* per cent - I know where he can get it - to be repaid over 20 years that person will be paying in the vicinity of $270 to $280 a quarter of which $220 to $230 will be to service interest. Each 1 per cent which is added to the interest bill or deducted from the interest bill represents about $2 a week to be paid by the person who is borrowing the money, the home builder. In the last 3 years interest rates have been increased at the Commonwealth’s behest by 2 per cent. In effect the cost to the purchaser of a home of that increase in interest rate has been from $10 to $12 a month or in excess of $2 a week.

The Government talks about inflation when by its policies it has increased the cost of purchasing a house by between $2 and $4 a week. The cost of housing has increased at an alarming rate. It is so high now that in some areas - Sydney is one - it would be impossible for a person receiving about the average income of persons working for wages as opposed to the average male income, which is a fictitious figure which has no relationship to the majority of the community, and purchasing a house without a substantial proportion of the capital to meet the repayments. That is all there is to it. He just could not afford to purchase a home under the existing interest rate and existing price structure. If he tried to borrow the money from the Commonwealth Bank to buy a bouse he would have to find $12,000 himself, because the Commonwealth Bank has not increased the amounts available for lending to anything near present housing costs. These are problems which have to be faced and to which the Government should give serious consideration. If the Government supports a policy of home ownership it should facilitate the purchase of a home. It is not good enough to create a situation where the interest rates are such that it is impossible for a family on a relatively good income to meet the repayments without serious difficulty or without having to depend on a 2-wage economy, and that is how most people are buying their homes al the moment.

I add one other comment. Another section of the Bill provides for a grant of $l.2m each year for the next 5 years to assist with rental rebates. If the figures which I have are correct, this will provide close to one-third of the amount spent on rental rebates by the States, excluding South Australia, in the last year. The problem of low income earners is twofold. They cannot afford to buy a house because the interest rates are such that they just cannot pay one off. If they can pay one off they have to pay it off over a period of time which is so extensive that they cannot possibly expect to be productive workers earning income at the conclusion of that period. The Victorian Government is selling houses with repayments over 45 years. If a person starts paying it off at the agc of 20 and is lucky enough to be able to work to 60 years of age or, if he is unskilled, to 65 years of age, he will have paid the house off at the time he retires. So for the whole of his life he will have had it dragging around his neck.

The situation is that low income earners have to look for alternative accommodation. The Housing Commission in Victoria has a 14-month waiting period for accommodation. In the area of Geelong, which I represent, there are plenty of people who need rented dwellings. Despite what the honourable member for Bennelong (Sir John Cramer) says there are still people who have to move themselves and who cannot afford to purchase houses.

There are plenty of people who were encouraged by governments to buy houses in areas of State activity, such as the State mine in Victoria, and who lost their entire savings by investing in houses in those areas which were closed up by governments without consideration at a later stage. There are people who need rental dwellings. In the area which 1 represent one in every 5 houses rented by the Victorian Mousing Commission is occupied by a one-parent family, most of them deserted wives. This ratio shows fairly effectively just how little $1.2m will be in relieving the problems of persons who are not able to pay an economic level of rent. There are plenty of people in the community who are not able to pay an economic level of rent.

The Commonwealth Government can either tackle this problem or continue to avoid it. I believe that this Bill is little more or less than a gesture. It does not tackle the problem. It does give the Commonwealth the right to Say that it has done something about the problem and that it is up to the States to do the rest. I believe the problem is bigger than that. It is a human problem. People have to have somewhere to live. I think that if members of the Slate Parliaments could speak in a debate such as this they could relate tale after tale of people who are being evicted from housing commission properties because they are unable to meet the rent. If there are no adequate rebates to provide them with rents that they can afford and there is no accommodation available other than State housing commission accommodation, I want to know where they are expected to go. Where are the programmes or the plans by the Government to cater for these people?

This is a limited debate. I support the amendment put forward by the honourable member for Reid (Mr Uren). I would like to have spoken to other sections of that amendment, especially that section dealing with the renovation of old houses. It seems to me to be a criminal situation where in order to get a loan under this Bill to provide alternative accommodation housing commissions have to and do purchase and tear down old buildings many of which are extremely suitable for adaptation for many years of future living and most likely adaptable at much lower costs than the cost to tear them down and rebuild. This seems to me to be a very short’ sighted policy and it is a policy which is not only economically unsound but I think culturally unsound. It would be far better if some of our older buildings were renovated and utilised for re-renting. .

I would like to have spoken about some of the other aspects of the Bill. I support the amendment and I ask the Government to give serious consideration to the problems which a fixed position for 5 years will create especially if the relativity between the States - I make a special point of mentioning Queensland - is altered. I also suggest that it may be to the best advantage of all concerned if when future agreements on housing and other things are being discussed the secrets are told to those who will be asked to implement them, namely, the States. Obviously the Liberal Minister for Housing in Victoria, Mr Meagher, is totally unsatisfied with the manner in whish his Government was treated by the Commonwealth.

Mr Kevin Cairns:
Minister for Housing · LILLEY, QUEENSLAND · LP

– in reply - This debate has proceeded for quite a number of hours, and 1 do not intend to take too great a length of time in replying to the honourable members and their comments upon the Bill, lt is appreciated that this Bill is quite a complicated one, that it is one which deals in interest rates and the transpositions between grants and the effective interest rates to which they are equivalent. However, before the House votes on the Opposition’s amendment, let me make this point: This Bill is designed to assist the States in their own housing activities. It is designed to assist the States to facilitate the building of dwellings for those who desire welfare housing. It does this by increasing the assistance which is provided through the State housing authorities and the assistance which goes through the home builder’s account for the cooperative terminating building societies and the. other approved organisations.

Before the vote is taken, let me quote to the House 3 comments that have been made about this Bill by 3 State Ministers for Housing so that members of the Opposition might appreciate the consequences of their proposed action. The Minister for Housing in my own State of Queensland was quoted by honourable members opposite tonight as having been very much against this Bill. He was quoted as persisting in his opposition to this Bill. As the honourable member for Kennedy (Mr Katter) mentioned earlier tonight in the Queensland Parliament, the Queensland Minister for Housing had this to say:

While we have had some very frank discussions with the Commonwealth I must in all fairness to the Commonwealth say that I do not doubt for one minute the sincerity of its desire to assist the States in housing low and moderate income earners. I must further say that in some respects there are advantages to the States in the new Commonwealth proposals.

Honourable members may appreciate that an acknowledgement from State Ministers is not wrung out of them very easily and that this is high praise indeed. The Labor Minister for Housing in Western Australia in the West Australian Legislative Assembly on 21st September, when reviewing the overall arrangements involved in this Bill, which comprise a grant, sinking fund arrangements, rental assistance and so on, said:

On the basis of sinking fund contributions -

In addition to the others - there is no doubt that the State will materially benefit. Taking either basis the State will be receiving a better financial arrangement than it would have had had the previous CommonwealthState Housing Agreement been extended.

It might be borne in mind, when there are complaints coming from some members from Victoria, that the Victorian Housing Minister did not think that the Bill was an advantage. He obviously is in conflict with some other of his colleagues. The Minister for Housing in South Australia, speaking first of all with respect to the basic grant itself and nothing else, said:

This new arrangement will amount to significantly more than the old 1 per cent concesion in Interest.

He went on to say: lt is calculated that if two-thirds of the annual Commonwealth grant goes to the Housing Trust and one-third to the Home Builders Account- the minimum laid down by the Commonwealth is 30 per cent - it would be practicable to give the Housing Trust activities a rebate in interest charges of about U per cent and the Home Builders Account rather more than 1 per cent.

That is influenced by the quantity which South Australia varies. He said further:

This would mean that whereas loan money has cost the State 7 per cent per annum interest during the year up to date, for a loan now open it is reduced to 6.7 per cent. The charge for Housing Trust activities can be kept to +1 per cent per annum.

It is concerning this that the Opposition will vote soon.

Loans through the Home Builders Account, including administrative margins for the lending authorities and the Treasury, will presently remain at 6i per cent per annum.

In summary he said:

On the effective assistance towards interest, this Commonwealth provision is an undoubted improvement. The Government would have liked it higher but il will help to put a brake on the necessary increases in rentals which were arising out of increasing capital and maintenance costs and high interest rates. It will not, unfortunately entirely avoid the necessity for periodic rental adjustments as costs continue to rise, but a substantial and real improvement on any calculations and on any terms that the Bill would be considered under.

The Opposition’s amendment relates to at least 3 things: lt looks at the adequacy of the funds available; it looks at certain levels - certain groups which might inhabit State authority homes; and it expresses a desire that funds be made available to acquire existing dwellings for restoration and allocation by rental or sale. Let me deal with some of these matters. The funds, as is perfectly clear, are very substantially increased. Some honourable members were concerned about the rate of escalation - -the fact that because a fixed amount is given, which is applied to 30 years for each year of housing, no escalation factor has been included in such calculations. An escalation factor was included and increased above that which has been experienced in the past, so escalation has been accounted for and more than accounted for in the initial calculations. Then there were the groups about which the Opposition showed some concern - low income earners. It is for the States to determine who would be appropriate to receive welfare housing.

Pensioners also were mentioned. Currently, the Commonwealth has a scheme to assist pensioners and I have just given approval for some 170 - I think that is the number - units to be constructed throughout the Commonwealth for the housing of single pensioners at rentals which lie between $2.50 and $3 a week. This actually is being done now. With respect to migrants, honourable members will see that already they have a scheme which is available and which actively varies according to the level of migrant intake. Also there is an extensive scheme to develop housing for Aborigines.. 1. understand that some thousands of units have been built under this scheme. The scheme is providing $25m to the States over a 5-year period and, so far, expenditure has been J 14.6m for more than 2,000 dwellings.

The amendment refers also to deserted wives and similarly disadvantaged people, lt was because it was known that the rental rebates have grown for the States that the Commonwealth proposes to do 2 things in this Bill, if it is passed. Firstly, the Commonwealth proposes to increase the level of real assistance to the States so that they might determine from their own experience those who are liable to receive rental rebates. This has always been the case. Secondly, a special rental assistance grant is included in the Bill. This is an entirely new provision. It is not to be at a level coincident with the rental rebates given by the States but is to be a welcome assistance to the rebates they organise out of their other funds - their greatly increased funds. These are measures of real assistance. As the honourable member for Bennelong (Sir John Cramer) so correctly pointed out, one thing is missing in this amendment. The factor that is missing - it was missing from almost every speech from the Opposition, especially that of the honourable member for Reid (Mr Uren) - is any reference whatsoever to the Home Builders Account.

Mr Uren:

– 1 will talk about that in the Committee stages.

Mr Kevin Cairns:
LILLEY, QUEENSLAND · LP

– The honourable member has been reminded, so he will mention this factor in the Committee stages. Let those gentlemen who are concerned with the operation of the cooperative terminating building societies in Australia know full well that with a change of government they are not likely to receive very tender consideration. I remind those people who do not want to operate through State housing authorities but who desire to have some assistance with respect to their own loans for housing activities that it has been clearly foreshadowed that assistance to them will not be very readily forthcoming. It will have to be rung out of the government were there to be a change of government. I do not think that brooks any argument. So far it has been made perfectly clear that the States want this Bill. They want the increase in assistance and the increase in the flexibility of their own arrangements which would accompany the passage of this Bill.

Mr Armitage:

– Mr Deputy Speaker. I raise a point of order. I am sorry to take this point of order, but the Minister has implied that the Opposition is opposed to building societies-

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Lucock:

Order! There is no point of order. The honourable member for Chifley will resume his seat. I again suggest that the honourable member look at the Standing Orders and ascertain what is a point of order. Honourable members have taken a number of what they have claimed to be points of order. They have not been points of order. 1 suggest that they note what I have said, because if fraudulent points of order are taken the Chair will take action.

Mr Kevin Cairns:
LILLEY, QUEENSLAND · LP

– I was stating that the fact that the States want this Bill entered very minimally into the Opposition’s considers’ ion. It is not in the forefront of the minds of honourable members opposite, nor does it occupy any significant place in their categories of importance, so far as housing is concerned. I maintain that that pow ion, and the debate that has preceeded in this chamber for some hours today and tonight certainly sustains the holding of such an attitude. The honourable member for Reid advanced a number of arguments some of which were rather involved. I dispute some of his calculations. I hesitate to say that the tables which he had prepared with such exactitude seemed to convey a meaning which at least 1 did not understand. He had one or two tables which were designed to indicate the differences in payments at various levels of interest rate concession. What seems to have escaped him is the fact that the payments vary as to the years for which the interest rate concession would apply, the years over which the principal would be repaid and the times and the rests which would require the payment of both interest and principal. The tables give no indication of what is required in this respect. Nevertheless, they are in Hansard and no doubt later on they can be perused by honourable members and by the supporters of the honourable member for Reid.

The honourable member for Reid cried over a number of social policies, and I think that he was a little uncertain as to whether this Bill was to be a good thing or whether it was to be not so good. I have referred to his attitude towards the Home Builders Account. But a curious contradiction arose between the honourable member for Reid and some of his colleagues. The honourable member for Reid stated, as I remember it. that the position brought about by this Bill would be worse in the first year and thereafter it would not be so bad. A number of other honourable members opposite stated that the position would be better in the first year and then it would deteriorate. I think that this is a clear contradiction which might be cleared up between honourable members opposite and perhaps they should examine it to see where it leads them.

Of course, the honourable member for Wentworth (Mr Bury),- having had experience in this portfolio, understood the value of the Bill that is before the House. He also referred to a most important ingredient of any housing policy, that is, the social presumptions of any government which would desire to have an adequate housing policy. In this respect he touched upon some of the quaint household and family policies which were adopted by the Opposition at its Launceston conference and in the days before the Launceston conference. Earlier in the debate reference was made to the Opposition’s attitude to Australian fa mi Ii - s and to the overall 2 per cent interest concession on all institutional lending, which policy was adopted at Launceston. This matter was mentioned by a number of honourable members opposite. I merely want to make one comment about the promise of an overall 2 per cent interest concession on institutional lending. It has no welfare aspect to it whatsoever, lt is designed to help most those who negotiate the biggest mortgages, and it would assist ‘hose who, in negotiating the biggest mortgages, bid interest rates up. lt would make such a subvention a hostage to higher interest rates, and that should be examined, lt is a welfare policy that would operate in absolute and complete regression from the way in which it should operate. The manner in which assistance would be granted is such that the policy would be a profligate rich man’s dream,’yet the Opposition has proposed this pol-‘ icy. It has proposed it as an alternative housing policy for the nation. It should be examined for what it contains. As the honourable member for Wentworth also pointed out, it would act as a very effective disincentive to saving. The smaller the amount saved, the higher the mortgage, and the more assistance the Opposition would have to give - yet this is put forward as a welfare policy.

Other matters were mentioned by the Opposition. Mention should be made of those matters. Perhaps time will not allow me to reply to them fully. But I think I should reply to one matter raised by the honourable member for Bennelong. He was concerned whether building societies would be able to develop their own revolving funds if this Bill were passed, as they have been able to do under the home builders account arrangements in the past. They will be able to develop their own revolving funds under this scheme, as they have done in the past. There is a distinction between the advances which are for 53 years and the grants which are for 30 years. After discussion it is quite clear that, when adjustments are made for the difference in years and for the periods during which building societies can lend, they have the facilities to develop their own separate accounts and their own separate revolving funds, and T will be seeing that this does operate and that the societies will bc in no way disadvantaged as a result of the passage of this Bill.

The honourable member for Mitchell (Mr Irwin) made it perfectly clear, from his very wide experience in the housing field, that he understands the Bill and he understands, as was not evident from some other speakers, the real ingredients in the changes in land costs in parts of some capital cities of Australia. The honourable member for Kennedy appreciates the value of the Bill, and I was pleased to see that he also appreciates how much the Minister in his home State would like the Bill passed.

Other matters have been mentioned, but I have to refer once again to the amendment because it is important. The amendment enjoins us that all words after That’ be omitted and ‘this House is of opinion that the Commonwealth Government should provide theStates with adequate funds and so on and so forth be inserted. The amendment does not say that this House while supporting the present Bill is of the opinion that certain things should happen or that without prejudice to the passage of the present Bill this House is of the opinion that certain things should happen. The amendment says ‘this House is of the opinion’. Let this be clearly understood, against the background of the wishes of the State Ministers: If this amendment is carried the Bill wilt not be passed. The money will be denied to the States. The amendment is a clear negative. It allows of no equivocation. It will deny the second reading of the Bill. It will deny the passage of the Bill in this House. It allows of no equivocation or modification in that respect. So I would ask the Opposition to consider carefully whether, when the. motion is put, it will vote for an amendment that will deny to the States the assistance which they want and which is enshrined in the Bill. The amendment does not allow of that modification. It is not of the type I have indicated. 1 would suggest that the Opposition join with the Government in passing this Bill unanimously.

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 Lucock)

AYES: 51

NOES: 46

Majority . . 5

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Amendment negatived.

Original question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.

In Committee

The Bill.

Mr UREN:
Reid

– My remarks will be brief. I rise in the Committee stage to seek clarification of clause 3(1.) which says in part: building society’ means a society or association of persons registered under the laws of a State as a building or housing society, whether terminating or permanent and whether or not a co-operative society;

Under this Bill , 0 per cent of the money allocated will go to State housing authorities and the other 30 per cent will be allocated to building societies. Clause 7 (2.) says:

Subject to the next succeeding sub-section, there shall be credited to the account in each prescribed year not less than thirty per centum of the amount set aside by the State for housing in that prescribed year.

The Minister for Housing (Mr Kevin Cairns) made great play of terminating building societies and eulogised them.

Quite frankly, we in the Australian Labor Party have great respect for the diligent work done by the terminating building societies and their officers. Let us analyse the Government’s policy and attitude towards them. In New South Wales, in which I reside, the maximum loan that one can get from a terminating building society is $10,800. However, the average cost of land and dwelling provided under the war service homes scheme in that State is $14,800 while the average cost of land and dwelling in the Sydney metropolitan area is over $19,000. Yet the maximum loan from a terminating building society is $10,800. Let me now talk about the Government’s hypocrisy and of the wonderful job that the terminating building societies do. This Government gives a mere pittance to these organisations. We know that those to whom these organisations give a loan must obtain a second mortgage loan to meet their commitments.

Let us expose the policy of the Government on this question of the role that it plays with respect to terminating building societies or co-operative building societies. Looking ot the permanent building societies we see that the proposition is different. Not one cent of the money about which the Minister for. Housing has spoken goes to the permanent building societies because they raise their money on the open market. Consequently the home buyers with whom they deal are people who can obtain a loan of $1.5,000.

The average loan in New South Wales last year from permanent building societies was $14,600. In the second reading debate I gove the figures with respect to average loans. Approximately $115 a month must bc repaid on an average loan of $15,000 over 25 years. In New South Wales, ti.e money that is allocated under this part of the Bill goes to the terminating building societies and the maximum loan from those societies is $10,800. I want to know what sort of a home can be purchased in the Sydney metropolitan area for that amount. The Minister should look at the figures which appear in the annual report for this year of the War Service Homes Division. He should study the average cost of war service homes. He should look at the average cost of land in Sydney, which is $8,000. He should look at the average cost of a home within the area of the Sydney Metropolitan Water, Sewerage and Drainage Board-

Sir John Cramer:

– 1 rise to order. The honourable member for Reid is discussing a matter to which this Bill does not relate at all. The amount of a loan by a terminating building society is for the States to decide. It has nothing whatever to do with this Bill.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Mr Drury) - The honourable member for Reid will relate his remarks to the Bill.

Mr UREN:

– With respect to your ruling. Mr Deputy Chairman, may J say in passing that honourable members opposite have eulogised the role of the terminating building societies but we on this side of the Committee have not deprecated the role of those societies. What I am explaining is that we live in the world of reality and not in the world of make believe in which the Government likes to live. I am talking about the State in which I live. There the terminating building societies are given such wonderful financial scope by this Government that they will receive onethird of the allocation by way of grants being made available under this legislation. Yet the maximum loan provided by one of these societies is $10,800. This is what the Government proposes to do at this time when it is allowing inflationary trends to develop. The Government cannot pass the buck.

In reply to the criticism expressed by the Minister, I say that the Minister should look at the policy of his own Government. He ought to make sure that more money is made available to the terminating building societies. He ought to make sure that at least the average loan that can be made available through the terminating building societies is made available even though the interest rate that they charge is H per cent. This is made up of an interest charge of 6i per cent plus an additional ) per cent for management costs. These societies make loans at an interest rate of 7£ per cent, which represents quite a large repayment. The interest rates of terminating building societies should be reduced. Not only should interest rates be reduced but the size of Joans also should be increased to enable terminating building societies to make available loans of a realistic amount so that people can meet their commitments without resorting to second mortgage loans.

Mr Kevin Cairns:
Minister for Housing · LILLEY, QUEENSLAND · LP

– These clauses relate lo contributions by the Commonwealth Government through the Home Builders Account, and through that account principally, to the co-operative terminating building societies. The honourable member for Reid (Mr Uren), who has led for the Opposition on this Bill, protested his concern for the terminating building societies which are mentioned in these clauses. Let me repeat what was said a little earlier, because the remarks are appropriate to these clauses: Very little concern has been shown for the co-operative terminating building societies. Very little sensitivity as to their future was expressed tonight, especially by the Opposition. These clauses are enshrined in the Bill so that their position will be protected and so that their position will be preserved.

Anybody knows that the subventions from the Commonwealth, either through the old Commonwealth and State housing arrangements or through the arrangements which are appropriate to this Bill, are the mainstay of funds which are available to the co-operative terminating building societies. We intend to persist in this attitude. The attitude of the Government has been shown repeatedly tonight. It is a frame of mind which shows that these are important organisations which ought lo be increasingly assisted. The honourable member for Reid and the Opposition tonight, except for a few moments ago, have almost ignored their very existence.

Mr SCHOLES:
Corio

– Unfortunately the Minister for Housing (Mr Kevin Cairns) has chosen, I think because of a weak case, to attack Opposition members for not discussing in any great detail the position for terminating building societies. No honourable member on the Opposition side has objected to the proposition of 30 per cent of the contribution going to the Home Builders Account. The honourable member for Bennelong (Sir John Cramer) in a point of order raised the fact that the detailed operations of the Home Builders Account are subject to

State legislation and that there are no proposals in the Commonwealth legislation to alter that situation.

The position of terminating building societies is not good because of the extreme limitations which are placed on the level of loans and because of the lack of availability of funds, except through the Home Builders Account. I am fully aware of this. I am the chairman of 3 funds and 1 know that the number of homes which can be financed on the loans which are available diminishes on each occasion on which moneys are made available. Therefore, unless substantially increased amounts of money are made available the role of terminating building societies will diminish materially because home building costs are increasing at a much faster rate than the rate at which funds are being made available. This is a serious point, but it is one which would obviously lend itself to a debate in this place because of the very facts which were raised by the honourable member tor Bennelong.

The legislation covering this subject is substantially State legislation. The Commonwealth insists on an allocation of 30 per cent to the States. I think it may well be, if the Commonwealth genuinely believes that this type of operation should be continued and expanded, that as a consequence of its grants it may have to lay down conditions for their application which tit in with Commonwealth Government policy, if there is such a policy, with regard to the Home Builders Account. At the moment the money is handed over and it becomes the sole responsibility of the States. Because the Commonwealth is so lacking in concern about the operation and future of these funds, I would suggest to the Minister that he should cease criticising other people, lt is quite obvious that the Commonwealth has no interest at all in the matter but that it only requires the money to be made available. It does not require that adequate loans be made available to enable homes to be built. It does not require the funds which are made available to be utilised in any specific way. I raised one point earlier which could be covered only by this means, that is. the renovation or purchase of houses. Under existing conditions - under the Victorian legislation anyhow - only relatively new homes can be purchased under the Home Builders Account where in many cases a better deal could be obtained by the purchasers if the money were made available for the purchase of existing homes.

Unfortunately the Minister decided, for purely political reasons, that he would fly a kite, just as the honourable member for Kennedy (Mr Katter) flew a kite in the night on abortion reform, which has only ever been enacted in Australia by Liberal governments and which is the official policy of the Australian Country Party. Apparently what Liberal governments do not do is the responsibility of the Opposition. It may be a good way of covering one’s own sins. But I would suggest to the Minister that before he stands up and accuses the Australian Labor Party of a lack of concern he should look exactly at what the Government is doing. It is allocating a sum of money and nothing else.

Bill agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Third Reading

Motion (by Mr Kevin Cairns) - by leave -proposed:

That the Bill be now read a third time.

Mr BRYANT:
Wills

– There must be few activities in which the Government shows greater insensitivity than in the field of housing. The consistent rise in interest rates over the years, which has been supported by such people as the Minister for Housing (Mr Kevin Cairns), the honourable member for Bennelong (Sir John Cramer) and a series of Treasurers, is a disgrace to the country. The continuing flow of usury-

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Lucock)Order!

Mr BRYANT:

– I am not introducing new matter, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for Wills has been a member of this House for a considerable time. He should know that only new matters should be debated on the motion for the third reading of a Bill and not matters which have been debated already on the other readings of the Bill.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a third time.

page 3619

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN FORCES IN VIETNAM

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Lucock)Mr Speaker has received the following message from the Senate:

The Senate transmits to the House of Representatives, for information, the following resolution which was agreed to by the Senate this day:

Thai the Senate of the Australian Parliament places on record its appreciation and gratitude to the personnel of all Australian forces who served in the Vietnam conflict for their courage, dedication and sense of duty.

Particularly do we express our sympathy for the relatives of those Australians who gave their lives during this conflict.’

Motion (by Mr Swartz) proposed:

That the message be taken into consideration forthwith.

Mr SWARTZ:
Minister for National Development · Darling Downs · LP

– by leave - This matter has been discussed with the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Barnard). The arrangement which was made was that 1 should move that motion tonight and that the debate on it should take place as the first item of Government Business tomorrow. I thought the Deputy Leader of the Opposition would have been present to confirm this arrangement. It has been suggested that a certain number of speakers will take part in the debate. It will be the first item of business tomorrow.

Mr Daly:

– Is it necessary to adjourn the debate?

Mr SWARTZ:

– No, I have not moved the motion.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Lucock:

– The motion before the House at the moment is: That the message be taken into consideration forthwith.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Motion (by Mr Swartz) proposed:

That this House associates itself with Senate message No. 235 and endorses fully the sentiments expressed in the message.

Debate (on motion by Mr Irwin) adjourned.

page 3619

HOMES SAVINGS GRANT BILL 1971

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 4 November (vide page 3038), on motion by Mr Kevin Cairns:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr UREN:
Reid

– I move:

That all words after ‘That’ be omitted with a view to inserting the following words in place thereof: ‘this House is of opinion that (a) a purchaser of a dwelling-house who receives financial assistance as a consequence of the States Grants (Housing) Act 1971 should be eligible to receive a grant under the Homes Savings Grant Act and (b) the assessed value of a dwelling-house for the purposes of a homes savings grant to an eligible person should be increased to twenty thousand dollars’.

This Bill amends section 20 of the Homes Savings Grant Act consequential upon the States Grants (Housing) Bill 1971. Section 20 of the Homes Savings Grant Act provides for a payment of grant money to assist certain eligible persons who are purchasing or building a home. However, the section precludes the payment of a home savings grant in respect of a dwelling house built by or for a State authority with money provided under the CommonwealthState Housing Agreement. The point I desire to make to the House is that at present the bond rate is 7 per cent, and it is the bond rate of 7 per cent at which money is raised by the State housing authorities to build homes. A person who resides in a home which has been built by a State housing authority and who wishes to purchase that home is excluded under this Act from a grant. A person might want to acquire a home, already built, through the Commonwealth Savings Bank at an interest rate of 63 per cent or to build a home with a loan provided through the Commonwealth Savings Bank at an interest rate of 6i per cent. That person is entitled to a grant. We believe it is reasonable that this Act should be broader. It should give a fair go to people who live in houses built by a public authority. They should have every right to a grant under this Homes Savings Grant Act. T :tsk the House and particularly honourable members on the Government side not to press on with this legislation but to accept our amendment.

The second part of our amendment seeks to increase the maximum value of the land and dwelling from $17,500 to $20,000. I shall give some reasons for this amendment. The honourable member for Bennelong (Sir John Cramer) has made speeches on this line. When the Act was amended to raise the amount from $15,000 to $17,500 he agreed with me that the amount should by $20,000. The honourable member for Bennelong and the honourable member for Mitchell (Mr Irwin), who both entered into the earlier debate, know that if they wanted to purchase a block of land and build a home on it in their electorates or in any electorate in the Sydney metropolitan area represented by a Liberal member of Parliament, they would not be able to do so with the $17,500 provided under the existing legislation. We know that the honourable member for Bennelong could not buy a home unit in which to raise a family in his electorate for $17,500. It would cost at least $20,000.

I have said over and over again but I will repeat it so that honourable members on the other side may know that under a conservative Liberal government - a government of the same political colour as this Commonwealth Government- which has governed in New South Wales for the last 6 years, acting in co-operation with this bungling Commonwealth Government, land prices in New South Wales have been spiralling. Of course, prices are rising in every State - I am not saying that they are not - but the inflationary trend in land prices is worse in Sydney than it is in other cities. The average price of land in Sydney is $8,000. In Perth it is between $6,000 and $7,000. In Melbourne it is about $5,000. In both Adelaide and Brisbane the price is about $3,500. But the real crisis in land is in Sydney. After all, that is where the great percentage of the people of Australia live. Looking at this matter realistically, we say that the maximum value of a house and land which may attract a home savings grant should be $20,000.

There was a certain portion of my electorate, prior to the last redistribution, which was the only portion that was not fully developed. I refer to the Georges Hall area, lt is now in the electorate of the honourable member for Blaxland (Mr Keating). I checked with him this evening to find out the price at which land was being sold in that area and he informed me that it was selling at $12,000. That land at Georges Hall is about 16 or 17 miles from the General Post Office in Sydney. Even at the level of S20.000 which we have set one would find it extremely difficult to build a house there.

We say that it is a realistic position at least to raise the value to $20,000. Therefore, I think that the amendment that has been moved by the Opposition should be carried. We could go into the question of interest rates and the gimmickry, if I might use that term, in this legislation. It was introduced in the Budget session of 1964. At that time the interest rate on a $12,000 loan with a permanent building society was 61 per cent. It is now 8 per cent. The interest on the life of a SI 2,000 loan, repaid over 25 years from June 1964, would have been §12,305. If the same loan were taken out now, in November 1971, the repayment of interest at 8 per cent would be $15,785. This means that the Government gives $500 with one hand and lakes $3,480 back with the other. As I said earlier, $12,000 is not a realistic loan, bearing in mind that the average loan in New South Wales, as 1 have pointed out, is close to $15,000. In June 1964 the interest rate charged by permanent building societies was 61 per cent. On a loan of $15,000 for 25 years interest of $15,384 would be paid. Today the interest rate charged by permanent building societies is 8 per cent. On a loan of $15,000 interest totalling $19,732 would be paid. In other words, the interest alone has increased by $4,348. The Government with one hand gives $500 as a homes savings grant but with the other hand takes back $4,348. In the past 1 have called this legislation gimmickry, and that is what it is.

The Government should be doing something about interest rates. However, I will not delay the House any longer as this Bill has a narrow compass and I do not want to stretch the Tight given to me tonight to move the amendment 1 have moved. The amount of $20,000 I have suggested in my amendment comes within the terms of section 20 of the Act. The other suggestion contained in my amendment is that purchasers of houses who have received financial assistance through the Commonwealth and State Housing Agreement should be eligible for the grant. I have pointed out that the bond rate at present is higher than the interest rates paid even by the savings banks. If it is good enough for people with savings bank accounts to be eligible for the grant it should be good enough for people living in government built homes to be eligible. I ask the House to support the amendment moved by the Labor Party.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Drury:
RYAN, QUEENSLAND

– Is the amendment seconded?

Mr HANSEN:
Wide Bay

– 1 second the amendment. The. Minister for Housing (Mr Kevin Cairns) in his second reading speech on 4th November said:

Purchasers of subsidised homes built by the States with funds provided under the Agreement are excluded from the payment of a homes savings grant because they already receive a significant benefit from the interest concession and to ensure as far as possible that these homes are reserved for those with very small means and on low incomes. This housing is made available below its true economic cost for social reasons, and there arc long waiting lists for the homes largely because they are relatively so cheap, lt would be wrong lo inflate these lists and disadvantage the most needy elements of the community.

The Minister’s statements were true under the terms of the old States Grants (Housing) Act, but it provided for an interest concession which no longer applies under the measure just passed by this House. On 13th September, before the Minister made his second reading speech from which I quoted, I placed on the notice paper the following question:

Are purchasers of homes built by State housing authorities, with money provided under the Commonwealth and State Housing Agreement, ineligible for a grant under the Homes Savings Grant Act because these homes are subsidised?
Will these people be eligible for the grant under the new Commonwealth and State Housing Agreement?
Will the States be making this housing finance available at a reduced interest rate?

If anyone has qualifications for the mushroom club the Minister for Housing certainly fills the bill. Tonight he has answered a question that I placed on notice on 13th September. He gives me all this jazz about assistance not being provided if the house is purchased with the assistance of a loan of money provided under the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement. He also states:

Purchasers of subsidised homes built by the States with funds provided under the Agreement are excluded from the payment of a home savings grant because they already receive a significant benefit from the interest concession, and to ensure as far as possible that these homes are reserved for those wilh very small means and on low incomes.

In part (3) of my question I asked:

Will the States be making this housing finance available at a reduced interest rate.

The Minister’s reply states:

and (3) The Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement under which housing advances were made by the Commonwealth to the States at concessional interest rates is not being renewed. Instead, the Commonwealth will make direct grants to help the States continue to provide housing for lower income groups. For reasons explained in the Second Reading Speech on the Homes Savings Grant Bill 1971 purchasers of homes built by State housing authorities who receive the benefit of the new form of Commonwealth housing assistance will not be eligible for a home savings grant.

Following the second reading speech of the Minister on 11th November I asked this question:

Has the Government sought guarantees that interest charges on loans by, State Housing Authorities from Commonwealth funds will be less than normal savings bank rates.
If not, where are the advantages of cheaper money to which he referred on 4lh November 1971.

The Minister has not answered the question whether the States will be making the money available at the cheaper interest rates and, if they are not being made at the cheaper interest rates, whether they are to be made available at the bond rates at which the States are borrowing the money from the Commonwealth, 7 per cent, as was mentioned by the honourable member for Reid (Mr Uren), and which compares with the savings bank interest rate of 6 1/4 per cent. I cannot see where the people who are borrowing at 7 per cent have an advantage over those borrowings at 6b per cent. Unless some assurance is given by the States that they are making the money available al a lower interest rate I believe that the people who are building with Commonwealth funds are entitled to the benefit of the homes savings grant.

We have 2 schemes operating in Queensland. The first is the old workers’ dwellings scheme that has operated since the days of the T. J. Ryan Government in 1915 with money provided from the State’s funds. The other scheme is also operated by the State housing authority with funds made available by the Commonwealth. This might answer the question of my colleague the honourable member for Corio (Mi Scholes) as to why the Queensland State borrowings are so low in proportion to the population. The people who borrow through the Queensland Housing Commission and are given money provided from Commonwealth funds are not eligible for a homes savings grant, yet the people who borrow from the authority money which is provided from State funds are eligible for the grant. Both schemes are operated by the same authority. I cannot see how this can operate unless there is a concession in the interest rates charged by the States. The Minister has given no indication whatsoever that this concession in interest rates is being provided by the States.

If the Minister has information on this I would ask him not to keep us in the dark any longer and let us know what the position is. Surely he has had some discussion with the State Housing Ministers on whether they are going to make it available at savings bank interest or at the bond rate, the rate at which they are being charged for their loan funds. We do not want to be members of the mushroom club even if there are honourable members opposite who are, so I ask the Minister: Please make this information available.

Mr IRWIN:
Mitchell

– The purpose of this Bill is to make minor amendments to the Homes Savings Grant Act as a consequence of the new arrangements regarding Commonwealth assistance to the States for housing purposes. Under the Homes Savings Grant Act a person who purchases from a State housing authority a dwelling the construction cost of which was met from Commonwealth-State housing moneys cannot receive a home savings grant. The principal reason for this is that the Commonwealth already subsidises he cost to the purchaser through the 1 per cent interest concession that has applied up to the present time. Under the States Grants (Housing) Bill discussed earlier tonight the interest concession is to be replaced by direct grants to the States. Future purchasers of dwellings attracting the benefit of the grant to the States still will bc subsidised as were purchasers of housing agreement dwellings. Under the Act as it stands al present future purchasers would not be debarred from receiving a home savings grant because the existing section of the Homes Savings Grant Act is not wide enough to exclude them.

I believe that as a matter of equity the 2 groups should be treated in the same way. Surely that is a completely reasonable proposition. Therefore, to make future purchasers of housing authority dwellings who will benefit from the new housing arrangements ineligible for a home savings grant requires a small amendment to the Homes Savings Grant Act. It is only fair and reasonable that this should be done at the present time - at the same time as the passage through this House of legislation authorising the new Commonwealth housing grants to the States.

The home savings grant is greatly appreciated by the thousands of eligible young couples who receive it each year. I am sure that the Minister for Housing (Mr Kevin Cairns) will keep the grant under careful consideration in the future. 1 am certain also that he will continue to ensure that young people are given every reasonable opportunity to be eligible for it. As I said, this Bill is almost supplementary to the previous Bill considered tonight. I support its introduction. 1 know that the Minister will endeavour to iron out some of the existing anomalies and some of the machinery errors made by members of the legal profession and others in regard to the submission of certain applications. I know the Minister will endeavour to be very liberal in interpreting the regulations. I commend the Bill to the House.

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I want a couple of minutes to join my two colleagues in seeking from the Minister for Housing (Mr Kevin Cairns) some explanation of the reasons for this Homes Savings Grant Bill. Its effect is to deprive people who obtain houses from State housing authorities of the benefits of that legislation. If they save money in the approved way they are unable to get the Government grant which is made available to other people who direct such savings to the acquisition of a home. There is now no case for discrimination against persons who purchase State housing authority homes so far as the home saving grant is concerned. We have just concluded the debate on the States Grants (Housing) Bill. The effect of the course of action taken is to take away from the States certain benefits which operated previously. The whole tenor of the debate just concluded was about the development which the Government has initiated and which relates to the interest rates charged to the States for their housing loans. Previously, funds were made available at a rate which was 1 per cent below the bond rate but that procedure is to operate no longer. Instead, a grant of $2. 75m a year is to be made.

I may be wrong and I am seeking advice from the Minister but as 1 understand the position, just as loan money which is made available to the States for housing purposes is directed to the purposes of the State housing authorities, 30 per cent of the total amount is directed to building societies. If that is the case I would like the Minister to tell me why the people who secure homes through building societies are treated any differently from the people who obtain loans from the State housing authorities. That seems to me to be a straightforward proposition. The fact of the matter is that the States get a certain amount of loan money for housing and a contribution is made in respect of that loan money for housing. That contribution does not discriminate between the various categories of recipients. One category of recipient is the State housing authority and the homes provided by that authority. The other category of recipient is the building societies and the homes provided by the building societies. If they are both being assisted to a like extent from Commonwealth funds, why is it that homes provided by building society loans can attract assistance under the Homes Savings Grant Act whereas homes provided by State housing authorities do not attract this assistance?

I do not think that the Minister would want to advocate that we should take away the eligibility of persons who receive building society loans, people who have saved their money and directed it towards the acquisition of a home through a building society, and deprive them of the opportunity to benefit under the Homes Savings Grant Act. But the Minister has as much right to advocate that as he has to advocate that people purchasing homes through State housing authorities should be deprived of that benefit. When all is said and done it is often the case that people who have saved money to acquire a home through a State housing authority have worked a lot harder to accumulate the money than have other people. A study of applications received by the various State housing authorities will reveal that in the main they come from the relatively low income earners. I understand that in South Australia something like one-third of the applicants receive less than $50 a week. I understand that in New South Wales about 25 per cent of the applicants for housing commission homes receive less than $50 a week. These people who are seeking to purchase a home and who are receiving such a low income must find it difficult to save, but if they do save sufficient to attract a grant under the Homes Savings Grant Act surely they are the ones who should be entitled to receive it.

I support the amendment moved by the honourable member for Reid (Mr Uren), the effect of which is to increase the limit of the assessed value of a dwelling house from $17,500 to $20,000. In doing this I want to make it clear that I have not been an enthusiast about the homes savings subsidy scheme. In the first place, I regarded this scheme as another of the Government’s fiascos and I took the view that people with considerable incomes received a subsidy on their savings while the sociological disadvantaged people who did not have the same saving capacity, and who needed assistance more, often got nothing at all or in any case found it harder to get something. I also contended at the time the legislation was introduced that nobody would benefit anyway and as events have turned out this is what happened because land prices increased as an immediate consequence. So no-one benefited in the short term.

Then I took the view that the Government introduced the home savings grant scheme as a sort of illusionist trick. Because of the high price of land young couples were forced to go out to work for several years to pay off their land, and the double taxation that the Government collected in that period from those young people was far in excess of the value of the grant that they received - the $500. Of course then there were many restrictions. There were age barriers and things of this kind, some of which have been ironed out in the interim. But the matter in relation to which the honourable member for Reid has voiced his concern has not been ironed out because the limit to the value of a house which attracts the home savings grants is $17,500. This is not a reasonable limit. A person does not have to be wealthy to build or buy in many parts of the capital cities a home the value of which exceeds $1 7.500.

If honourable members come out to the area where I live they can see what I am talking about. I live 17 miles out from Sydney, and Parkes Development is selling land all over the place there at between $12,000 and $15,000 a block. We have to go further out than 17 miles south of Sydney to get land cheaper than that. 1 know that is unbelievable but it is nevertheless the consequence of this Government’s policy. After a person has bought land at that high price he then has to put a house on it, so we can imagine the figure to which the price to which a house and land can get. As a consequence of this many people who are wage earners - the 2- income families, the young people who go out to work - find themselves buying homes the value of which excludes them from eligibility under the home savings grant scheme.

For the year 1970-71 in the State of New South Wales no fewer than 218 applications were rejected on these grounds. In the whole of. Australia 614 applicants were rejected for the year 1970- 71, and in the preceding year 859 people were rejected. So there is a good case to support the amendment moved by the honourable member for Reid, and I would remind the House once again that there are 2 aspects of it. One is the one to which I referred concering the need to lift the value of the house which attracts a grant under the home savings grant scheme and the other is the need to eliminate the discrimination which, if this Bill is passed, unjustifiably will operate in respect of people who secure homes from State housing authorities.

Thursday, 25 November 1.971

Mr Kevin Cairns:
Minister for Housing · LILLEY, QUEENSLAND · LP

– in reply - This Bill comprises a very narrow amendment to the Homes Savings Grant Act, and the amendment intends to continue those homes in respect of which a home savings grant would apply. Under the Act as it was homes built by or for State housing authorities and for the tenants of those authorities with Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement money were not homes which attracted a home savings grant. This amendment ensures that homes built by State housing authorities as a result of the subventions under the States Grants (Housing) Bill 1971 will be in a similar position without any variation. So it is intended to continue the situation as it has been in the past.

The honourable member for Hughes (Mr Les Johnson) made one or two points which deserve to be commented upon. I think he suggested at one stage that the home savings grant was rather a gimmick. That word has been used by others. It is stated that that word was used in Melbourne also. There are many thousands of applicants who have been very pleased to receive the grant under the Homes Savings Grant Act, and I can assure the honourable member that neither they nor the Government regards this scheme as a gimmick. But in addition to this in the 7 years that the scheme has been in operation the Government has kept the value limit on homes that may qualify under review in the light of the prevailing levels of cost and the principles under which this has applied were stated in 1964 by the then Minister for Housing, the honourable member for Wentworth (Mr Bury). At that time he said:

The homes savings grant is aimed at assisting those who need and merit financial aid in acquiring a home. Those acquiring expensive homes stand in less need of assistance from the taxpayer whose interests must also be weighed.

When the scheme was introduced in 1964 with effect from 2nd December 1963 the value limit was $14,000. By progressive escalation the limit has now risen to $17,500. The honourable member for Hughes also wanted to know whether those people who operate under Home Builders Account arrangements do so as advantageously, less advantageously or in any way different from those people whose rate of interest was that applicable to State housing authorities.

I might illustrate the point fromwhat I said in an earlier speech this evening. The effective rates of interest under the Home Builders Account are generally significantly above those which apply to those people who have their homes built by State housing authorities. Honourable members will recollect that I mentioned that in South Australia, for example, under this Act the State Housing Trust activities will be operated at a level of 4½ per cent and 4¾ per cent and those authorities obtaining money from the Home Builders Account in that State will be obtaining it at an effective rate significantly above 6 per cent.

So there is a difference. There is a second difference. This difference is in terms of the years of repayment. It is important to remember that Home Builders Account funds often have to be repaid much more quickly than funds for homes which are acquired from State housing authorities. In some cases the difference is 25 years as against 45 and in other cases it is 30 years as against 45. The number of years varies as between different institutions in Australia. 1 am speaking about the totality of Australia. So there is a difference. This amendment intends to continue–

Sir John Cramer:

– There is no means test on the homes savings grants at all but the other is for indigent people or people in the low income groups.

Mr Kevin Cairns:
LILLEY, QUEENSLAND · LP

– What the honourable member for Bennelong has said is quite correct. There is no means test on homes savings grants and this principle is always applied. The Government suggests that, to continue the arrangements that have been so well received in the past and to continue the beneficial arrangements under the States Grants (Housing) Bill 1971 of which this short amendment is part, the Bill should be passed by the House.

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 E. N. Drury)

AYES: 48

NOES: 43

Majority . . . . 5

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Amendment negatived.

Original question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Third Reading

Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.

Bill (on motion by Mr Kevin Cairns) read a third time.

page 3626

ADJOURNMENT

Social Services

Motion (by Mr Swartz) proposed:

That the House do now adjourn.

Mr ARMITAGE:
Chifley

– on 9th November I spoke, during the debate on the estimates for the Department of Social Services, on what is obviously the policy of the Government steadily to remove the tapered means test by means of activities which were introduced during the term of the Prime Ministership of the right honourable member for Higgins (Mr Gorton). I quoted a case in relation to which I had written to the present Prime Minister (Mr McMahon) on 21st September. I referred to the case of a constituent of mine who had received State superannuation at the rate of $23.65 a week. This was increased by a decision of the New South Wales Government to $28.45, an increase of $4.80 per week, for the purpose of helping him to overcome the increase in the cost of living which has risen dramatically in recent times. He received also at that time a social services pension of $16.20 per fortnight. As a result of the increase of $4.80 per week in his State superannuation, his social services pension was reduced to $10.80 per fortnight. So his net position is that he receives only $2.10 per week more than he received before his State superannuation was increased by $4.80 per week. In other words, he received on the one hand an increase in superannuation of $4.80 per week but on the other hand it was taken back from him by the Department of Social Services, resulting in a net increase of only $2.10 per week in his total income.

That is not all. He also lost all fringe benefits, which included medical and transport concessions. He lost all his fringe benefits which, of course, to a man of his age are worth well in excess of $2.10 per week.In other words, as a result of the increase in his State superannuation to overcome the increased cost of living, this man is worse off than ever because of the action of the Commonwealth Government. AsI have said, I wrote to the Prime Minister on 21st September last. I spoke in this House on this matter on 9th November last. On that occasion I said that I still had not received a reply from the Prime Minister to my appeal for the restoration of the tapered means test which was introduced under the Prime Ministership of the right honourable member for Higgins. On 1 1th November, 2 days after I spoke in this House, I received a letter from the Prime Minister, and I wish to quote a section of it. He stated:

A review of the whole field of social services was completed prior to the preparation of the 1971-72 Budget with the aim of making whatever improvements were possible within the limits of available finance. As a result of this review the Government pursued its policy of assisting those most in need and increased the rates of pensions for those wholly or substantially dependent on their pensions.

The improvements carried out in the social services area represent the maximum possible at the present time, bearing in mind the limited finance available

We must remember that there is a record surplus of$630m in the present Budget - and the many demands for assistance in other areas.

Because eligibility is related to means it is of course inevitable that some pensioners will be disqualified from the Pensioner Medical Service and other ‘fringe’ benefits by very narrow margins, and from the information you have provided, Mr Hanson appears to fall into this category.

In other words, bad luck for him -

While I appreciate his position you will understand that whenever a line is drawn, there will always be some persons who are, or become, narrowly excluded from benefits.

This man has not been narrowly excluded from benefits; he has been deprived of benefits. He is worse off today than he was prior to receiving an increase in his State superannuation.

Now I refer to another case which came to my attention only last week. In this instance the individual concerned receives superannuation from the Commonwealth Government. Once again there was an increase in the superannuation, I gather, to overcome the increased cost of living. This man’s superannuation payments were increased from $30.33 a fortnight to $38.40 a fortnight. Up to the time of the increase in superannuation he had been receiving a service pension of $30.02 a fortnight, and his wife had been receiving an age pension of $30.50 a fortnight. As a result of the increase in Commonwealth superannuation this man’s wife’s pension was reduced by $5 a fortnight and his service pension was reduced by $5 a fortnight. In other words, he and his wife have suffered a reduction in pensions of $10 a fortnight, although the increase in his superannuation was$8 a fortnight. As a result of the increase of $8 a fortnight in his Commonwealth superannuation, this man and his wife loses $10 a fortnight, so he is $2 worse off than he was before he received the increase in his Commonwealth superannuation. How ridiculous can we get?

We know how when the Budget was introduced there was an attempt, by sleight of hand, to suggest that there was to be an increase of $1.25 a week for all pensioners. Afterwards we found that 148,000 pensioners would not receive the increase of $1.25 a week because they were affected by the tapered means test. Furthermore, we know that a similar number of pensioners did not receive the 50c a week increase in pensions earlier this year. So altogether they are down $1.75 a week. Surely it is time that these anomalies were corrected. It is time that this Government stopped making these attempts by stealth to which was introduced under the Prime Ministership of the right honourable member for Higgins. It is time the Prime Minister took the matter in hand and tried to honour the undertakings given during the last Federal election campaign by his predecessor. Until this is done people such as those to whose cases I have referred, who have their superannuation pensions increased to overcome the increased cost of living, will be worse off than they were before their pensions were increased.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

House adjourned at 12.3.1 a.m. (Thursday)

page 3628

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS UPON NOTICE

The following answers to questions upon notice were circulated:

United Nations: Representation of China (Question No. 4531)

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

– The answers to the honourable member’s questions are as follows:

Motion to postpone voting:

Australia, Belgium, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Central African Republic, Chad, Republic of China, Colombia, Democratic Republic of the Congo (Kinshasa), Costa Rica, Dahomey, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Fiji, Gabon, Gambia, Ghana, Greece, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Italy,Ivory Coast, Japan, Jordon, Khmer Republic, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malawi, Mauritius, Mexico, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Panama, Paraguay, Philippines, Portugal, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, Spain, Swaziland, Thailand, Tunisia, United States of America, Upper Volta, Uruguay.

Motion to accord priority to the Non-expulsion resolution:

Argentina, Australia, Bahrain, Barbados, Belgium, Bolivia, Brazil, Central African Republic, Chad, Republic of China, Colombia, Democratic Republic of the Congo (Kinshasa), Costa Rica, Dahomey, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Fiji, Gabon, Gambia, Ghana, Greece, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Indonesia, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Ivory Coast, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Khmer Republic, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malawi, Mauritius, Mexico, Morocco, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Panama, Paraguay, Philippines, Portugal, Rwanda, Saudi Arabia. South Africa, Spain, Swaziland, Thailand, Tunisia, United States of America, Upper Volta, Uruguay, Venezuela.

Non-Expulsion Resolution:

Argentina, Australia, Bahrain, Barbados, Bolivia, Brazil, Central African Republic, Chad, Republic of China, Colombia, Democratic Republic of the Congo (Kinshasa), Costa Rica, Dahomey, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Fiji, Gabon, Gambia, Ghana, Greece, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras,

Indonesia, Israel, Ivory Coast, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Khmer Republic, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malawi, Mauritius, Mexico, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Panama, Paraguay, Philippines, Portugal, Rwanda, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, Spain, Swaziland, Thailand, United States, Upper Volta, Uruguay, Venezuela.

Motion for division of Albanian Resolution:

Australia, Bahrain, Bolivia, Brazil, Central African Republic, Chad, Republic of China, Colombia, Democratic Republic of the Congo (Kinshasa), Costa Rica, Dahomey, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Fiji, Gabon, Gambia, Ghana, Greece, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Ivory Coast, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Khmer Republic, Laos, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malawi, Mauritius, Mexico, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Panama, Paraguay, Philippines, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, South Africa, Spain, Swaziland, Thailand, Trinidad and Tobago, United States, Upper Volta, Urugay and Venezuela.

Albanian Resolution:

Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Austria, Belgium, Bhutan, Botswana, Bulgaria, Burma, Burundi, Byelorussia, Cameroon, Canada, Ceylon, Chile, Cuba, Czechoslovakia, Denmark, Ecuador, The Arab Republic of Egypt, Equatorial Guinea, Ethiopia, Finland, France, Ghana, Guinea, Guyana, Hungary, Iceland, India, Iran, Iraq, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Kenya, Kuwait, Laos, Libyan Arab Republic, Malaysia, Mali, Mauritania, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Nepal, Netherlands, Nigeria, Norway, Pakistan, Southern Yemen, People’s Republic of Congo (Brazzaville), Peru, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Rwanda, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Somalia, Sudan, Sweden, Syria, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, Ukraine, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, Yemen, Yugoslavia, Zambia.

Motion to postpone voting:

Afgahanistan, Albania, Algeria, Barbados, Britain, Bulgaria, Burma, Burundi, Byelorussia, Cameroon, Canada, Ceylon, Chile, Cuba, Czechoslovakia, Denmark, The Arab Republic of Egypt, Equatorial Guinea, Ethiopia, Finland, France, Guinea, Guyana, Hungary, India, Iraq, Kenya, Kuwait, Libyan Arab Republic, Mali, Mauritania, Mongolia, Morocco, Nepal, Norway, Pakistan, Southern Yemen, People’s Republic of the Congo (Brazzaville), Peru, Poland, Romania, Rwanda, Sierra Leone, Somalia, Sudan, Sweden, Syria, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Uganda, Ukraine, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, United Republic of Tanzania, Yemen, Yugoslavia, Zambia.

Motion to accord priority to the Non-Expulsion Resolution:

Afgahanistan, Albania, Algeria, Bhutan, Bulgaria. Burma, Burundi, Byelorussia, Cameroon, Canada, Ceylon, Chile, People’s Republic of the Congo (Brazzaville), Cuba, Czechoslovakia, Denmark, The Arab Republic of Egypt, Equatorial Guinea, Ethiopia, Finland, France, Guinea, Guyana, Hungary, Iceland, India, Iraq, Kuwait, Libyan Arab Republic, Mali, Mauritania, Mongolia, Nepal, Nigeria, Norway, Pakistan, Peru, Poland, Romania, Sierra Leone, Somalia, Southern Yemen, Sudan, Sweden, Syria. United Republic of Tanzania, Uganda, Ukraine, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, United . Kingdom, Yemen, Yugoslavia, Zambia.

Non-Expulsion Resolution:

Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Bhutan, Bulgaria,Burma,Burundi, Byelorussia, Cameroon, Canada, Ceylon, Chile, Cuba, Czechoslovakia, Denmark, Ecuador, The Arab Republicof Egypt, Equatorial Guinea, Ethiopia, Finland, France, Guinea, Guyana, Hungary, Iceland, India, Iraq, Ireland. Kenya, Kuwait, Libyan Arab Republic. Malaysia, Mali, Mauritania, Mongolia, Nepal, Nigeria, Norway, Pakistan, People’s Republic of the Congo (Brazzaville), Peru, Poland, Romania, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Somalia, Southern Yemen, Sudan, Sweden, Syria, Trinidad and Tobago, Uganda, Ukraine, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, Yemen, Yugoslavia, Zambia.

Motion for division of Albanian Resolution:

Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Bhutan, Bulgaria. Burma, Burundi, Byelorussia, Cameroon. Canada, Ceylon, Chile, People’s Republic of the Congo (Brazzaville), Cuba, Czechoslovakia, Denmark, Ecuador. Equatorial Guinea, Ethiopia, Finland, France, Guinea, Guyana, Hungary, Iceland, India, Iraq, Ireland, Kenya, Kuwait, Libyan Arab Republic, Malaysia, Mali, Mauritania, Mongolia, Morocco, Nepal, Netherlands, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Pakistan, Peru, Poland, Romania, Rwanda, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Somalia, Southern Yemen, Sudan, Sweden, Syria, United Republic of Tanzania, Uganda, Ukraine, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, United Kingdom, Yemen, Yugoslavia,Zambia.

Albanian Resolution:

Australia, Bolivia, Brazil, Central African Republic, Chad, Democratic Republic of Congo (Kinshasa), Costa Rica, Dahomey, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Gabon, Gambia, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Ivory Coast, Japan, Khmer Republic, Lesotho, Liberia, Madagascar, Malawi, Malta, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Paraguay, Philippines. Saudi Arabia, South Africa, Swaziland, United States, Upper Volta, Uruguay, Venezuela

Argentina, Austria, Bahrain, Cyprus, Ecuador, Iceland, Indonesia, Iran, Ireland, Israel, Jamaica, Laos, Malaysia, Malta, Qatar, Senegal, Singapore, Turkey, Venezuela.

Motion to accord priority to the non-expulsion resolution:

Austria, Botswana, Cyprus, Ecuador, Iran, Kenya, Laos, Malaysia, Malta, Qatar, Senegal, Singapore, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Turkey.

Non-Expulsion Resolution:

Austria, Belgium, Botswana, Cyprus, Iran, Italy, Laos, Malta, Morocco, Netherlands, Qatar, Senegal, Togo, Tunisia, Turkey.

Motion for division of Albanian Resolution:

Argentina, Austria, Barbados, Belgium, Botswana, Cyprus, Indonesia, Iran, Israel, Italy, Malta, Portugal, Qatar, Togo, Tunisia. Turkey.

Albanian Resolution:

Argentina, Bahrain, Barbados, Colombia, Cyprus, Fiji, Greece, Indonesia, Jamaica, Jordan, Lebanon, Luxembourg. Mauritius, Panama, Qatar, Spain, Thailand.

Bhutan, Maldive Islands, Oman.

Motion to accord priority to the Non-Expulsion Resolution:

Maldive Islands, Oman.

Non-Expulsion Resolution:

Maldive Islands, Oman.

Motion for division of Albanian Resolution:

The Arab Republic of Egypt,Maldive Islands, Oman.

Albanian Resolution:

Republic of China, Maldive Islands, Oman.

Heroin Addiction (Question No. 4546)

Or Everingham asked the Minister for the Army, upon notice:

Hashis attention been drawn to reports in the Brisbane Telegraph of 11 October 1971 and Ramparts of May 1971 that certain persons and organisations have been involved in the production and distribution of 80 per cent of the illicit opium or its derivatives in the world, that heroin derived from this opium is the major killer in the 18 to 35 years age group in the United States of America and causes 55 per cent of urban crime and that its use is spreading with pandemic virulence.

Will he cause investigations to be made into heroin addiction among Australian ex-servicemen who served in Vietnam and report the findings to the Parliament.

Mineral Policy (Question No. 4585)

Mr Grassby:

asked the Minister for National Development, upon notice:

ls a major review being made of Australia’s mineral policy.
If so, when was the review ordered and when is il anticipated that it will be completed.
Will the results of the review be presented to Parliament.

Mr Swartz:
LP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: (11 and (2) See my answer to Question 3797 Hansard, 28th October 1971, page 2798.

This will be decided by the Government.

Electoral (Question No. 4590)

Mr Daly:

asked the Minister for the Interior, upon notice:

How many electors are enrolled at this date in (a) Australia, (b) each State and (c) each electoral division.

Mr Hunt:
CP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:

Pakistan: Supply of Arms (Question No. 4596)

Mr Hurford:

asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice:

Is Australia supplying arms to Pakistan at the present time.
If so, are these arms being supplied under South East Asia Treaty Organisation arrangements, what is their description and value, and what are the terms of payment.
Has Australia supplied arms to Pakistan under SEATO or any other arrangements since 1st January 1965.
If so, what is the (a) description and (b) value of those arms and what were the terms of payment.

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

– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:

No.
See answer to (1).
No.
See answer to (3).

Nursing Homes: Charges to Pensioners (Question No. 4599)

Mr Kennedy:
BENDIGO, VICTORIA

asked the Minister for Social Services, upon notice:

What Commonwealth or Territory legislation or rule limits the proportion of a pension that a nursing home may charge a pensioner patient and what limit does it impose.
If this type of provision does not exist, will he give consideration lo introducing legislation to ensure that pensioners in nursing homes are able to retain a reasonable proportion of their pensions for personal use.

Mr Wentworth:
LP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:

No legislation administered by the Department of Social Services imposes a limit on the amount a nursing home may charge a pensioner patient. The question of the charges to be met on admission of a pensioner to a nursing home is a matter for negotiation and arrangement between the pensioner and the home concerned.
In view of the known rising cost of conducting nursing homes and the differing financial circumstances and requirements of individual pensioners, it is by no means certain that a provision of this kind would prove, in practice, to be in the best interest of pensioners generally. As announced to the House on 5th October (see Hansard, page 1878) the Government has the question of assistance to nursing homes currently under examination.

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 24 November 1971, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1971/19711124_reps_27_hor75/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant

House of Representatives24 November 1971

PETITIONS

Duffy’s Forest Airport

Mr WENTWORTH:Minister for Social Services · MACKELLAR, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

Aid to Pakistani Refugees

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

Lake Pedder

Mr FOX:HENTY, VICTORIA

National Service

Mr KELLY:WAKEFIELD, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Taxation: Wine Growers

Mr GILES:ANGAS, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Chemical Agents of Warfare

Mr KIRWAN:FORREST, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Chemical Agents of Warfare

Mr WEBB:STIRLING, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Lake Pedder

Mr SHERRY:FRANKLIN, TASMANIA

National Service

Mr GILES:

Lake Pedder

Mr WHITTORN:BALACLAVA, VICTORIA

Crime Prevention

Mr BENNETT:SWAN, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Aboriginal Welfare

Mr WEBB:

Aboriginal Welfare

Mr KIRWAN:

Contraceptives

Mr BENNETT:

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN ECONOMY

Mr ARMITAGE:CHIFLEY, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr SPEAKER:

Mr ARMITAGE:

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

QUESTION

MOTOR CAR PRODUCTION

Mr BURY:WENTWORTH, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr HOLTEN:Minister for Repatriation · INDI, VICTORIA · CP

Mr Uren:

Mr SPEAKER:

Mr HOLTEN:

Mr Armitage:

Mr SPEAKER:

Mr HOLTEN:

Mr Uren:

Mr SPEAKER:

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN ECONOMY

Dr J F Cairns:LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

Mr MCMAHON:LP

QUESTION

PARLIAMENTARY COMMITTEES

Mr TURNER:BRADFIELD, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr MCMAHON:LP

QUESTION

TERRITORIAL WATERS

Mr WHITLAM:WERRIWA, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr McMAHON:LP

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

Mr Whitlam:

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

Mr Whitlam:

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

QUESTION

EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY

Mr LLOYD:MURRAY, VICTORIA

Mr McMAHON:LP

QUESTION

NATIONAL FILM AND TELEVISION TRAINING SCHOOL

Mr BARNARD:BASS, TASMANIA

Mr McMAHON:LP

QUESTION

THIS DAY TONIGHT

Mr MacKELLAR:WARRINGAH, NEW SOUTH WALES

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

Dr Patterson:

Mr SPEAKER:

Dr Patterson:

House of Representatives
24 November 1971

Mr WENTWORTH:
Minister for Social Services · MACKELLAR, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

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

Mr FOX:
HENTY, VICTORIA

Mr KELLY:
WAKEFIELD, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Mr GILES:
ANGAS, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Mr KIRWAN:
FORREST, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Mr WEBB:
STIRLING, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Mr SHERRY:
FRANKLIN, TASMANIA

Mr WHITTORN:
BALACLAVA, VICTORIA

Mr BENNETT:
SWAN, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Mr ARMITAGE:
CHIFLEY, NEW SOUTH WALES

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

Mr BURY:
WENTWORTH, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr HOLTEN:
Minister for Repatriation · INDI, VICTORIA · CP

Dr J F Cairns:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

Mr MCMAHON:
LP

Mr TURNER:
BRADFIELD, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr MCMAHON:
LP

Mr WHITLAM:
WERRIWA, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr McMAHON:
LP

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

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

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

Mr LLOYD:
MURRAY, VICTORIA

Mr McMAHON:
LP

Mr BARNARD:
BASS, TASMANIA

Mr McMAHON:
LP

Mr MacKELLAR:
WARRINGAH, NEW SOUTH WALES

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

Dr JENKINS:
SCULLIN, VICTORIA

Mr McMAHON:
LP

Mr ERWIN:
BALLAARAT, VICTORIA

Mr SNEDDEN:
Treasurer · BRUCE, VICTORIA · LP

Mr McMAHON:
LP

Mr O’KEEFE:
PATERSON, NEW SOUTH WALES

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

Mr HURFORD:
ADELAIDE, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Mr McMAHON:
LP

Dr J F Cairns:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

Mr McMAHON:
LP

Sir ALAN HULME:
LP

Mr McMAHON:
LP

Dr SOLOMON:
DENISON, TASMANIA

Dr FORBES:
LP

Mr HUNT:
Minister for the Interior · Gwydir · CP

Mr COLLARD:
Kalgoorlie

Mr SNEDDEN:
Treasurer · Bruce · LP