House of Representatives
30 November 1971
27th Parliament · 2nd Session
- PETITIONS
- NOTICE OF MOTION
- QUESTION
- QUESTION
- QUESTION
- QUESTION
- QUESTION
- QUESTION
- QUESTION
- PRIVILEGES
- QUESTION
- PERSONAL EXPLANATION
- ABORIGINAL ENTERPRISES (ASSISTANCE) ACT
- PERSONAL EXPLANATION
- LOAN (DEFENCE) BILL 1971
- COMMITTEE OF PRIVILEGES
- WAR SERVICE HOMES BILL 1971
- STATES GRANTS (SECONDARY SCHOOL LIBRARIES) BILL 1971
- LOAN (WAR SERVICE LAND SETTLEMENT) BILL 1971
- WAR SERVICE LANDSETTLEMENT
- ADJOURNMENT
- ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS UPON NOTICE
Mr SPEAKER (Hon. Sir William Aston) took the chair at 2 p.m., and read prayers.
page 3785
PETITIONS
Education: Finance
Mr BARNARD:
BASS, TASMANIA
-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 respectfully sheweth:
Whereas -
Parents have the right to choose their children’s education and as taxpayers they are entitled to ask that public funds to which their taxes have contributed should be shared justly and equitably for the education of all children.
The Commonwealth Parliament has accepted the principle of an independent school system in Australia and has also accepted the principle that those schools should be assisted from public funds.
The very existence of a large number of independent schools is now threatened due to the changes in economic circumstances and due to the increased demands on the resources of these schools.
The reduction of the number of independent schools in Australia will effectively deprive many taxpaying parents of their right to choose an alternative type of education for their children.
The closure of a number of independent schools will result in serious overcrowding in and further deterioration in the standard of government schools.
It is in the interest of all school pupils whether in government or independent schools that the independent school system should survive and function efficiently and effectively.
The absence of any increase in capitation grants by the Commonwealth since 1969. notwithstanding the great increase in costs since then, has created serious problems for independent schools.
Your petitioners request that your honourable
House make legal provision for -
An emergency increase in capitation grants for independent schools to enable them to survive without increasing fees beyond the capacity of parents to pay.
A just and equitable means of increased support for all schools both government and independent to the intent that such support should be integrated into the economic and financial planning of Australia’ and that the question of proper support of both Government and independent schools should cease to be a matter of political debate and expediency.
Petition received and read.
Lake Pedder
Mr CROSS:
BRISBANE. QLD
– 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 Redder, situated in the Lake Pedder National Park in South-West Tasmania, is threatened with inundation as part of ‘he 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 are 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 wilderness area.
And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.
Petition received.
Lake Pedder
Dr SOLOMON:
DENISON, TASMANIA
-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 are 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 wildneress area.
And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.
Petition received.
Lake Pedder
Mr ENDERBY:
ALP
– I present the following petition:
To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of 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 are 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 wilderness area.
And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.
Petition received.
Aid to Pakistani Refugees
Mr BROWN:
DIAMOND VALLEY, 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 respectfully showeth:
That we express our deepest concern for our fellow men suffering in the refugee camps in India. While we recognise India’s outstanding contribution in providing, as far as possible, for their immediate needs, we consider that this is a problem for all mankind to help solve, as there are 8 million people affected, many of them helpless children. We have matched our words by deeds, with contributions to our own special appeal in the Diamond Valley of Victoria.
Now we ask the Government to
Give immediate aid of at least $10m to help relieve the suffering.
Take the necessary diplomatic steps to seek a political solution.
Urge the United Nations to make a more effective effort to intervene on behalf of these stricken people.
And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.
Petition received.
Aid to Pakistani Refugees
To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of citizens of Australia respectively showeth:
It 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 worse off 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 and 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, the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled, will request that a special meetingof Cabinet be called to provide $10m for relief purposes in India and East Pakistan, and a further$50m over three years to help rehabilitate the refugees in East Pakistan.
And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.
Petition received.
Aid to Pakistani Refugees
Mr LLOYD:
MURRAY, 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 certain citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:
That the suffering of the Pakistani refugees is such as to warrant immediate relief.
That the amount of aid allocated for Pakistani refugee relief does not benefit Australia’s standing in the world as a developed nation.
That the state of tension between the Indian and Pakistani Governments is such as to thr eaten war.
Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Government will:
Immediately increase aid, monetary or otherwise, for Pakistani refugee relief to the value of $10m,
Grant as aid, on a continuing basis, a percentage of the gross national product, and
Use every diplomatic channel possible to ease tension between the Indian and Pakistani Governments.
And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.
Petition received.
Aid to Pakistani Refugees
Mr KENNEDY:
BENDIGO, VICTORIA
– I present the follow ing petition:
To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the Bendigo citizens for Pakistani Refugee Relief Appeal respectfully showeth that the petitioners are deeply concerned at the plight of the Pakistani refugees and with what is considered a lack of Government response in its aid giving programmes to relieve the situation in West Bengal.
Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that:
The Federal Government will increase its aid to the Pakistani refugees to ten million dollars.
The Federal Government willgrant income tax deductibility for donations to overseas aid organisations.
The Federal Government will endeavour by diplomatic initiatives to seek a just and humane solution to the problem of the refugees.
And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.
Petition received.
Australian Capital Territory Education Authority
Mr ENDERBY:
ALP
– I present the following petition:
To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The bumble petition of residents of the Division of the Australian Capital Territory respectfully showeth:
That there is a likelihood that education in the Australian Capital Territory will in the foreseeable future be made independent of the New South Wales education system:
That the decentralisation of education systems throughout Australia is educationally and administratively desirable, and is now being studied by several State Government Departments:
That the Australian Capital Territory is a homogeneous and coherent unit especially favourable for such studies:
Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that a Committee of enquiry, on which are represented the Department of Education and Science, institutions of tertiary education, practising educators, and the Canberra community, be instituted to enquire into the form that an Australian Capital Territory Education Authority should take, the educational principles and philosophy that should underlie it, and its mode of operation and administration.
And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.
Petition received.
Suspension of Aid to Pakistan
Mr BROWN:
– 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 respectfully showeth:
That we express our deepest concern for our fellow men suffering in the refugee camps in India. While we recognise India’s outstanding contribution in providing, as far as possible, for their immediate needs, we consider that this is a problem for all mankind to help solve, as there are nine million people, many of them helpless children, affected.
We have matched our words by deeds with contributions to our own special appeal in the Diamond Valley, Victoria.
Now we ask the Government to:
Suspend its aid to the Pakistan Government, immediately.
Raise to $10,000,000 its aid to refugees now in India.
Add its voice to those seeking the release of Sheikh Mujibur Rahman.
Use its influence with its friends and allies to initiate action which will lead the Pakisstan authorities to withdraw their troops from East Bengal and negotiate with the provisional Government of Bangla Desh.
Move for the immediate initiation of a massive multi-national effort to underwrite the rehabilitation of the Bangla Desh people and their economy.
Support all efforts to guarantee the fully autonomous development of the people of Bangla Desh.
And your petitioners, as in duly bound, will ever pray.
Petition received.
page 3787
NOTICE OF MOTION
Mr CREAN:
Melbourne Ports
-I give notice that at the next sittingI shall move:
That the Government no longer possesses the confidence of the House because of the failure of its economic policies.
page 3787
QUESTION
PRIME MINISTER’S STATEMENT ON RHODESIA
Mr KEOGH:
BOWMAN, QUEENSLAND
– My question is directed to the Prime Minister. I refer to a national television programme last Friday evening on which the Prime Minister, speaking of discussions he had with the British Government, said:
For example I was told of what was about to happen in Rhodesia.
Is he aware that a British Government spokesman had previously said that no prearrangement or advance knowledge of the settlement was known? Can the Prime
Minister inform the House exactly what he was told, when he was told and by whom, or must we assume that this statement has no basis in fact, as a similar statement made in the same programme when, in reply to the matter raised by Sir Robert Menzies, who earlier in the week had criticised his Government, he said: ‘We know where we are going’-
Mr SPEAKER:
-Order! The honourable gentleman will ask only one question. He cannot ask a series of questions or double questions.
Mr McMAHON:
Prime Minister · LOWE, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP
– What I said was correct. I had a long discussion with the British Foreign Minister about his proposed trip to Southern Rhodesia, and he was good enough to let me know of the proposals that Britain would be making and that they would be within the 5 points. I would not be prepared to go any further than that, because the details of the discussion were in confidence. I can assure the honourable gentlemen that in matters like this when the details are presented to me in confidence, the confidence will be kept.
page 3788
QUESTION
SUSPENSION OF STANDING ORDERS
Mr CREAN:
Melbourne Ports
– I move:
I have moved the motion on behalf of the Opposition, which believes that the economic situation facing the nation is so serious that we must have a full scale debate in the House leading, if possible, to the defeat of the Government and a change of Government. Time and again at question time when questions relating to the economy have been asked both of the Prime Minister (Mr McMahon) and of the Treasurer (Mr Snedden) we have been fobbed off with statements such as The Government has it in hand’ or ‘We are looking at it and we will act when we have to’. I submit that no-one in the nation, except the Prime Minister and the Treasurer, believes any longer that the Government is on top of the economic situation and that it is time that the issue be fully ventilated in the House. I do not want in the course of this motion, which is merely one for the suspension of standing orders, to outline in broad detail the attack which the Opposition proposes to launch; but nobody can deny that, in an economy under a government that claims itself lo be a believer of full employment, the employment situation is deteriorating day by day. One needs only to look at the Government’s own publications, such as the Treasury Information Bulletin, to see that there has been a decline in the rate of economic performance for the three-quarters of the year listed in that document as compared with the three-quarters of the previous year, which was no year of good performance either.
The White Paper reveals that in that year we had one of the lowest records in recent times of increase in real gross national product when corrected for increase in population and changes in prices. I do not think anyone can but be alarmed at the accelerating rate of inflation as evidenced by the consumer price index, the import index or the wholesale price index, whichever one chooses to look at. They show a rapid deterioration last year. In an economy in which employment is Calling and prices are rising and in which the majority of people who derive incomes do so by reason of employment or as recipients of pensions or fixed income pensions, how can people but be alarmed at the deterioration shown in those 2 indicators?
One could go into more depth in relation to the economy. It seems that in many respects the Government is merely twiddling with the situation instead of reaching down to grasp the comprehensive problems that are the seat of this trouble. I would describe the Government as a Government that has neither nose nor nous. It has no nose to smell what is wrong and it has no nous to put things right. It is because of that that we suggest that this opportunity should be given to debate this matter and to let honourable members opposite debate it also. After all, there is a certain degree of difference on the other side. The Government is not the unanimous body that it claims to be and there are plenty of reasons in the economy at the moment why there should be dissent. Perhaps it is not easy to put one’s finger on a neat programme of solutions but at least there are some things that it is within the power of a government to do which this Government is refusing to do.
The Government can acknowledge that what is called the Budget strategy is far from being correct. It can do something about removing some of the taxes that were imposed. It can do something to relieve the circumstances of those who are dependent on fixed incomes - on pensions in particular - and the recipients of the unemployment benefit. The Government can do something to alter the tax pattern and something to bring down the rate of interest prevailing in this country even more than it tentatively has started to do, and it can do something to adjust sales tax. There are plenty of things on which action can be taken. But the opportunity should also bc given to this Parliament to debate what might be called longer term difficulties as well as the immediate short term ones. I think the Budget that we have just disposed of in this House shows more clearly than any other Budget that has ever been presented in this Parliament how inadequate it is as a prescription for the times ahead. It can do little more than adjust the course that was wrongly taken in the previous Budget and try to set a somewhat different course at the beginning of the next year. But there are limits to what a Budget can do and the Budget has to operate in the context of the whole economy. In fact, it is a bit difficult sometimes to decide with all the theories and jargon that are paraded these days whether ultimately the Budget balances the economy or the economy balances the Budget. There is no doubt, looking at the short term problem - this is a government that can scarcely be asked in view of its record to lift its eyes to the hills and look at the long term problems - that no longer does anybody, even the most devout supporter of the Prime Minister or the Treasurer, concede that what was done in the August Budget was the right prescription or, if it were thought to be right then that it is right 3 months later. This can be seen in the way in which the Treasurer and the Prime Minister will grasp at any sort of day to day set of statistics that are laid on their tables as they did last week about the document showing the national income for the first quarter of this year which can be only a preliminary assessment. All that it does show is some tentative sort of improvement on what previously had been one of the most depressed quarters in history anyway. But all the indices given in that document are uncorrected either for prices or some other matters not yet determined. It seems to the Opposition that the attitude of the Government is that everything will turn out right in the end.
A modern economy such as Australia’s is not only dependent on internal economic activity but also highly reliant on events outside and to suggest that we can run the economy any longer just on hunches rather than by some semblance of long term planning shows how deficient in economic thinking the Government really is. I have been surprised in recent days to find, even in quarters that one would have thought would have been the most avid supporters of this Government in the past, doubt as to whether they are going to support it in the future. I am also interested to find that sometimes the word ‘planning’ is no longer regarded as a dirty word so far as the total performance of an economy is concerned. But we are a country which believes in economic growth. We are a country which believes in stability of prices. We are a country that claims to adhere to full employment techniques. We are a country which believes in some equity as between one section of the community and another and we are one that acknowledges that the balance of payments, exchange rates and terms of trade are highly significant as far as the destiny of our people is concerned.
There are the matters that we want to touch upon in the debate which would ensue if my motion be agreed to. We believe that this debate ought to have the highest priority in the arrangement of the business of the House. We are tired of the continual fobbing off by the Prime Minister and the Treasurer in particular as the two who ought to be the custodians of the overall economic health of the community. They evade answers, they appear not to realise the seriousness of problems. They even seem to ignore some things that everybody else regards as problems but of which they appear to be entirely unaware. Therefore for those reasons I have taken the second step, consequent upon the first step, of moving for the suspension of the Standing Orders, and I repeat the terms of my motion. They were:
That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the honourable member for Melbourne Ports moving forthwith the motion of want of confidence of which he has given notice for the next day of sitting and such motion taking precedence of all other business until disposed of.
Mr SPEAKER:
– Is the motion seconded?
Dr J F CAIRNS:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP
– I second the motion. I would like to put briefly to the House the reason why I second the motion. I will, of course, be limited in what I can say now as to why the motion should be accepted. The reason why it should be accepted is that the examination bythis House of the state of the economy and the Government’s policy or lack of policy in relation to the economy is an urgent matter. There is no other matter so urgent in this nation at this time. The urgency of the situation arises from the remarkable coincidence of inflation and unemployment at the one time. Some governments have been able to bring about inflation, some have been responsible for unemployment, but it took this Government to be responsible for both at the same time. There is an urgency in this matter because many of our fellow citizens are suffering very badly in the current situation. Many tens of thousands of boys and girls are to leave school in the next few weeks and many tens of thousands of them will not be able to get jobs or will not be able to get the jobs for which they have been educated. Because of the absence of employment opportunities in the next few weeks the future of tens of thousands of young Australians will be materially affected. The problem of working out some action that might be taken to deal with that situation is an urgent matter.
That, Mr Speaker, is one of the reasons why this motion should be accepted now. I do not need to recite the difficulties of rural industry. I do not need to remind the House that broad sectors of rural industry have no idea of their own future. The Government should be required to say whether it considers there is a satisfactory future demand for rural products to maintain rural industry at its present level or whether it will bring forward a plan to transfer farmers out of production for their own welfare. The Government has never faced this question. Facing it is an urgent matter, and this is one of the urgent reasons why this motion should be accepted now and not postponed to some time in the future.
Another question that involves enormous urgency is the matter of the inflow of overseas foreign funds. Figures for the September quarter show an inflow of about $400m, as against $1 40m for the same period last year. Nobody knows whether this is hot money, cold money or some other sort of money, but what we can be sure about is that if this flow continues at that rate for long, Australia will be foreign owned. It is an urgent matter to decide whether this is so and what should be done about it. This is a buyer’s market and it seems to me that it suits the multi-national corporations that are responsible for this inflow of foreign money to have a buyer’s market so that they can get a firm grip on the crucial elements in the Australian economy that they do not own already. With shares in Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd at a little over $9 a share, this is a buyer’s market.
Mr Whittorn:
– Crocodile tears.
DrJ. F. CAIRNS- The honourable member who is interjecting may find that the few shares he owns are in a company which, before very long, will be owned overseas. It is urgent that this Government face the question of whether it wants Australia to be sold out at this rate to foreign buyers.
It has been said often in the last few weeks that only the Government can begin a recovery; that only the Government can give the economy the stimulus that is needed to put it back at a firm rate of development. It is the Government’s responsibility to say whether it can do so. But what is the Government’s attitude? No-one knows. The Prime Minister was asked several times last week during question time, sometimes by - I will not say his supporters - members on his own side of the House-
Mr McMahon:
– Which ones?
Dr J F CAIRNS:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP
– The honourable member for Wentworth (Mr Bury). 1 see you do not dispute that.
Mr McMahon:
– Check the facts.
Dr J F CAIRNS:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP
– 1 do not mean the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Wentworth); I mean Mr Les Bury, who was the Treasurer until you cut his head off. If he still supports you, he has no feelings at all, which I sometimes suspect.
Mr SPEAKER:
-Order! The question before the Chair is the motion for the suspension of the Standing Orders.
Dr J F CAIRNS:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP
– I say that questions were asked even from the right honourable gentleman’s own side which he carefully evaded or avoided. So the economy as a whole is no better placed than is this House; it has no better idea where the Government stands; it has ho better idea whether the Government considers it faces inflation or unemployment. The economy has no idea of whether the Government intends to follow out a restrictive policy or a stimulating policy. No indication has been given, but indications have been asked for from all over the country. Perhaps it is already too late for the Government to be able to do anything about this. Perhaps we will go into 1972 with a continuing downward trend in the economy. Perhaps even if the Government acted now it could not bring about a recovery.
I submit to the House that there is a degree of urgency about the situation that does not allow the Government to postpone this want of confidence motion for one more hour. Of course, under the Right Honourable Sir Robert Menzies and the Right Honourable Harold Holt and even possibly in the short interregnum of the Right Honourable member for Higgins (Mr Gorton) - none of us got to know him very well, but quite possibly even under him - the traditions of this House would not have allowed a no confidence motion to be pushed aside. Whenever a no confidence motion was moved in this House when the Government was led by those gentlemen they had the guts to debate it immediately. They did not want it put off until some later day so that they could go out and consult with their friends and make up their case and devise their alibis. But not this Government; this Government is a government of -alibis. This Government-
Sir Alan Hulme:
– Why don’t you leave it there?
Dr J F CAIRNS:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP
– The Minister responsible for stamps interjects.
Mr SPEAKER:
-Order! The proper title of the honourable gentleman is the PostmasterGeneral.
Dr J F CAIRNS:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP
– I finish what 1 have to say in seconding the motion upon this point: No government that has a proper sense of what should be done in this House can for one minute push aside a no confidence motion. No government that has a proper sense of responsibility can leave a no confidence motion hanging over its head. That is why I have seconded the motion moved by the honourable member for Melbourne Ports, which states:
That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the honourable member for Melbourne Ports moving forthwith the motton of want of confidence of which he has given notice for the next day of sitting and such motion taking precedence of all other business until disposed of.
Mr SWARTZ:
Minister for National Development · Darling Downs · LP
– We have just listened to 2 speeches which in most respects were not directly connected with the motion before the House but which covered, I would assume, the points which the Opposition wishes to raise in the motion of no confidence itself. The situation has arisen where notice has already been given through the Press of the Opposition’s intention to take some action in this field. So the motion does not come as any surprise to this House. The position is that the Government views this matter apparently far more seriously than does the Opposition. I think it is quite obvious from the build-up that has been made and from the way in which substantive matter has been brought into the notice of motion which was moved today that the Opposition is using this motion solely for political purposes. Of course, this is entirely understandable, and perhaps the tone that was adopted by the seconder of the motion indicated that standard.
Notice of the motion was given and after we had entered question time - not immediately but afterwards - the motion for the suspension of Standing Orders was moved. If, in normal circumstances, honourable members opposite had wished to bring the matter on today, as they have stated they wanted to do, they would not only have given notice of the motion but also would have moved for the suspension of the Standing Orders immediately. But they did not do that; they did not follow normal procedures. It is rather strange that the honourable member for Lalor (Dr J. F. Cairns) stated that whenever censure motions or motions of no confidence have been moved in this House they have always been debated immediately. This is not so. On 6th February 1952 a motion of no confidence was introduced and it was debated the next day. This also happened on 30th October 1956, 9th March 1961, 2nd April 1963, 18th April 1963, 24th September 1964 and 15th March 1971. I mention this merely to refute what the honourable member for Lalor stated positively. Of course, in many other cases such motions were proceeded with immediately. The Government takes a most serious view of this motion. The motion covers a wide range of very important matters all of which should be most carefully considered. So that the debate on such important matters which warrant full consideration and attention can be dealt with, the Government is prepared to accept the notice that has been given and allow the debate on it to take priority over any other Government business tomorrow. In view of those circumstances the Government cannot accept this motion for the suspension of Standing Orders.
Mr Stewart:
– Mr Speaker-
Motion (by Mr Swartz) put:
That the question be now put.
The House divided. (Mr Speaker - Hon. Sir William Aston)
AYES: 58
NOES: 52
Majority . . . . 6
AYES
NOES
Question so resolved in the affirmative.
Original question (Mr Crean’s motion) put.
The House divided.
AYES: 53
NOES: 59
Majority . . 6 (Mr Speaker - Hon. Sir William Aston)
AYES
NOES
Question so resolved in *he negative.
page 3793
QUESTION
DEFENCE
Mr BONNETT:
HERBERT, QUEENSLAND
– Is the Minister for Defence aware that a well known radio commentator stated on Sunday night that the McMahon Government and the Labor Opposition had obviously reached a bipartisan consensus on defence and foreign policy? Does the Minister agree with this statement?
Mr FAIRBAIRN:
Minister for Defence · FARRER, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP
– My attention was drawn to the statement which the honourable member has mentioned. Quite frankly,
I was amazed. I would like to see a bipartisan policy on defence and foreign affairs so long as it was our policy. It appears that there are very many areas in which there is a wide gulf between the LiberalCountry Party policy and the Labor policy. First of ali the Leader of the Opposition, while saying recently that a Labor government would maintain about the same expenditure of resources on defence as the present Government, went on to name a figure of between 3.2 per cent and 3.5 per cent of the gross national product. If the lower figure of 3.2 per cent were accepted this would immediately mean a reduction in defence expenditure of about $80m. This would have a quite disastrous effect on the purchase of new equipment or on the number of servicemen that we could retain in the Services.
Mr Bryant:
– I raise a point of order. Standing order 144 provides that questions should not ask Ministers for an expression of opinion or to announce the Government’s policy. However questions may seek an explanation regarding the policy of the Government, its application and so on. The question did not fit in with that and the Minister’s answer has nothing to do with it. Therefore I believe the question is out of order.
Mr SPEAKER:
-Order! As I have said before in this House, the Chair is not aware of any Government policy nor is it aware of the policy of the Opposition.
Mr Charles Jones:
– It is about time you were.
Mr SPEAKER:
-I would suggest that any remarks while the Speaker is addressing the Parliament are extremely out of order, and if they occur again I will deal with the honourable member responsible. I warned one of the offending members earlier this afternoon. I have forgotten the actual wording of the question but I think it revolved around the difference between the Government’s policy and the Opposition’s policy in relation to a particular matter. If the question related to policy it is not for the Chair to decide whether the differences in policy are wide or narrow. It is up to the Minister concerned to say whether he wishes to answer the question if it relates to a matter of policy. If there is a further query in relation to policy an honourable member may ask the Prime
Minister to explain the Government’s policy. 1 think that is the meaning of the standing order to which the honourable member for Wills has referred.
Mr Bryant:
– In the course of the question the honourable member for Herbert asked about policy. That seems to me to be a contravention of Standing Orders. He also asked for an expression of opinion. Whatever the Minister does is within his prerogative, though I might disagree with him. I accept your ruling on thai, Mr Speaker, but the question by the honourable member for Herbert asked for 2 things - a statement about Government policy and then an expression of opinion about our policy. Both of these make the question out of order.
Mr SPEAKER:
-The policy .1 have always adopted since I hay:e been Speaker is to allow the Minister to whom the question is directed to state whether the question relates to a matter of policy.
The second part of the question asked whether he agreed with that policy. In that context the honourable member for Herbert is asking for an expression of opinion. ] suggest that the Minister for Defence confine himself to answering the first part of the question.
Mr FAIRBAIRN:
– Certainly I will confine myself to the differences between the Liberal and . Country Parties together and the Labor Party in matters of defence..
Mr Scholes:
– Mr Speaker, a point of order. If it is in order under the Standing Orders, and if the Minister is responsible to the House for expressions of opinion on Labor Party policy, is it also in order for questions to be directed to the Leader of the Opposition on the same subject and is he similarly responsible to the House on that matter?
Mr SPEAKER:
-I will rule only on that part of the point taken which is a substantive question and not the hypothetical aspect. The question put to the Minister for Defence at this stage concerns differences of policy. Provided that the Minister’s answer is relevant to the question, it is in order, because, as I have said before, it has been the custom and the practice of this House since I have been Speaker, and prior to that, that whether a question deals with policy is left to the individual Minister concerned.
Mr FAIRBAIRN:
– I will confine myself to the differences of policy between the Liberal and Country Parties and the Labor Party. The next matter I would mention is the complete difference of policy in relation to national service. The Government believes that it should use national service to the extent necessary to boost voluntary recruitment to what it believes is a desirable requirement for the Australian Army. The Labor Party completely disagrees with this and has said that it would abolish national serVice immediately. This could result in a reduction in the force of the Regular Army by about one-third. The Labor Party has said that it would withdraw immediately from Singapore and Malaysia. It would do this without consultation. This would completely undermine the Five Power arrangements which have just been put into-
Dr J F CAIRNS:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP
– Another point of order: 1 think your ruling, Mr Speaker, wa.s a clear one, that the Minister was entitled to give his opinion of the differences between the policies of the Labor Party and the Liberal Party. He is now going much further than that. In addition to saying that we differ about troops in Malaysia he is now going on to give his opinion about the effect of that and saying that it would cause disorder and confusion in Singapore. Tt seems to me that he is going far beyond your ruling.
Mr SPEAKER:
– Provided the answer is relevant to the question - I submit that it is relevant to the question in relation to the differences - the Minister is in order.
Mr Whitlam:
– Mr Speaker, I believe that it will be helpful if the Minister, in view of the length of his reply, were now to take the advice which you have given to other Ministers, and make a ministerial statement. I make this submission to you all the more heartily because it is well known that the Minister announced that he was going to make a ministerial statement on defence and has been precluded from doing so.
Mr SPEAKER:
-The Chair is not aware of any reason for it, but 1 ask the Minister to make his answer as short as possible.
Mr FAIRBAIRN:
– Certainly, Mr Speaker, but I draw your attention to the fact that it has been the length of the interruptions and not the length of my reply which has taken up time. I complete my reply by saying that there is complete divergence of opinion between the Government and the Opposition on the question of foreign owned, controlled or operated -bases on Australian territory. 1 finish by saying that our defence policies are poles apart.
page 3795
QUESTION
LOCATION OF DEPARTMENTS: DECENTRALISATION
MrWHITLAM - My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. Two months ago the right honourable gentleman told me that he was making inquiries from the Chairman of the Public Service Board to find out whether he thought it desirable to examine the cost and convenience of transferring some of the departments still located in Melbourne to some point between Melbourne and Canberra, such as Albury-Wodonga, instead of to Canberra. I ask him whether the Chairman has recommended or conducted an examination of this matter. In the same answer the right honourable gentleman said that the Government would soon be receiving, and would then quickly consider, a report from the 7-year-old Commonwealth-State officials committee on decentralisation. I ask: Has this report been received and considered, and if so, when will it be tabled and debated? Lastly, I ask him whether he will also ask the Public Service Board to advise whether it would be economic and convenient to site the next major Commonwealth building in the metropolitan area of Sydney at, say, Parramatta, which is now close to the centre of Sydney’s population.
Mr McMAHON:
LP
– As to the first question asked by the honourable gentleman, I have not received a report from the Public Service Board. As to the third, it is not a function of the Public Service Board to make the decision on its own. As to the intermediate question that was asked I will make inquiries and let the honourable member know.
Mr Whitlam:
– What about the third one?
Mr McMAHON:
– I answered it.
page 3795
QUESTION
EAST PAKISTAN REFUGEES
Mr REID:
– My question is addressed to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. It is reported that the armed conflict in East Pakistan has already resulted in tens of thousands of additional Pakistanis being forced to leave their farms and villages in the battle areas around Jessore and in the north. Is the Minister aware that the fighting between India and Pakistan will considerably increase the refugee problem within the country? As it is obvious that the refugee position will considerably worsen, has the Government any plans for immediate relief assistance or will it adopt its usual wait and see policy which, of course provides little succour for the refugees?
Mr N H BOWEN:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP
– It is undoubtedly to be expected that fighting will increase the number of refugees, but in point of fact no figures are available on that aspect of the honourable member’s question. The honourable member referred to fighting between India and Pakistan. I think it only fair to point out that although some conflict between units of the armies of India and Pakistan has been reported the great bulk of the fighting has been between Pakistani forces and the Mukti Bahini. As to the last part of the honourable member’s question, he is well aware of the deep concern of the Government for the plight of the refugees and our policy of keeping the problem under continuing review whereby progressively we have increased our aid as the need grew and accordingly, as at my last announcement, the figure has now reached $5.5m. Our concern has been to get this aid on to the ground where the refugees needed it, and I think in this respect our aid has been exemplary compared with any other aid that has been given. Indeed, recently I had to announce that we were combining with private organisations in Australia and providing 3 charter aircraft from Qantas Airways Ltd to carry blankets which the private organisations have been able to provide so that the blankets could be given to the refugees in that area before the cold snap. I think the honourable member can be assured of our deep concern and our continuing watch on the situation.
page 3795
QUESTION
DEFENCE: MINISTERIAL STATEMENT
Mr BARNARD:
– I wish to ask the Minister for the Army a question.
Mr SPEAKER:
– The Minister for the Army is absent.
Mr BARNARD:
– In that case I will redirect my question to the Minister for Defence. In view of the fact that he did not answer the question directed to him by the Leader of the Opposition concerning the need for a statement to be made by him or, alternatively, the preparation of a White Paper on defence so that this matter may be fully discussed in the Parliament. I now ask the Minister for Defence what he intends to provide that would allow a full scale debate in this House before the sessional period ends.
Mr FAIRBAIRN:
LP
– If the honourable gentleman had been listening when 1 was speaking during the debate on the estimates for the Department of Defence he would know that I said then that it was extremely unlikely that it would be possible to prepare a White Paper or a ministerial statement before the House rises. We have had discussions in the Cabinet on our future defence programme. These discussions disclose the fact that there is still a considerable amount of work to be done in assessing various programmes. This matter is about to come back to Cabinet again but in view of the fact that no final decision has been made it has been decided to delay a ministerial or a prime ministerial statement until early in the autumn session.
page 3796
QUESTION
COAL EXPORTS
Mr O’KEEFE:
PATERSON, NEW SOUTH WALES
– I direct a question to the Minister for National Development. Is the Japanese steel industry proposing to restrict its output? Is this affecting the supply of Australian coal to Japan? Have the continuous strikes in the Australian coal industry also had a serious effect on coal supplies to Japan? Will the Minister tell the House the current situation with regard to coal supplies to this important market?
Mr SWARTZ:
LP
– lt is a fact that the steel industry throughout the world has suffered from a minor recession and that this has been accentuated in some degree by the world monetary crisis, particularly as it involves the relationship between the United States and Japan. As a result the Japanese steel industry, in consonance with the industries in other countries throughout the world, has been revising the estimates of output that it previously had made. The last figures that the Japanese gave were significantly lower than the estimates that it had previously given for the period up to 1975. Not only has this revision affected the supply of iron ore, particularly from Australia; it has also had an effect on the supply of coal. In answer to a question by the honourable member recently I indicated that there had been a decline in exports of coal but that they had found a new level and that 1 thought that level would remain fairly constant for some time, and that we would expect the level to rise as soon as the steel industry throughout the world picked up, as we expect it will before very long.
The position with regard to supplies is that we have been able to build up our stocks in Australia to meet all our commitments. Some adjustments have been made at various places where, due to industrial problems, there has been a slight slowing down in production. This has been the case particularly in the State of New South Wales although the situation has now recovered somewhat and we are able to meet al) requirements as they come forward. At present we have sufficient stocks to meet Japanese requirements for coal and I think that position will continue.
page 3796
PRIVILEGES
Mr ALLAN FRASER:
EDEN-MONARO, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP
– 1 ask the Prime Minister: Has the Government any proposal to enable this House to decide and declare its privileges under the power which was provided 70 years ago in the Constitution but which has never been exercised? ls he aware that assurances have been given previously on this matter, not by him. but by the Prime Minister of the day? ls he satisfied with the present stopgap procedure outlined in the Constitution under which this House acts on the rules of privilege of the House of Commons of the nineteenth century but actually dating in precedent back to the Middle Ages, a procedure in which the accused person has none of the rights of an accused person in any court of justice anywhere in the British Commonwealth?
Mr McMAHON:
LP
– As to the last part of the question asked by the honourable gentleman, I think it is proper and timely that we should introduce our own legislation to establish the privileges of this House. I think it is unbelievable that we should have gone for so long tied to the apron strings of the United Kingdom Parliament practices. As to the second question that was asked, I remember very well the undertaking given by the former Prime Minister and, if I may now associate that with the first part of the question, I have already given an instruction that a paper is to be prepared for discussion in this House. Up to the moment I have not been able to get it.
page 3797
QUESTION
PAKISTANI REFUGEES
Mr JARMAN:
DEAKIN, VICTORIA
– My question is addressed to the Minister for Foreign Affairs and is supplementary to the question asked by the honourable member for Holt. Has the fighting on the IndiaPakistan border in any way interfered with aid from Australia getting through to the Pakistani refugees?
Mr N H Bowen:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP
– So far, the fighting which has taken place has not interfered with the aid which Australia is sending to the refugees who have moved from Pakistan into India. However, there has been some interruption to the aid of a humanitarian character which we were giving to people in need in East Pakistan. The port facilities and also the question of transport and the control which was to be exercised by United Nations Organisation officers operating on behalf of the SecretaryGeneral have been subject to difficulty and there has been interruption in that quarter.
page 3797
PERSONAL EXPLANATION
Mr BURY:
Wentworth
– I wish to make a personal explanation.
Mr SPEAKER:
-Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?
Mr BURY:
– Yes, by the honourable member for Lalor. Earlier this afternoon the honourable member referred to me as someone who had asked the Prime Minister a question to which the Prime Minister had evaded any reply. I wish to make it clear that at no time since he assumed that office have I addressed a question to the Prime Minister.
page 3797
ABORIGINAL ENTERPRISES (ASSISTANCE) ACT
Mr HOWSON:
Minister tor the Environment, Aborigines and the Arts · Casey · LP
– Pursuant to section 13 of the Aboriginal
Enterprises (Assistance) Act 1968, I present the third annual report by the Office of Aboriginal Affairs on the administration and operation of the Act for the year ended 30th June 1971.
page 3797
PERSONAL EXPLANATION
Mr FOSTER:
Sturt
– I wish to make a personal explanation.
Mr SPEAKER:
-Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?
Mr FOSTER:
– Yes, I do. Last week-end in the Adelaide ‘Sunday Mail’ appeared an article relating to the endorsed Liberal Party candidate for Sturt in which it was claimed that his political opponents - there are only 2 political opponents endorsed for that particular seat so far - were responsible for extremism in that they hurled certain chunks of masonry through an office window. 1 do not regard the Democratic Labor Party candidate at this stage as being an extremist, but if the endorsed Liberal Party candidate does, OK.
Mr SPEAKER:
-Order! The honourable member will not debate the matter. He will say where he has been personally misrepresented.
Mr FOSTER:
- Mr Speaker, because of the fact that I have much more to do than to give any consideration to the endorsed Liberal Party candidate’s claim about stones being cast through his office window. In addition, the ‘Australian’ yesterday referred to this incident and today also the newspaper carries a report of it. 1 can only conclude my personal explanation by mentioning that a picture of a well-known fascist appeared in the same column as the one containing this report. Of course, he achieved office by throwing stones or by accusing people of throwing stones.
Mr SPEAKER:
-Order! The honourable member should comply with my request rather than debate the matter. The honourable member will say where he has been personally misrepresented. To date, I have not been able to ascertain this. I suggest that the honourable member explain where he has been misrepresented or resume his seat.
Mr FOSTER:
– The fact is that neither I nor anybody associated with the electorate committee has in any way been responsible for the casting of any stones through anybody’s window. If people want to throw stones through their own windows that is their business, but they need not accuse me, by innuendo or otherwise, or carrying out this type of action.
page 3798
LOAN (DEFENCE) BILL 1971
Assent reported.
page 3798
COMMITTEE OF PRIVILEGES
Mr DRURY:
Ryan
– I present the report together with the minutes of proceedings and the minutes of evidence from the Committee of Privileges in connection with the matter referred to the Committee by the House on 7th September 1971.
Ordered that the report be printed.
Motion (by Mr Swartz) agreed to: ‘
That consideration of the report be made an order of the day for Wednesday, 8th December 1971.
page 3798
WAR SERVICE HOMES BILL 1971
In Committee
Consideration resumed from 25th November (vide page 3722).
Clause 3.
Section 4 of the Principal Act is amended -
Upon which Mr Barnard had moved by way of amendment:
Before paragraph (a) insert the following paragraph: (aa) by adding at the end of the definition of “Australian soldier” in sub-section (1.) the following words:and includes a serving member of the Permanent Forces’.
Mr UREN:
Reid
– I ask the Committee to support the amendment which was moved by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Barnard) in order to concur in the wishes of the honourable member for Moreton (Mr Killen) and the honourable member for La Trobe (Mr Jess). They expressed certain attitudes about an amendment which I had moved, and it was for this reason that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition moved the amendment which we are now considering. If one examines Hansard of last Thursday one finds certain requests being made by the honourable member for La Trobe. He made his position quite clear. He said that he would support the amendment moved by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, and I hope that he will face his moral obligation and not submit to the pressure Of the Party room. I hope that he in fact honours his commitment to support the proposal to extend the provisions of the war service homes scheme to serving members of the permanent forces. If this amendment is accepted serving members of the permanent forces will be able to benefit from the provisions of the war service homes scheme.
We know that this Government introduced conscription because it argued that it could not get a sufficient number of men into the Service in order to meet its commitments. The Government said that the only way in which it could get a sufficient number of men into the Services was by introducing conscription. Of course, the Gates Commission, which was established by President Nixon, stated quite openly that the Australian Government should have improved the rates of pay and conditions of service of Australian servicemen and conscription was not necessary. Therefore, the Opposition gives to those 2 gallant honourable gentlemen the opportunity to do the right thing and vote with the Opposition. We extend them that invitation; we even cut the cloth to their measure. We are asking them now to come across and vote for the amendment moved by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. We hope that when the division is taken both honourable gentlemen will be voting with this side of the House.
Mr JESS:
La Trobe
– I appreciate the charm with which the honourable member for Reid (Mr Uren) has extended his invitation. The honourable member is well aware of my intention because I rang him at his Sydney office yesterday and advised him. AsI said on Thursday night, the Prime Minister (Mr McMahon) and the Leader of the House (Mr Swartz) had advised me that they were prepared to look at the question of providing home finance for regular servicemen and gave me an assurance that a submission on this subject would be put before Cabinet. I accepted this position. It is a much better approach, in my opinion, to set up a body, if I may coin a name, such as a regular services home loans corporation or finance division than to widen the War Service Homes Act at the present time. As this is a Budget Bill, the latter course would mean that more people would immediately become eligible for the amount of money that has been allocated, and that a waiting list would be created which would adversely affect those present eligible. Therefore, at this stage 1 am prepared to accept the Prime Minister’s assurance. I compliment the Government on, and am most grateful to it for, being prepared now to look into this matter. I am confident that eventually there will come forward a scheme which will give aid to regular servicemen and this is my objective. Those assurances should be accepted by the Opposition also.
A great deal has been gained from the debate last Thursday. If the Opposition wishes to go ahead with this amendment it should be aware that this is a Budget Bill, a set amount of money has been allocated and if we widen the scope of the Bill there will be more people waiting for the same amount of money, and this will create a waiting list. I would not like to do that to those now eligible for war service home loans. Nobody would be desirous of having them wait longer for their money than they must at the present time. For those reasons I am grateful to the Government for its approach to this matter. I am glad to see that democracy is working in the Liberal Party and I accept the assurances that I have been given.
Mr BRYANT:
Wills
– The honourable member for La Trobe (Mr Jess) has just demonstrated that far from being a freedom fighter from way back he is simply another case-hardened Party hack. Only a few days ago he indicated that he was prepared to support a resolution of the House which would extend the principle of war service homes to serving servicemen. He indicated that there were some limits to his view - limits which the Opposition accepted and respected - in that, for example, a fellow who had served for only a week in the Citizens Military Forces should be excluded. The Opposition excluded these people from its amendment to suit the honourable member, the amendment then referring only to members of the permanent forces. That is what the Opposition is saying now. But what has the honourable member just said? He said he has had an assurance from the Government. Does anybody say that an assurance from this Government on these matters is worth the paper it is written on? Of course it is not. We have had countless assurances. The honourable member for La Trobe is chairman of .the Defence Forces Retirement Benefits Legislation Committee. Over the years he has gained for himself an enviable reputation as a fighter for the servicemen and their rights. What is the good of giving these people facilities for housing in 6 months time if they will be leaving the Service in 3 months time after 20 years service in Australia? One of the lessons of politics is: Do it now. This is especially so if what needs to be done has something to do with people’s rights. So we must do it now.
This afternoon, we are offering an opportunity to this Committee to provide a further facility to the serving man. What exactly does this mean? The heart of the honourable member for La Trobe bled for those people whose applications might be held up because more money would be needed to meet our proposal. How much additional money is involved? First, the increase of the maximum war service home loan from $8,000 to $9,000 is insignificant as a contribution to Australia’s great housing needs.
What are the principles that have been argued here? The war service homes system was conceived in 1917 or 1918 - I think honourable members will find this in the debates of this House - to give those who had served Australia overseas access to housing as a special right because those people had accepted some duty to the community which is not ordinarily accepted by other citizens. That is the first principle. In the First World War, it was logical to believe that this ought to be done for people who had served overseas because, generally speaking, that war was fought 10,000 miles to 12,000 miles from Australia. The situation was different with respect to the Second World War. Nearly 1 million Australians served in our Forces. Of that number approximately 750,000 enlisted for service outside Australia. They were prepared to serve anywhere in the world. By various definitions we have included a large proportion of those who served in the Australian Imperial Forces, in the Royal Australian Navy or in the Royal Australian Air Force among those eligible for war service homes.
The numbers who have already qualified for war service homes are immense. If 1 remember correctly, between 600,000 and 700,000 ex-service personnel have so qualified. Assistance has been given to approximately 240,000 of them - 1 think that that was the figure which was quoted last Thursday. There are probably between 300,000 and 400,000 people in our community who have qualified under the war service homes scheme but who have never received this assistance. Those are off the cuff figures. I have not the exact figures here.
I turn to the question of expanding the system to include permanent members of the Forces. We might have an argument about the definition of ‘permanent member of the Forces’. 1 would include national servicemen: honourable members opposite might not. We might take only those people who have enlisted for service in the way in which those who have served in the Navy or the Air Force have done. Those who would qualify in the Navy would total approximately 17,000. In the Air Force, the number entitled to this assistance would be approximately 22,000. I would expect that approximately 20,000 personnel in our Permanent Army would fall into this category. The total number of service personnel eligible would be approximately 60,000. These figures would represent an enlargement of the numbers eligible for war service homes assistance by approximately IS per cent to 20 per cent, and possibly by 10 per cent only. Of that number, how many would apply for a loan next week? A number of them might apply in the next 6 months, if this proposal is developed. I think that this is a logical extension of the system.
During the last War we expanded the system to include people who had served in Australia in certain specified areas. We included people who were listed under special terms of Service. Since the last World War, this facility has been extended to people who served in Korea and in Malaysia and to those who have or who are serving now in Vietnam. What we suggest is that the scheme should be broadened in the logical way to include those people who have accepted the kind of responsibility that a serviceman accepts to the community. I am completely out of sympathy with the honourable member for La Trobe. I have been here for 16 years or 17 years. I have rarely seen such a miserable example of backsliding as we have seen from him. 1 believe that it is time the citizens of Australia were awakened, particularly those in the electorate of La Trobe aud especially servicemen. The time to demonstrate one’s support for a proposal is when one votes here on it.
What are the assurances of the Prime Minister (Mr McMahon)? We might establish a housing system for servicemen. We have been tinkering with the pay and conditions of servicemen ever since I entered this Parliament - ever since the last war, as a matter of fact, when the Regular Army was established. Australia had not had much experience in establishing regular forces of this sort. Therefore, we have not really made a good job of most of it yet. None of the assurances given to the honourable member for La Trobe counts for anything. I doubt whether they count for much in the long term. They certainly do not count for anything in the short term. I believe that, this afternoon, the Committee has an opportunity to extend the war service homes system in a logical way. Two members of the Government Parties indicated to us last week that they would support this amendment. Now, for miserable Party reasons, they are going to back down.
Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP
– One of them has said so.
Mr BRYANT:
– I am sorry. I withdraw that statement because only one of them has said that he is going to back down. 1 just cannot understand it. If this Parliament means anything it means that when an honourable member stands up and says he will do something he will stick with it. What is wrong with the people on the opposite side that they surrender so easily even on the most minor matters, whether it be in regard to the closure of a debate or anything in this place? Honourable members opposite are continually putting forth to the public the view that on this side of the House there is a monolithic, machine-ridden group and that on their side there is an open-ended, wide-ranging, liberal-minded covey or something. In fact, we have seen a most miserable backing down by a prominent occupant of Government back benchers.
But that is incidental to this operation. Is there anybody here prepared to go off to some group of ex-servicemen and tell them that he would not support this proposal and give the reasons for not doing so? Of course honourable member will not do that. I believe that the amount of money that would be involved in any particular 12 months period would be relatively small. The average serviceman who is likely to become involved in housing will be in the late stages of his 6-year term. Therefore, I believe that the proposition put forward by the Australian Labor Party is a logical extension of the war service homes system, lt is time that the system was expanded in a more liberal way. I deeply regret that the honourable member for La Trobe has seen fit to back down in this instance.
Mr KILLEN:
Moreton
– The acerbity of language which the honourable member for Wills (Mr Bryant) has used does not in my view contribute anything at all to solving the problems which are before the Committee. I have used the plural of the word ‘problem’ because there are in my opinion two distinct problems as far as this amendment is concerned. May I state them? The first is to broaden the war service homes entitlement so as to give every servicemen and every ex-serviceman an entitlement to war service homes. That proposition stands on its own. .1 am informed - and I have no reason to doubt - that in general figures this proposition would involve some 300,000 ex-servicemen and would call for an initial sum of $60m.
The second problem is the problem to which I adverted last Thursday evening. That was the problem of those who have gone to Vietnam - the honourable member for Reid (Mr Uren) agrees with this - but who have nol gone there specifically charged with operational work Can I tell the Committee how this problem originated? Some time last year, when I was the Acting Minister for Air, my friend the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Barnard) on the adjournment one evening raised the case of members of the Royal Australian Air Force who flew out of
Richmond to Saigon on a number of occasions. My honourable friend put to me the dilemma that these people were in. He said quite briskly and, with respect, quite accurately firstly, that they had no repatriation cover; secondly, that they had no war service entitlement; thirdly, that they had no basis upon which to found an eligibility for membership of the Returned Services League of Australia; and fourthly, that they had no entitlement to wear any Vietnam ribbon. The honourable gentleman referred to the fact that a number of these characters - I used the term ‘characters’ on Thursday night in no sense of disrespect; they are members of the Air Force and every one of them is a great character - were a bit browned off. My sympathy lay with them because it had been my experience, as Minister for the Navy, to find members of the Navy saying: ‘Why is it that, when we serve in HMAS “Sydney” and take troops and equipment to Vung Tau, we are not covered by the Repatriation Act and are not entitled to war service homes assistance?’ In those days - this would be no infringement of an oath as an Executive Councillor - I discussed it with members of the Department of the Navy and we put various views to the Department of Defence. Those views went through the departmental channels and were processed. T thought that this was in fact an anomaly but an anomaly, firstly, that was deserving of being cured and, secondly, that could be cured. That is why, on Thursday night, when I began my speech I said:
The amendment suggested by the honourable member for Reid (Mr Uren) does not meet tha objections I have in mind.
And it does not meet the objections I have in mind. The objection I had in mind, as my honourable friend conceded, was the position of these servicemen who through no fault of their own had gone into what I describe as a theatre of war. It seems to me to be a silly and precious form of characterisation to say that going into Saigon in 1965-66 was not going into a theatre of war. That was the view I took on Thursday night. I maintain it. May I point out to the Committee 2 anomalies. They are quite palpable.
Mr Uren:
– The Deputy Leader of the Opposition spoke. His amendment suits you.
Mr KILLEN:
– It does not. I am reasonably capable of putting my case without any assistance from the honourable gentleman. I want to mention the case of a young sailor serving on the gun line of a destroyer. He had been there for a short time when he developed appendicitis and an appendectomy was performed. Having gone on to the gun line in the role that he did, he has a repatriation entitlement, a war service homes entitlement, he is entitled to wear a Vietnam ribbon and he also has eligibility to join the RSL. This sailor was transferred to HMAS ‘Sydney’. AH those on the ‘Sydney’ have no such entitlements. I suggest that this is wrong. I think it is an anomaly. What form of words will cure it I do not know. May I give another illustration. A flight-lieutenant taking a Hercules aircraft into Saigon - in 1965-66 taking aircraft into Saigon certainly had a measure of hazard about it - was hit by mortar fire. What is he covered by? He is covered by the Commonwealth Employees Compensation Act. He has no war service homes entitlement, no entitlement to wear a Vietnam ribbon and no eligibility to join the RSL. Yet a person who had gone into Vietnam, who had spent the requisite amount of time at Nui Dat and who was similarly wounded is covered by the Repatriation Act.
What I am putting to the Committee with the utmost goodwill is that the form of distinguishing between the 2 cases is desperately artificial. In what way are we to cure this anomaly? I put it to my honourable friend from Reid that he can move an amendment to the War Service Homes Bill which in one grand sweep will cover the lot. My objection on Thursday night and my objection now is that the amendment moved by the honourable member for Reid does not refer to the people that I have specifically in mind. What I suggest the Committee should do and what I hope the Parliament will do is go to the fountain of origin of this silly distinction, and that is the Repatriation (Special Overseas Service) Act. I am quite convinced that if we got the advisers from the relevant departments together they would be able to come up with some formula which in a critical sense would cover the objections which I have in mind and which 1 have had in mind for some very considerable tune.
On Thursday night the Leader of the House, the Minister for National Development (Mr Swartz), said in the Parliament that he had seen the Prime Minister (Mr McMahon) and that an undertaking had been given that this matter would be considered. I was informed this afternoon by the Minister for National Development that a paper prepared by the Minister for Housing (Mr Kevin Cairns) is currently before the Cabinet. I believe implicitly what the Minister for National Development has told me and I hope that the Committee will believe the Minister for National Development. I asked the Minister for Housing on Thursday night whether he would give us an undertaking to have another look at the matters I have raised and possibly have an amendment to the Bill put down in the Senate. But an amendment to the Bill put down in the Senate would meet my objections to it only with respect to war service homes. It would not meet my objections with respect to repatriation or eligibility for membership of the Returned Services League.
Mr Uren:
– Take a step at a time. Come with us on this.
Mr KILLEN:
MORETON, QUEENSLAND · LP
– The honourable member has normal cerebral processes. He can follow my argument. The last point I wish to make is that the specific objection cannot be covered by the honourable gentleman’s amendment. I said that plainly on Thursday evening. I want to arrest what is a very real morale problem, particularly for the Royal Australian Navy and the Royal Australian Air Force. I tell honourable members with complete candour that I have met people in both Services who have said: ‘Why on earth do you draw this distinction? It is not our fault that we arc involved in transport work, going in and out. It is not our fault that we are posted to HMAS “Sydney” when we could have served on one of the escort destroyers on the gun line’. They are my objections. If any person has any doubt or ambiguity in his mind I hope, in the name of heaven, he will put his hand up.
Mr STEWART:
Lang
– The quick retreat into his burrow by the honourable member for La Trobe (Mr Jess) brings me into this debate. In the last few minutes I have been refreshing my memory on what happened in this chamber last
Thursday evening, 25th November. At one stagethe honourable member for Hughes (Mr Les Johnson) was speaking and he addressed a question to the honourable member for La Trobe as follows:
If we moved an amendment which stated: “Australian Soldier” means a serving member of the Forces’, I understand that the honourable member for La Trobe would be willing to support us in that regard.
The honourable member for La Trobe replied:
You would be dead right.
The honourable member for Hughes went on and said:
Of course. If the word ‘serviceman’ were substituted for the word ‘soldier’ in the amendment, the honourable member would be more effectively accommodated.
The honourable member for La Trobe said:
I would even agree with that.
The honourable member for Hughes continued:
I know that the honourablemember for Moreton will be pleased to know that the Opposition has decided to submit an amendment to that effect. Already we have an indication that the honourable member for La Trobe is prepared to assist us.
The honourable member for Moreton (Mr Killen) interjected and asked:
May I take it that you are fining it down to serving member?
Further on in the debate the honourable member for Moreton, in making his speech, said:
Those people who have served, particularly in South Vietnam, in one of the 3 Services, even though they have not been committed to an operational theatre, should have an entitlement As recorded at page 3720 of Hansard the honourable member for La Trobe, speaking to the amendment, said:
Let it be most clear that as the Act stands at the moment a regular soldier, sailor or airmail serving at this time - and who in my opinion could serve for5 years or10 years or 15 years - is not entitled to a war service homes loan if his commanding officer or the powers that be have not appointed him to a war theatre. I say that he should be so entitled.
The debate was subsequently adjourned. Later that evening, by leave, the Leader of the House (Mr Swartz) said - I quote from page 3735 of Hansard:
I merely want to give to the House an assurance that the Prime Minister (Mr McMahon) has advised me that Cabinet will consider the position of regular servicemen who are finding difficulty in obtaining home finance. My, understanding is that the honourable member for La Trobe (Mr Jess) will be happy to accept this undertaking.
The honourable member for Moreton interjected and said:
I indicate that 1 am happy to accept it, too. Both of them showed clearly that they were already prepared to run away from the statements that I have quoted from Hansard. The honourable member for Moreton was a member of the Ministry as Minister for the Navy and Acting Minister for Air. He said a few moments ago that when the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Barnard) spoke on a previous occasion on repatriation he was Acting Minister for Air and was in agreement with the proposition that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition was espousing at that time. The honourable member for Moreton had, or should have had, more authority then than he has now. He could not get an assurance from the members of the Ministry at that stage that they would look at it and the reason he comes in now - he is a sacked member of the Ministry - is because he is publicity chasing. He has got his publicity out of what happened last Thursday, and on the assurance that the Government will now have a look at it, both the honourable member for Moreton and the honourable member for La Trobe have once again put their tails between their legs and crawled away. The opportunity is here and now. Both honourable members can vote for this amendment and give an opportunity for serving members of the regular forces to be given this war service loan to which they are entitled.
We cannot get volunteers into the Regular Army because we are not giving them the conditions that will bring them in. The Government is splitting straws on things that should be granted. I will agree with a lot of the things that the honourable member for Moreton said and that the discrimination should be removed. The Labor Opposition is trying to remove that discrimination in the amendment that it has moved. If the honourable member for La Trobe and the honourable member for Moreton have any sincerity or decency in them at all and if they believe in what they said on Thursday night the simple assurance that the Cabinet will at some stage consider should not be enough. All they have been promised is consideration, not a guarantee. They have the guarantee from the Opposition in the amendment that we have moved. We want to see the war service homes loan go to the serving members of the forces. I think that in honesty to themselves the honourable member for La Trobe and the honourable member for Moreton should stick by the record and their statements of Thursday evening; otherwise I am afraid that the word of both those gentlemen can no longer be accepted. Any reputation that they have enjoyed, and they have both enjoyed a reasonable one, will be very much sullied.
Mr Killen:
– Why do you not read my opening words on Thursday night?
Mr STEWART:
– I do not have to read your opening words on Thursday night. I heard you this afternoon. You are hanging your hat on the fact that if they have to go to Vietnam or a specially declared strategic zone you will give it to them, but the boy who is conscripted into the Army and is not sent away to Vietnam is not entitled to it under the stand that you take. The honourable member for Moreton is perpetuating some of the discrimination that he is complaining about. The fellow who goes to Vietnam, whether he goes for a day or a week and whether he is on the HMAS Sydney’ or some other ship should be entitled to it, but the boy who is conscripted and is in the Army and is sent only as far as the electorate of Moreton is not entitled to it. He has the same responsibility if the powers that be decide, to serve in Vietnam or to go anywhere that the Government cares to send him, so in taking the stand that the honourable member for Moreton takes he is perpetuating the discrimination in a different direction, the discrimination that he says should be curtailed at this moment. 1 ask both honourable members for the sake of their reputations to vote for this amendment. The honourable member for Moreton is now getting a reputation as being somewhat of a fighter since he has been sacked from the Ministry. I think that most of his efforts at this moment are designed to get him publicity because be knows that the Labor Party campaign against him in Moreton will cause him trouble. So what he has done on Thursday night and again this afternoon is only to send out a cry to “This Day Tonight’ or one of the political commentators so he can be heard on radio or seen on television. I ask that both the honourable member for La Trobe and the honourable member for Moreton stick to the assurance that they gave to the Committee and to the - Opposition on Thursday evening. V
Mr WENTWORTH:
Minister for Social Services · Mackellar · LP
– I had not meant to intervene in this debate, but some of the things that have been said by members of the Opposition have constrained me to do so. The fact is that the honourable member for La Trobe (Mr Jess) and the honourable member for Moreton (Mr Killen) have had considerable success in getting what they believed to be right, and this is the substance of it. The substance is not that there should be political advantage in this House. The substance is that something should be done in regard to an Act or in regard to the policy of the Government. What has happened is that the honourable member for La Trobe and the honourable member for Moreton have succeeded in making their point. They will get something effective done and this no doubt has distressed the Opposition immensely because the Opposition is not honest in this.
The Opposition is not trying to get anything done for the benefit of the servicemen, the pensioners or anyone else; it is out all the time trying to make political points. The degree of that insincerity can be seen by the fact that members of the Opposition are getting up and asking people to vote in the House and taunting them because they do not vote when, as a matter of fact, they need not vote because they have got what they wanted. Yet these same people are themselves always bound by a Caucus decision and know very well that they would be expelled from their Party if they voted in this House against a Caucus decision. But they come in here and bellow like a lot of spayed cows at Government supporters. We do have a freedom from caucus decisions but we use that freedom in a democratic way and in a way which gets results. We use it in the way that the honourable member for La Trobe and the honourable member for Moreton used it and in the way that T used it when I was on the back bench. We did not want to make political points; what we wanted to do was to get results. I appeal to the Opposition to get rid of this factionalism and try to look at things on their merits.
What we in this House are trying to do is to pass good laws and to give good administration. We are not really concerned with who is going to make a political point on one side or the other. Let us get back to taws in this House. We arc here to help the Australian people to be governed well. We are not here primarily for the purpose of making political points. J have never seen an Opposition betray its real motives and its real fraudulent character more clearly than the Opposition has this afternoon.
The CHAIRMAN (Mr Lucock:
LYNE, NEW SOUTH WALES
– Order! Before calling the Deputy Leader of the Opposition I suggest to the Committee that we get away from the shadow of this amendment and of the Bill and get down to the substance. I think that perhaps both sides of the Committee have been indulging a little too much in personalities and not discussing the subject matter of the amendment before the Committee. I think we might consider the subject matter of the amendment.
Mr BARNARD:
Bass
- Mr Chairman, you may remember that, probably transgressing the rules and regulations of this Parliament, 1 did indicate while the Minister for Social Services (Mr Wentworth) was speaking that he was obviously not interested in the problems of the War Service Homes Division or of those who are not receiving assistance under the terms of this legislation and that he was more concerned as usual with taking a smart political point. Let me say to this- Committee, and particularly to the Minister for Social Services, that J am not prepared to sit back in this Parliament and decline to accept at least some of the credit for the attitudes that I have adopted on behalf of the Opposition in relation to the problems of ex-servicemen. If the Minister for Social Services is able to achieve as much as a Minister and as a so-called responsible member of the Ministry in relation to the abolition of the means test as I have been able to achieve in this Parliament in relation not only to war service homes benefits but also repatriation matters generally, he will be able to stand up in this chamber and talk in the way he did when he delivered his speech only a few moments ago. But no-one is surprised at the Minister for Social Services. He talks but he never acts. Indeed he wants to see justice denied to ex-servicemen. I agree with what you, Mr Chairman, said in rela- lion to this matter, that perhaps we ought to come back to the amendment and that probably the speeches that have been made this afternoon dealt with matters that are quite irrelevant.
I am disappointed al the fact that both the honourable member for La Trobe (Mr Jess) and the honourable member for Moreton (Mr Killen) have decided after reflection - not mature reflection, but reflection nevertheless - over the weekend that they will not support the amendment which they indicated last Thursday night they would support. Let me remind the honourable member for Moreton and Ihe honourable member for La Trobe of the terms of the amendment which I moved, lt reads:
Before paragraph (a) insert the following paragraph: by adding at the end of the definition of “Australian soldier” in sub-section (I.) the following words: and includes serving members of the permanent forces’.
I emphasise the words ‘and includes serving members of the permanent forces’. We make no apology for this. I am sure lhat every honourable member in this Parliament, government members as well as honourable members on this side, fully understand the policy of the Australian Labor Party in relation to the terms of the War Service Homes Act, and lhat is to extend the benefits of this Act to every member who serves in the regular forces of this country. This is our policy. Surely the Minister for Social Services would not suggest that we have been trying to make a cheap political point in this Parliament this afternoon by merely taking the opportunity to advocate what is, after all, our policy. I. am sure that if this is put to those who are responsible for speaking on behalf not only of the ex-servicemen in this country but also, as the Returned Services League of Australia has put it on so many occasions, on behalf of those who are serving in the armed forces in Australia, they would agree with the contention of the Labor Party that it is not beyond this Government financially or in any other way to extend the terms and provisions of the war service homes legislation to those who serve in the regular forces in this country.
I do not want to go back over the points that I made last Thursday night when I spoke on this matter but I did point out to the Minister that Labor Government did not deny to those who joined the forces in the 1939-45 War the benefits of the war service homes legislation if they joined for the purpose of serving this country overseas. That is, if they made themselves available to serve anywhere they were directed during their period of service they would be eligible for the benefits of the war service homes legislation. The Minister obviously does not understand this. I do not think he wants to understand it. While one could probably excuse the Minister for not knowing the Act when he was first appointed the plain fact is that he has held this portfolio long enough now to have some understanding of the legislation relating to war service homes. 1 have heard some criticism this afternoon about the intentions and actions of the honourable member for La Trobe and the honourable member for Moreton. But the guilty person in this is the Minister himself. I say that the Minister is guilty because he has had the whole weekend to reflect on what was said in this House on Thursday night. If the Minister is not prepared at this stage to accept that the benefits of the war service homes legislation should be extended to all regular serving members of the armed forces in this country then he at least might, in common justice and in a sense of decency, give consideration to the appeal that was made not only by myself but by the honourable member for Moreton as well, when we drew attention to the anomalies in relation to those who have served this country in Vietnam. How does the Minister justify these anomalies? Surely we do not have to await a long and considered judgment by the Cabinet to determine whether a member of the Royal Australian Air Force flying in a Hercules aircraft from Australia into Vietnam, into a war zone, and who stayed there overnight or even only a few hours and then returned to Australia, is entitled to benefits under this legislation? How can such a person possibly be denied the benefits of war service homes legislation?
I would go much further and say that he should be given not only the benefits of the war service homes legislation but also repatriation benefits. The honourable member for La Trobe claims - and I believe that probably he is justified to an extent in making the claim - that he is always looking for and has always looked for ways to extend benefits to ex-servicemen in this country and to serving members of the forces. If he is justified in making this claim then surely he can see the logic in extending these benefits immediately to this group of people. .1 can only repeal, as another honourable member did this afternoon, that this matter was raised not only last Thursday night during the course of a debate on the amendment I have referred to but also by me in this House nearly 12 months ago.
How does the Government justify its discrimination against someone who accepts the responsibility of flying into Vietnam, a Hercules aircraft, with all the value attached to that plane and all the dangers associated with such a mission? If I were to write to the Minister concerning one of these pilots the Minister would write back to me and say that the person is not eligible to receive the benefits of the war service homes legislation. What utter nonsense. Yet we have the hypocrisy of the Minister for Social Services who can stand up in this House and-
The CHAIRMAN (Mr Lucock)Order!
Mr BARNARD:
– I withdraw the word ‘hyprocrisy’. Yet we have the Minister for Social Services standing up in this House and suggesting that we are trying to score a point. Let the Minister stand up and justify the action of the Government that discriminates against this, section of the community, those who have served this country in a war that this Minister has consistently supported. Now we may argue whether Australia ought to have been involved or not, and we have so argued in this House, but when it comes to defending the rights of those who serve there then I intend not to be behind anyone in this Parliament in making my stand known. The plain fact is that if the honourable member for La Trobe and the honourable member for Moreton accept our propositions, if they believe that in common justice this country can now afford to extend the benefits of the war service homes legislation to all those who serve in the armed Services in this country, as we did for those who served during the 1939-45 war, and as we did again after the
Korean war, without any discrimination, then they will support the amendment which has been moved not for the purpose of scoring some political point but to provide a measure of justice to those who deserve this assistance.
Mr JESS:
La Trobe
– I do not wish to canvass the point you raised, Mr Chairman, or to deal too widely with the comments that have been made, but the honourable member for Lang (Mr Stewart) and the honourable member for Wills (Mr Bryant) did use the words ‘honour’, ‘reputation’, ‘character’ and a few others which I think reflected on me and on the honourable member for Moreton (Mr Killen). As far as I am concerned I do not, of course, divorce myself from any statements that were read from the Hansard record by the honourable member for Lang. I did make them. T made them on Thursday night under conditions in which there was no assurance from the Government and no possibility that 1 could see of getting one, that it was prepared to look at the question of housing loans (or regular servicemen. But 1 do take objection to honourable members on the other side of the House - honourable members who have never stood up or spoken against anything which has been put forward by their caucus, who have never during my period in this House crossed the floor, who have never at any stage taken any independent action on behalf of ex-servicemen - claiming credit and abusing honourable members on this side of the House who perhaps may have occasionally put their positions in jeopardy. If there is one thing that is likely to send members from the Parliament in disgust, it is the parrot cries from members of the Opposition asking other people to do exactly what’ they themselves would not do. May 1 make it clear again for the last time that on Thursday night the amendments which the Opposition proposed widen the provisions relating to war service homes loans to such an extent that the situation would become farcical. The honourable member for Wills referred to 300,000 ex-servicemen. If this number of exservicemen were divided into the $60m which has been allocated to this Department in the Budget they would each receive $200. However, that great brain - that brilliant leader of the Australian Labor
Party in the housing field - seemingly did not take this into account. As I have said, I want a permanent defence service, unlike members of the Opposition who feel that money should be expended on something else. I want to maintain the numbers in the defence forces, not cut them down or cut them out. The amendments would widen the field of those eligible for benefits under the war service homes legislation. The number to be divided into the allocation of $60m would be increased and this would result in delays for those already waiting for loans.
I should like to state this quite clearly. Members opposite can play politics and say that the Government’s word is not worth while. All I am saying is that the honourable member for Moreton and I have received an assurance. This satisfies me for the time being. I have a responsibility to ensure that this matter is discussed further and to see that it is clearly analysed. I am confident that the Government will make provision, not under the War Service Homes Division but, as I said it should be, under a regular services homes division to enable members of the Services to be given cheap home finance. Those members opposite who want to get up like a pack of parrots and accuse people of lack, of courage and principle should adjust themselves in front of a mirror each morning to see that they do not shudder. If any honourable member opposite can show me where at any time he has ever stood out against any decision of his Party, he will then have a right to throw scorn at other people.
I accept the assurance which has been given. I am confident that something will be done for the regular servicemen. As Chairman of the Defence Forces Retirement Benefits Committee, I am conscious that there is a requirement to do something for them and it should be done. However, now that the Government has offered to give consideration to setting up a scheme - not under the war service homes legislation but a separate scheme for the regular Services - 1 am prepared to accept it and no crocodile tears from the honourable members for Reid (Mr Uren), Lang and Wills, those men of violent, great and distinguished courage in this chamber, are likely to get me to change my mind.
Let it be said and understood that if the amendments which have been put forward are analysed, it will be seen that the number of ex-servicemen to be divided into the $60m which has been allocated to the War Service Homes Division will increase. This amount has been set in the Budget; it cannot be increased. Therefore, if we extend the conditions of eligibility for these benefits, people will be eligible to receive a share of the $60m. This will mean less money per person and, as I said, a greater waiting period for those who are now waiting for war service loans. Let me conclude by suggesting that when it comes to accusations as to other people’s valour, those who are making the accusations should adjust their sights and perhaps adjust their standards.
Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP
-1 have been disappointed to hear the tenor of the debate this afternoon because-
Mr Jess:
– J will bet that your mother was disappointed too.
Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP
– I beg your pardon.
Mr Uren:
– The honourable member said: ‘I will bet that your mother was disappointed too.*
Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP
– 1 think that interjection deserves contempt, and that is the way I intend to regard it.
The CHAIRMAN (Mr Lucock:
– Order! I would suggest, as I have suggested before, that the Committee come to order. I do not think that any member on either side is assisting this debate on housing problems - the matter which is now before the Committee. I would suggest that members take this into consideration and that the tenor and standard of the debate should be one that is fitting to this Committee.
Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP
– I am not going to grovel around seeking protection from anybody in regard to a remark like that. I thought that you, Mr Chairman, might have offered it on your own account. Nevertheless, if you felt that it was not fitting to do so-
CHAIRMAN - Order! If the honourable member for Hughes wants to know why I did not ask the honourable member for La Trobe to withdraw his remark, it was because an interjection which is not commented on is not recorded in Hansard. Frankly, for the benefit of al] members of the Committee, I thought that it might be wiser for the interjection to be withdrawn and be commented upon in private afterwards.
Mr Jess:
– Mr Chairman, I withdraw the comment. I do not think that at all and I am sorry. It was said in haste. I think he is charming.
Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP
– There has been an incredible pedanticism involved in the debate this afternoon, particularly in the contribution made by the honourable member for La Trobe (M.- Jess). I am sure that things that were said by both the honourable member for La Trobe and the honourable member for Moreton (Mr Killen) had the effect of throwing out the baby with the bathwater. There can be no question about the fact that the other evening, when we were discussing this matter, they felt that the Opposition’s amendment was unsatisfactory. They prevailed on the Opposition to amend it and, indeed, the Opposition proceeded co-operatively, towards that end and, in my view, accomplished a great deal of progress. The first amendment was to provide that former members of the forces who had been honourable discharged should be entitled to war service homes. The honourable members opposite indicated that that was not sufficient. 1 have allowed the honourable member for La Trobe some time to interject, but he has not done so. The present amendment provides that serving members of the permanent forces be accommodated. I think that if one traces through the Hansard account of the debate, one will find that there were some minor grounds for an element of pedanticism on the part of the honourable member for Moreton. However, there certainly are no grounds at all for the escape route that has been found for himself by the honourable member for La Trobe. It is his business. If he wants to commit himself to a matter of high principle on Thursday and abandon it on Tuesday, nobody can quibble with him. It is up to him: it is his prerogative. But the fact is that that is what he has done. One wonders why he has chosen to take this course. One wonders what sort of pressure may have been brought to bear upon him.
I listened to the other intrusions into the debate, including what was said by the Minister for Social Services (Mr Wentworth). I will not accuse him of hyprocrisy about this matter because, frankly, I do not think he knows what the War Service Homes Bill is about, .any more than he knows what the Social Services Act is about. There are some obligations to fulfil. I know he has not been too intent on seeing that the Government fulfills the Prime Minister’s obligation about overhauling the Social Services Act so I do not expect him to put too much credence on the undertaking given the other evening by the honourable member for La Trobe. Let me remind the Minister for Social Services that this is not just an issue that has blown in from the standpoint of the Opposition; it is not something that has just been dropped from a great height, which is what he intended to convey. He said something to the effect that we had seized on something for miserable political advanta.ee in order to capitalise on a vulnerable situation and the sensitivity which honourable members opposite displayed about this matter. What are the real facts of the situation? Let me remind the Minister of the Opposition’s declared policy on war service homes, and it has been our declared policy for a long time. 1 quote from the policy statement of the Australian Labor Party, which stales that a Labor government will:
Enable the Commonwealth Bank and the War Service Homes Division to lend up to 100 per cent of the value of properties against which their advances are made; establish a revolving fund within the War Service Homes Division to cater for all persons who come within the Commonwealth’s constitutional responsibility: and extend the purposes for which additional and supplementary war service homes advances can be made.
During the course of this debate we have contended that the war service homes scheme is so outstandingly successful from the standpoint even of making money for the Commonwealth that the scheme could be extended beyond ex-servicemen and that it could be used to provide benefits to the young married people of this country who need to find less expensive ways of financing the purchase of homes. If what I have read out to the Committee is our policy, surely it means that it is our primary intention to extend the scheme to additional categories of servicemen; surely it must mean that it is our primary intention to extend it to permanent members of ihe forces, in the terms about which the honourable member for Moreton has been talking. Surely it must be our primary intention to extend it to those people who are serving in the northern theatres, if they are not serving in declared war zones. If there is any priority at all it must be in respect of those people, for example, who are stationed at the Los Negros naval base or at Manus Island and who go out into the tropical areas in patrol boats. Is not that the kind of thing about which the honourable member for Moreton was actually talking? I was convinced and obsessed wilh the idea that it was.
We are told now by the honourable member for La Trobe that he has chosen not to support us because there will be a delay and that we will be carving up the money which is already available for an increased number of applicants for war service loans. I have never seen the honourable’ member being very concerned about the delay which ex-servicemen have had to suffer while awaiting war service loans. For years and years ex-servicemen have had to wait for long periods - as long as 15 or 18 months - before their war service loans were granted, and they were forced into the hands of moneylenders who charged high and extortionate rates of interest. Why is the honourable member so concerned now? The fact of the matter is that if there was an expression by this Parliament that the war service homes scheme should be extended to permanent members of the forces, the Government would see that its coffers were opened and that some of this year’s $630m Budget surplus were made available to accommodate this need.
We have heard a lot of humbug and hogwash this afternoon. It is quite unbearable to think - if it is the case, and I think that it is - that last Thursday honourable members could set out on a course of action which was designed to win them notoriety and publicity from one end of the land to the other, and that after they have seen themselves on television and seen photographs of themselves in the Press, and after they have stimulated the interest of ex-servicemen in this matter, they should suddenly come into this chamber, having scuttled their idealism and change their course on a matter which is of great significance to servicemen throughout Australia. When 1 went home last weekend I was contacted by representatives of sub-branches of the Returned Services League and by a number of individual servicemen who told me how delighted they were with the progress which had been made in regard to this matter and of the very high expectation throughout the country that the honourable members for Moreton and La Trobe would put the Government’s money where their mouths have been in this matter. I believe that they should be prepared to face up to the commitment and show a bit of the fight of the kind which exservicemen, have shown in order to win the kind of consideration which they, as late as last Thursday night, admitted was due, to Australian ex-servicemen. I remind those honourable gentlemen that our amendment was redesigned because of the invitation extended to the Opposition to do so, especially by the honourable member for La Trobe, aided and abetted by the honourable member for Moreton. I have never seen so much humbug and hypocrisy in all my life as I have seen in relation to this matter.
Mr KILLEN:
Moreton
does him little credit, but J would have hoped that some quality of literacy would have reached out to control that honourable gentleman and also the honourable member for Lang (Mr Stewart). There have been two amendments on this Issue. One was moved by the honourable member for Reid (Mr Uren) last Thursday evening. May I remind the Committee and, in particular, the honourable members for Lang and Hughes, what I said about the amendment moved by the honourable member for Reid? Can ihe honourable member for Hughes hear me?
Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP
– Yes.
Mr KILLEN:
– 1 am glad that he can hear me. Possibly it may soak in. Listen to what 1 said. I said:
The amendment suggested by the honourable member for Reid (Mr Uren) does not meet the objections I have in mind. ls that clear? I said that the amendment did not meet my objections, and that is reported at page 3718 of Hansard. Is there any doubt about that? Has the honourable member for Hughes any doubt as to what that means? 1 said that it did not meet my objections. Does the honourable member for Lang understand what I meant when I said that the amendment did not meet my objections? Then 1 went on to say why it did not meet my objections and T gave the reasons. What has happened? The honourable member for Lang, who is trying to interject, had his say. 1 said that the amendment did not meet my objections, and then 1 referred to the specific anomalies concerning those who had gone into the Vietnam area. One is fired either by a sense of malevolence or by goodwill, and those who look at the facts of this case will make up their own minds on it. What happened? A second amendment was introduced. Docs the .second amendment meet my specific objection? lt widens-
Mr Uren:
– Yes.
Mr KILLEN:
– Of course it does. It is very much like setting fire to the house in order to gel the cat out into the garden. Of course it is all right, but there are two positions, and I will put them plainly to the Committee this afternoon. lt is a broadening of the whole scheme. It is a radical proposition. That stands on its own. My complaint stands on its own. The honourable member for Hughes comes into this chamber and talks to me about backsliding. His footwork would need to be pretty fancy if he were to say that outside and survive without getting a blood nose. A second objection was raised by the honourable member for Lang. In the 16 years I have been a member of this Parliament I have never seen the honourable gentleman offer one mild protest as far as his position in his own Party is concerned. I throw back the gauntlet to the honourable members for Reid, Lang and Hughes. If they put down an amendment which takes in specifically those who went into the Vietnam area, we will see whether they will vote for it.
Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP
– Why don’t you put it in?
Mr KILLEN:
– I will tell the honourable gentleman why. lt is not easy to include such an amendment in the War Service Homes Act, unless one includes in clause 3 an amendment to this effect: ‘and those who, while being serving members of the
Royal Australian Air Force and the Royal Australian Navy, have gone into the South Vietnam area’. That then would cover my objection. 1 have mentioned my other objections to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, and 1 have never pulled back from them, and the honourable member knows it. I have made clear my position with respect to the Repatriation Department and the question of a serviceman’s eligibility to join the RSL and to wear the Vietnam ribbon. My four objections should properly be taken together. Until February of this year, when ambition among some people in this place was no longer trammelled by reason, 1 thought there was a solution, and it ill becomes the honourable member for Lang to say that I did nothing about it because when I was Minister for the Navy papers on this issue were prepared and had been put to the Department of Defence.It just shows the fanciful view the honourable member has of the way that the Service departments operate. They do not operate as islands unto themselves. The 3 of them operate together, under the Department of Defence, and the story has to be sold to them. That is the difficulty which the honourable gentleman will not face up to. 1 have asked the honourable gentleman to look at this not out of any sense of malevolence but on the basis of simple goodwill.
My complaint on Thursday evening was quite clear. I said that the amendment moved by the honourable member for Reid did not meet my objections. I thought that was plain even to those who have had no formal education whatever. It did not meet my objections. AmI to understand that people who had the benefit of higher education, such as the honourable member for Lang and the honourable member for Hughes, do not understand plain English. What is wrong? I have always thought until this afternoon that there was an acute state of normalcy about the 2 of them. But why do they abandon this state now and adopt a preference to treat the Queen’s English in this fashion? And I hope that that does not jar any republican in the chamber. What I would like to do, and what I would like to think pursuant to the information given to me by the Leader of the House I have succeeded in doing, is to cure this anomaly. But I want to cure it in other directions and that is why I intervened last Thursday night and why I have spoken again this afternoon.
Dr PATTERSON:
Dawson
– It is quite clear that no amount of fine and fancy phrases by the honourable member for Moreton (Mr Killen) or, to use the words he used in his challenge to this side of the chamber, fancy footwork, will disguise the fact that in the mind of every member of Parliament who listended to the debate last Thursday both the honourable member for Moreton and the honourable member for La Trobe (Mr Jess) gave us to understand that they supported the amendment which would provide the opportunity for serving members of the permanent forces, Army, Navy and Air Force, to secure a war service homes loan. The report on page 3713 of Hansard of 25th November 1971 shows that the honourable member for La Trobe actually invited the Opposition to move the amendment. He said:
If the Opposition were to move an amendment which stated that servicemen of today, under today’s conditions, should be entitled to war service homes, 1 would agree with that amendment, and I am sure that other honourable members on this side of the chamber would also agree with it.
What could be clearer in anybody’s language than that? That is precisely what the amendment is about. Yet we have witnessed today 2 Government supporters in order to get themselves off the hook, get up and say that they are not prepared to support the amendment.
Mr Killen:
– When did I say that on Thursday?
Dr PATTERSON:
– On page 3715 of Hansard the honourable member for Moreton is reported to have interjected to say:
May I take it that you are fining it down to servin g members?
The Opposition had the unqualified understanding that the honourable member for Moreton and the honourable member for La Trobe would be supporting this amendment. There can be no question about that.
Mr Killen:
– Go forward 3 pages now.
Dr PATTERSON:
– The honourable member should calm down; he has spoken twice. It is quite clear that the honourable member for La Trobe and the honourable member for Moreton must be classified as humbugs.
The CHAIRMAN (Mr Lucock:
– Order! I suggest to the honourable member for Dawson that he take note of what 1 said to the Committee in regard to the subject matter of this debate. I suggest that he withdraw that remark.
Dr PATTERSON:
– I withdraw it. If the honourable member for Moreton is sincere he should move an amendment precisely along the lines he advocates. I have always felt that the honourable member has believed in what he has said in this Parliament but there is not the slightest doubt in my mind that he is splitting straws over this amendment. I will say no more than that on that matter. What I had intended to say concerns the honourable member for Herbert (Mr Bonnett). I have been waiting patiently to hear him speak because he has a very important stake in this legislation, in Townsville today there is an Army base, Lavarack Barracks, and an Air Force base. The honourable member for Herbert knows full well that there arc men in Townsville who have been in the war zone. They have gone there in Hercules and other aircraft to ferry goods and ammunition and pick up troops but they are not included in the provisions of the War Service Homes Act. There are other members who are entitled-
Mr Graham:
– They were not during the Second World War. either.
Dr PATTERSON:
– They were.
Mr Graham:
– They were not. If they were in the Second World War-
Dr PATTERSON:
– It is quite obvious that the honourable member does not know his own Government’s legislation; otherwise he would know that any person who volunteered for war service in the Second World War and had 6 months service was entitled to a war service homes loan. The honourable member knows nothing about the Act and I suggest that he keep quiet.
Mr Graham:
– You are talking nonsense.
Dr PATTERSON:
– 1 am talking the truth. The precedent is there. I am glad that the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Graham) has shown his complete ignorance of this legislation. Any member of the Navy, Army or Air Force who volunteered for service in World War II, providing he was in the Services for 6 months and irrespective of whether he served in or out of Australia or in or out of a war zone, was entitled to a war service homes loan. So surely the precedent is there. I want to hear from the honourable member for Herbert. I believe that in conscience he should support the amendment. He and 1 both know that there are servicemen in Townsville who are blatantly being, discriminated against. They are more entitled to the provisions of the Act than many other ex-servicemen with loans today who served in World War II. The Opposition believes that there should be no discrimination against anybody who volunteered to serve his country whether in the Army, Navy. Air Force or ancillary services. They should be entitled to war service home loans.
There is a serious anomaly in the Act in this connection and the honourable member for Reid (Mr Uren) has moved that this anomaly be removed and constructive legislation implemented. It is quite clear that at the Lavarack Barracks and the Air Force base in Townsville there are many men who are being discriminated against under this legislation. When they are discharged eventually they will be able to say to their relatives and friends: ‘We served within the borders of Vietnam. We flew aircraft within the borders of Vietnam but we art not entitled to war service home loans under this Government’s disgraceful legislation.’ Let us make it quite clear. Anybody would think, in view of this Government’s pinch penny attitude towards this legislation, that these are grants; they are interest bearing loans and the Government will get the money back with a profit. One only has to look at the revenue which the Government earns from war service home loans today to see that this is really an investment on the part of this nation. The honourable member for Herbert should get up and declare himself on this legislation. He has a lot of people in Townsville at the Lavarack Barracks and the Air Force base who are watching this legislation very carefully because many of them are being discriminated against by this Government. What this Government has to do is amend the Act constructively and eradicate this blatant discrimination against servicemen, particularly those in the area about which I have been speaking, who have as much right to the provisions of the War Service Homes Act as many ex-servicemen who already have a loan or who are in the process of getting one.
Mr BONNETT:
Herbert
– I will be very brief. The honourable member for Dawson (Dr Patterson) is quite right in saying I am most interested in this subject, but he is quite wrong if he thinks that I am happy with the amendment as moved by the Opposition. I have been listening to this debate pretty closely, and it appears that all Opposition members have been doing is fighting for 2 votes from this side of the Committee. I was so disturbed on Thursday that they could possibly have had 3 votes from this side. The honourable member for Dawson knows this.
Studying the amendment as I have done, and having been in touch with the various people concerned over the week-end; I say that I trust the Minister for National Development (Mr Swartz) whose assurance 1 have that this matter will be looked into together with the Repatriation Act. The problem worrying the honourable member for Moreton (Mr Killen) has been my problem for a while. I understand that the honourable member for La Trobe (Mr Jess) has also received an assurance that Cabinet will study this problem. I have spoken to the Minister for Housing (Mr Kevin Cairns), who is at the table. The Minister has assured me that this problem will be looked at in conjunction with Cabinet. I am waiting for the result of that consideration.
If the honourable member for Dawson suggests that I will cross the floor and vote for this amendment, he is quite wrong. I think that the assurances that 1 have been given will more than satisfy those people whom the honourable member for Dawson and I know. I pay the Opposition this compliment: I think that it moved its amendment in good faith. This is different from its motive this afternoon in trying to suggest that Government members have not acted in good faith. I do not think that the Opposition has covered the situation. I think that the Opposition and the Government are growing far apart on what this legislation is designed to do. The legislation that is being discussed at the moment seeks to raise the maximum war service homes loan from $8,000 to $9,000. We have really gone far from and wide of the intention of the legislation and the purpose behind its introduction by the Minister for Housing. I will stand by the assurance that I have received from the Minister for National Development and the Minister for Housing who have said that Cabinet will look at these matters. In standing by those assurances, I will not be voting for the amendment.
Mr WHITLAM:
Leader of the Opposition · Werriwa
– I am not so easily persuaded by ministerial assurances as is the honourable member for Herber” (Mr Bonnett). I have been in this Parliament for 19 years. During that period. / have represented more serving members of the Forces than any other honourable member. During that period there have been verv few opportunities to move amendments to the War Service Homes Act. The last time there was such an opportunity was 3 years ago. On this occasion the honourable member for Reid (Mr Uren) has moved the same amendments as the honourable member for Hindmarsh (Mr Clyde Cameron) moved 3 years ago.
The Ministry has had many changes. Nevertheless there are still some Ministers who at that time professed an interest in extending the operations of the War Service Homes Division. During the 19 years that I have been here, no extensions of eligibility for war service homes have been introduced. There have been many restrictions on eligibility for war service homes. These restrictions were brought in by administrative action. The first lo* were introduced in the credit squeeze of 1951. The second lot were brought in during the credit squeeze of 1961. Both rationing schemes are still ‘here. The amendments that the honourable member for Reid has proposed are designed to see that restrictions on the entitlement to war service homes are not brought in by Ministerial action and that at least the Parliament can pass upon restrictions which are imposed.
Surely we have reached the stage where we can enlarge the entitlement to war service homes. I would have hoped that there would be more honourable gentlemen disposed to vote for such a proposition. It is true that most of the big Air Force and Army establishments are in Labor held electorates. The honourable member for
Oxley (Mr Hayden), the honourable member for Chifley (Mr Armitage), the honourable member for Bendigo (Mr Kennedy) and 1 represent these large areas. My own electorate covers the whole area from Holsworthy down to Ingleburn.
We know the difficulties that serving members of the Forces have from 2 specific problems. One is that, during their serving lives, they must move from one posting to another. They must move more frequently than any other families in the country. The War Service Homes Act prevents a person, except in cases of great hardship, receiving a second grant. If he sells an existing war service home, he must repay all of the loan that he owes on that home. He cannot have as a second loan even the amount which he still owed on the first loan.
The second great problem that they have is that, when they get out of the Services, in most cases they are already older than people who are obtaining home loans and, therefore, they are not regarded as the best prospects. They are going into new careers. Furthermore, they find it intolerable to pay back during the rest of their careers in civilian life the full amount that a home purchaser has to borrow these days to get a house, lt is about time that we struck off these disabilities that members of the Armed Forces must bear.
T> put the matter into perspective, I point out that, in the last 5 financial years, the Commonwealth has received *$94m more from persons buying war service homes than it has advanced to people buying war service homes. 1 emphasise that it has received $94m more. Nobody dreams for a moment that there will not be a very great surplus of revenue from repayments over expenditure in the present financial year. Accordingly, it should be possible to extend the entitlement for war service homes.
The Australian Labor Party’s interest in this matter is coupled with its determination to have a volunteer Army. This is one incentive that the Commonwealth has available to it. There are very many essential occupations in this community which are short of enough men or women. There is only one occupation in this country for which we impose compulsion, namely, service in the Army by men. If we were to extend only to persons who give service in the Army or who have been honorably discharged from the Army the full range of benefits which, up to now, the Commonwealth has limited to those who have served on active service overseas, we would find a very great number of persons enlisting in the Army and signing on for new terms in the Army. My Party has said this for quite some years.
Since, so often, people give their versions of what my Party says on certain matters, I will read into the record some of the things that we have said on this matter. At our 28th Commonwealth Conference in 1969, we passed this resolution:
A regular soldier should not have to wait unlit he has served overseas before he can. obtain a War Service Home loan; he should not bc denied further War Service Home loans if his service requires him to move from one house to another. Easing the frequent shifts of house which constitute a major feature of service life should be a major responsibility of the War Service Homes Division yet successive Liberal ministers have refused to repeal the provision that a person who has had one War Service Hume shall not receive another except on grounds of grave emergency. Since 1951 loans have been refused for the discharge of mortgages previously given to other housing institutions and lenders. Since June 1962 additional loans have been refused for road making costs except in cases of extreme financial hardship. Since August 1962 such loans have been further restricted to essential extra steeping accommodation and installation of water and power services, It is high time that all these rationing schemes were abolished and the full benefits of the War Service Homes Act restored. lt is high time that British and allied exservicemen were allowed to receive War Service homes. After two years’ service in the Regular Army or six years in the CMF or, if invalided out earlier, a man or woman should be entitled to a War Service Home loan.
In our conference this year we stated more succinctly the principle in the following terms:
Labor shall provide war service homes, repatriation health benefits, civilian rehabilitation training, scholarships for their children and generous re-engagement, retirement and re-settlement allowances for members of the Forces.
For too long we have limited the Commonwealth’s repatriation or veterans’ legislation to circumstances which are not likely to occur in our lifetimes, in the First World War it was the only procedure, in the Second World War it was by far the usual procedure for a man to enlist for the duration and to serve overseas. Accordingly all of our departments and all of our instrumentalities are still geared to this system where there is a mass rally to the flag and people serve overseas and are then given certain benefits to restore them to civilian life.
Nowadays the overwhelming probability is that there will not be a great war in the lifetime of any of us. Similarly, however, it is certain that we are going to require mobile professional forces. These forces will be competing for manpower with other occupations which will be well remunerated and highly technical. In these circumstances we should use some of the existing Commonwealth machinery to give an advantage to those who serve their country in the armed forces. These people will be serving in an occupation which takes them and their families very rapidly from one place to another; it is an occupation which they have to give up at a relatively early age. The War Service Homes Division is a great instrumentality, ready for the purpose, which is to give ex-servicemen the benefits which derive from it. 1 therefore commend to honourable members on both sides of the chamber one of those amendments which come to us in the lifetime of a Parliament on only one occasion. The principle underlying this amendment has been in the Labor Party’s platform for many years. It is a matter on which the Labor Party has moved whenever there has been the opportunity.
Mr UREN:
Reid
– To set out the history of the problems with which the honourable members for Moreton (Mr Killen) and La Trobe (Mr Jess) find themselves faced let me retrace the discussion that has taken place in this Committee. Firstly, on behalf of my Party, I moved an amendment in conformity with the policy of my Party. The same amendment had been moved in November 1968 by the honourable member for Hindmarsh (Mr Clyde Cameron) who was then the Labor spokesman for housing. Last Thursday night I moved the following amendment:
Before paragraph (a) insert the following paragraph: “(aa) by omitting from sub-section (I.) the definition of ‘Australian Soldier’ and inserting in its stead the following definition:
Australian Soldier’ means a serving member of the Forces or a former member who has been honourably discharged;’ “
During my comments I spoke of men from HMAS ‘Sydney’ who had served in Vietnam and who had been excluded from a war service homes entitlement because hey had not remained long enough in a war area. In other comments I set out the Labor Party’s broad policy for improving the conditions of regular servicemen. As a result both the honourable member for Moreton and the honourable member for La Trobe showed some interest in the proposition put forward by the Labor Party. It was only when the honourable member for Hughes (Mr Les Johnson) was talking that the honourable member for La Trobe intimated that, if we amended our amendment in a certain way. he would give support to the Labor Party. I indicated from the table that I would do ?o. thereby allowing the honourable member for La Trobe to support us.
At this stage - I say this in fairness to the honourable member for Moreton - there may have been some confusion. However, a new amendment was drafted by officers of this House. Because I had spoken twice in the Committee I was unable to move a new amendment and I sought leave to withdraw my original amendment. The new amendment was then moved by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Barnard). The proposition which he put forward covered the proposal that the honourable member for La Trobe had agreed to support. At that stage the proposal also had the support of the honourable member for Moreton because it covered servicemen in Vietnam. Indeed. I have no doubt that the amendment also covered the proposition put forward by the honourable member for Herbert (Mr Bonnett) who has many permanent servicemen stationed in Townsville. Many airmen, as was pointed out by the honourable member for Moreton, who have flown to Vietnam are excluded from war service homes entitlements.
The Australian Labor Party would like to broaden the scope of eligibility under the war service homes scheme to a greater degree. I took it upon myself to alter the amendment. In other words, the Labor Party was prepared to make progress in that it seemed likely that 2 supporters of the Government - the honourable members for Moreton and La Trobe - would support our proposition. Therefore we did not go for the maximum; we were content to take a few steps so that serving members of the forces would have war service homes entitlements. I know that the honourable member for Moreton protests and says: ‘Maybe the Government can make a further examination of the matter’. I want the Committee to understand that this amendment was moved by the Labor Party 3 years ago. The Government has done nothing yet about this matter. The honourable member for Moreton pointed out that he protested about the position when he was Minister for the Navy aud that he could not move his ministerial colleagues then. Of course, he has greater influence now: his influence has grown enormously since he has been removed to the back bench. He could not exert his influence when he was in the Ministry but he now feels that it will listen to him.
The honourable member for La Trobe now says that he will not go along with the Labor Party’s proposition even though he said last Thursday night that he would support it. What the honourable member said is recorded in black and white in Hansard. We are not trying to make political capital out of this. The fact is that the Labor Party is trying to make progress. 1 was prepared to break down my amendment. I took the authority to draw up a new amendment and my Executive and Party have endorsed this point of view. We have been told about the great amount of revenue that the adoption of our proposal would involve. However, in the last 5 years the Consolidated Revenue Fund has received from war service homes over $90m more than it has spent. In fact, in 1966-67 the Government spent $59m and received back $67m; in 1967-68 it spent $46m and received back $69m in 1968-69 it spent S5Om and received back $72m; and in 1969-70 it spent $55m and received back S77m. In 1970-71 it spent $61m and it got back S78m. In other words it has made a profit of $93m over the last 5 years. It is said that we cannot afford to spend the amount which our amendment would involve. One honourable member said it would cost $60m to implement our proposal. Yet the War Service Homes Division has made $93m profit in the last 5 years.
We are asking for some progress to be made in improving the conditions of serving members of the permanent forces in this country. We know that this Government brought in conscription because it said it could not get a sufficient number of recruits into the permanent forces. When the Gates Commission, which President Nixon set up to inquire into all aspects of abolishing conscription in the United States, examined the Australian position it found that if ample incentives had been offered to Australians to join the armed forces it would not have been necessary to implement conscription in Australia to get a sufficient number of men into the Services.
What are we saying here? We are saying that it is about time the Government woke up. lt is about time that it gave better conditions to the Australian servicemen. It is about time that those brave heroes on the back benches on the Government side who talk about blood and guts and who glorify war did something about improving conditions for those men who want to join the permanent military forces. We have given them another opportunity to support our amendment. The same amendment was moved in November 1968. We know that at least 2 members on the Government side have awakened from their slumber. They moved about one foot forward and then became a little frightened and jumped back again, lt is about time that one of them came over and voted with us. We hope that he will join with us so that some progress may be made in improving conditions for serving military personnel in this country.
Mr Kevin Cairns:
Minister for Housing · LILLEY, QUEENSLAND · LP
– The amendment which has been moved by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Barnard) is the third amendment which has been proposed by the Opposition to this section of the Act. It is worth reflecting for one or two moments why it was found necessary to move a third amendment. A number of accusations have been thrust about the chamber this afternoon. I would like to point out as quickly and as calmly as possible why it was found necessary by the
Opposition to move an amendment different from that which it attempted to move on 2 previous occasions. In going back to the year 1968 and in bringing the 1968 amendment forward again, we pointed out to the Opposition that this was an effective amendment to the definition of an Australian soldier for the purposes of the Act. The amendment which the Opposition proposed would have effectively deleted for the purposes of the war service homes advance many members of the naval, military and air forces of Australia who had participated in previous conflicts and who presently have an entitlement under the Act. That is the reason for which it was decided to allow and for which the Government allowed the Opposition to amend the amendments which it had moved in previous years and which interestingly enough it had attempted to implement in previous years with all the consequences of that implementation.
The War Service Homes Act has a certain philosophy and the philosophy of that Act is quite clear. Eligibility under the War Service Homes Act in times of wars is related to enlistment for active service and in times which are not times of general conflict it is related to participation in warlike activities in certain zones. This touches, of course, the point made by the honourable member for Moreton (Mr Killen) when he referred to certain naval men and air force men who have gone to Vietnam or who have gone to areas in which conflict is taking place and who under the Repatriation (Special Overseas Service) Act do not qualify for certain repatriation benefits and for certain war service homes benefits. The nub of that comment is clearly contained in section 4 of the Repatriation (Special Overseas Service) Act. That Act declares what is a special area in relation to which special duty may be performed by men of the forces who go to that area. That proposition is covered by the regulations which would be promulgated under the Repatriation (Special Overseas Service) Act. As was pointed out - it was pointed out quite clearly - this is a wider proposition than one which is merely related to the War Service Homes Act which we are considering this afternoon and is a different proposition from that which is related to the amendment proposed to this clause.
The honourable member for La Trobe (Mr Jess) was concerned that the housing conditions or the home ownership conditions - that is an important distinction - for members of the regular forces should be varied. He has received an assurance, a valid assurance, that this matter is being examined, lt is under examination at this moment. Honourable members know that certain proposals have been put forward which will require a great deal of examination, and we hope that something can be done with respect to this matter. The home ownership conditions which relate to the members of the regular forces, members who do not otherwise qualify under the War Service Homes Act provisions, are being considered at this very moment.
A number of other propositions have been put forward. Let me deal with 2 of them which have been put forward by the Opposition very late in this debate. So far as I am aware, during the war there was no 6 months provision with respect to enlistment for overseas service to qualify for benefit under the War Service Homes Act. The other suggestion by the Opposition is that the War Service Homes Division has been operating profitably. Honourable members opposite under the analysis trotted out, as they have done on many occasions, figures for the last 5 years. Profitability is not determined on one year, 2 years or 5 years in any venture. It is determined over ihe length of operation of the venture. Of course honourable members opposite stopped at the 5 years in this case. If they had examined the figures over 10, 15 or 20 years or from the commencement of operations by the War Service Homes Division they would have seen that it is not by any measure of profitability a profitable venture. That does not alter the Government’s attitude. We do not relate our activities to the profitability or otherwise of the War Service Homes Division or to the activities which are pursued by the Director of the War Service Homes Division.
The Government rejects the amendment which has been proposed by the Opposition for several reasons, lt is quite clearly contrary to the philosophy of the Act as it has existed for many years. That philosophy was administered effectively under Labor governments as well as under conservative governments. The Government desires that those eligible persons who are applicants now under the Act be protected. If an amendment such as the one which was nominated were passed those men would not be protected. One of two things would happen. Either the subventions would have to increase very greatly, requiring a decrease in the maximum advance which is made available under the Act to either purchasers or borrowers, or matters such as waiting times would have tobe instituted. It has been the desire to avoid waiting time over the years. During this year it has been possible to avoid waiting time other than normal processing time. We have given an assurance that the Government will look to see what can be done concerning home ownership activities of regular servicemen. This is being done and I know that this assurance will receive the goodwill of those honourable members on the Government side who have expressed concern over this matter. But above all the Government rejects the’ amendment because it is desired that the Bill be passed with the benefits contained in it for those people who traditionally are applicants for war service homes approvals. We suggest that if the Bill were widened in the way suggested by the Opposition the benefits which can accrue under the legislation would be emasculated quite significantly, and the Government is opposed to that situation.
Mr FOSTER:
Sturt
- Mr Chairman -
Motion (by Mr Giles) proposed:
That the question be now put.
Mr Foster:
– I think the Minister should tell this House-
The CHAIRMAN:
– Order! The honourable member will resume his seat.
Mr Kevin Cairns:
LILLEY, QUEENSLAND · LP
– Mr Chairman, the honourable member for Reid suggested to me that I might gag the debate after he had spoken the second time.
Mr Uren:
– That is a complete dishonesty. What I said was:’I take it you will then sag it.’ I said I was going to call for a division on it.
The CHAIRMAN:
– The remarks of both the Minister and the honourable member for Reid are completely irrelevant to the debate.
Question put:
The Committee divided.
AYES: 56
NOES: 50
Majority .. .. 6
(The Chairman - Mr P. E. Lucock)
AYES
NOES
Question so resolved in the affirmative.
Question put:
That the amendment (Mr Barnard’s) be agreed to.
The Committee divided.
AYES: 51
NOES: 56
Majority . . 5
(The Chairman- Mr P. E. Lucock)
AYES
NOES
Question so resolved in the negative.
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 4 and 5 - by leave - taken together.
Clause 4.
Section 19 of the Principal Act is amended by omitting from sub-section (4.) thewords ‘Eight thousand dollars’ (wherever occurring) and inserting in their stead the words ‘Nine thousand dollars’.
Clause 5
Section 21 of the Principal Act is amended by omitting the words ‘Eight thousand dollars’ (wherever occurring) and inserting in their stead the words ‘Nine thousand dollars’.
Mr UREN:
Reid
– I move:
In clause 4 omit ‘Nine thousand dollars’, insert Fifteen thousand dollars’.
In clause5 omit ‘Nine thousand dollars’, insert Fifteen thousand dollars’.
The idea of this legislation is to increase the amount of the war service loan from $8,000 to $9,000 and I want to point out to the Committee the inadequacy of this amount, particularly in New South Wales. The interim report of the War Service Homes Division for 1970-71 shows at page 25 that the average cost of land and dwelling in New South Wales purchased with a war service loan was $14,990 and yet this legislation makes available only $9,000. In other words, $5,990 has to be found by way of a second mortage. A person would be paying at least8½ per cent reducible and up to 10 per cent flat rate of interest on that second mortgage so some people are paying up to 20 per cent interest reducible on a second mortgage to close the deposit gap. Of course, this relates only to the average cost of land and dwellings built by the War Service Homes Division in New South Wales. That same report reveals that the cost to the War Service Homes Division of land and dwelling in Victoria is $13,500, in Queensland $13,800, in South Australia $11,700, in Western Australia $12,600 and in Tasmania $13,700. So one can see that the increase is inadequate.
I ask that at least the Leader of the House (Mr Swartz) pay me the courtesy of listening to me. He is an ex-serviceman. He is a member of the Cabinet but he is not even interested in the amendment. He is talking on the front bench. When he came into this place in 1949 he, with many other ex-servicemen, were the crusading young Turks who were going to make sure that the ex-serviceman got a fair deal and was able to acquire a home. But if one reads the second reading speech of the Minister for Housing (Mr Kevin Cairns) one finds that all he says now is ‘assist a person to acquire a home’. In other words, ail that the Government does now is to assist the ex-serviceman to get a home and not to acquire a home. In 1950-51, after the Menzies Government came into power, the loan available to ex-servicemen was $5,500 while the average cost of land and dwelling was $4,160. In other words, a person could build a home which was far in excess of the average cost of a home or dwelling. But today in New South Wales the average cost of land and dwelling has risen to $14,990 and all that this Government makes available by way of a loan is $9,000. I am asking those ex-servicemen, those crusading ex-servicemen, those young Turks of 1949 - and I put the Minister for National Development (Mr Swartz), who is a member of the Cabinet, in that category - to use their power to give to exservicemen this added benefit by increasing the loan from $9,000 to $15,000 to enable them to buy a home. I ask the Minister for Defence (Mr Fairbairn), who is also an ex-serviceman and who was a young Turk in 1949-50, the honourable member for Mitchell (Mr Irwin) who is an exserviceman, the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Graham) who is also an exserviceman and also all other exservicemen, including those in the Australian Country Party such as the honourable member for Mallee (Mr Turnbull) who is an ex-serviceman and who was here in 1949, to support this amendment. I ask: Why are these ex-servicemen not assisting us by supporting the amendment to increase the loan from $9,000 to $15,000? The rising cost of dwellings and of land is one of the greatest of the crimes that can be attributed to this Government. In regard to the cost of land I want to quote from a table which was incorporated in Hansard on an earlier occasion and which has been prepared by the Library’s Legislature Research Service. It deals with the movements in index numbers of the average cost of land on which houses have been financed under the War Service
Homes Act compared with movements in index numbers of average weekly earnings. This table covers the years 1949-50 to 1970-71. Between 1949 and 1971 land cost in New South Wales for war service homes increased 14 times. In other words, with a base of 100 in 1949-50 the cost increased to 1,409 in 1970-71. During the same period average weekly earnings in Australia increased from 100 to 437 or 4-1/3 times. Therefore land costs have increased 3i times faster than average weekly earnings. This Government has allowed inflation to run rampant, has allowed the price of land to increase and the cost of housing to increase. Reports compiled by Government departments show clearly the increasing costs imposed on the community by this Government.
We are asking honourable members opposite to vote for our amendment to increase the loan from $9,000 to $15,000. This is not simply something that has been pulled out of a hat. This is the policy of our Party. This was accepted at the last Labor Party conference, held at Launceston, and this action was taken after an evaluation of the whole situation in regard to housing costs with a view to finding a realistic level of costs. We know that in New South Wales alone land prices have increased tremendously, even over the last 3 years - and the Government in that State is a conservative government just as this Commonwealth Government is a conservative government. In the Sydney metropolitan area land prices have increased as follows: In Penrith from $2,500 in 1969 to $6,000 in 1971; in Blacktown from $3,300 in 1969 to $6,500 in 1971; in Baulkham Hills from $6,000 to $9,000; in Belrose from $8,000 to $13,500; in Hornsby, the electorate of the honourable member for Berowra (Mr Hughes), from $6,000 to $8,500. There has been an increase in the cost of land in Campbelltown, which is a new area and which is represented in this place by the honourable member for Macarthur (Mr Jeff Bale) from $2,800 in 1969 to $7,500 in 1971. These are examples of the increase in the price of land yet the maximum loan has been increased to only $9,000.
The Opposition asks the Government to give a loan at least comparable in purchasing value to that which was available when it came into office in 1949. We ask the Government to make the loan the same in purchasing value us the loan which was available in 1949-50 when the average cost of a land and dwelling in New South Wales was 54. 160 and the maximum loan available was $5,500. We are asking honourable members opposite to support our amendment to increase the loan from $9,000 to $15,000.
Mr JESS:
La Trobe
– If I may I would like to ask the Australian Labor Party shadow Minister for Housing a question. As I understand it an amount of S60m has been appropriated in this year’s Budget for war service homes. There has been no suggestion that this amount should be increased. Therefore we can accept, as the Budget has been agreed to by this Parliament, that an amount of $60m will be made available for war service homes. If we accept the amendment to increase the loan from $9,000 to $15,000 will it not mean that about 4,000 maximum loans will be available from the $60m?.In other words, by accepting this amendment will we not reduce the number of successful applicants for war service homes loans?
Mr Reynolds:
– The Government can do what it does for the wool industry.
Mr JESS:
– I am asking a clear question which I would like the Labor Party’s leader on housing matters to answer. Is it not a fact that with an allocation of $60m and a loan of $9,000 we can service 6.666 applications for loans? I would like to have a clear answer as to whether this amendment, if accepted, would mean that the number of persons who could receive war service homes loans would be reduced from 6,666 to 4,000. To me this amendment means that the number eligible to receive a loan would be reduced by approximately 2,666. I would like the Opposition clearly to define whether that is the intention of the amendment. At no time has the Opposition moved an amendment to increase the allocation for the War Service Homes Division. I would like clarification on this point before I discuss the matter any further. If this information can be given to me I would be most obliged.
Mr BARNARD:
Bass
– It is seldom that one hears an argument advanced with less logic than that which has been put by the honourable member for La Trobe (Mr Jess). I think it is obvious that the acceptance of our amendment to increase the loan would require a larger allocation. Nobody denies this. It would require a larger allocation of funds. If the honourable member for La Trobe looks very carefully at the allocations for war service homes over the years he will find that they have fluctuated according to the dictates of this Government. It has been reduced, it has been put back up again, then it has gone down again. There is no reason why the amount of $60m - which is the amount which this Government is making available as a result of the appropriation legislation introduced this year - should be the final sum to be made available to the War Service Homes Division. One has to look at this in relation to the other factors that are involved in the Division.
I thought the honourable member for Reid (Mr Uren) put this matter very concisely and very carefully and very clearly. If one followed the argument of the honourable member for La Trobe to its logical conclusion one could go on and argue that you may have X number of ex-servicemen receiving war service home loans but you must not increase the amount that could be made available to them because an increase in the loan would put them back into the position that ex-servicemen were in between 1946 and 1949. A few minutes ago the honourable member for Mallee (Mr Turnbull) said, by way of interjection, that he was here between 1946 and 1949 and that he remembered the situation during that period. However, he should be reminded, just as the honourable member for La Trobe needs to be reminded, that between 1946 and 1949 the maximum advance was sufficient to be able to purchase a home under the war service homes legislation. It has always been a basic requirement of this Division that 10 per cent of the cost of the home was necessary as a deposit, even if the maximum advance exceeded the cost of the home. However, what is the situation today under this Government? The real test is whether the maximum advance is sufficient to allow those who qualify under the Act to be able to gain assistance or to purchase a home. The plain fact is that the great majority of them cannot do so today. I thought that the honourable member for Reid made this perfectly clear.
For example, in New South Wales - I refer to the report of the Director of the War Service Homes Division - in 1951-52, the average cost of a dwelling and land was $5,050 and the maximum loan was then $5,500. I hope that the honourable member for La Trobe will remember these figures. In other words, the average cost of a dwelling and land was less than the maximum loan that was then available. This meant that a person who was entitled to a war service home loan did not have to go to an outside source for finance to supplement the amount made available by the War Service Homes Division. From the annual report of the Director of the War Service Homes Division, it will be seen that in 1970-71 the average cost of a house and land in New South Wales was $16,281. This means that the average cost of a house and land in New South Wales has more than trebled in 20 years. If the provisions of this Bill, are passed, the maximum loan will have been increased by only 64 per cent over the same period. If the relationship which applied in 1951-52 had been maintained, the maximum loan today would be $17,732 and not $9,000 as is proposed in this Bill. Where then is the logic in the argument of the honourable member for La Trobe and those who support him in opposition to this amendment? Of course, there is no question about it. One would not expect the Minister for Housing (Mr Kevin Cairns) to be sympathetic in these matters. I do not believe that he really understands them. However, surely Government supporters can appreciate the significance of the fact that the statistics made available by the Director of the War Service Homes Division show that in one State alone the average cost of a house and land is almost $7,000 in excess of what will be the maximum loan. How can one accept this kind of situation?
As I have already pointed out to the Committee, it can be shown that there has been a great deterioration in the amount that was made available during the period of the last Labor government. The maximum loan which then applied under the terms of the War Service Homes Act exceeded the average cost of a dwelling and land. The Opposition has suggested that the maximum loan should be increased to $15,000 which is still $2,000 below the figure that it should be if the ratio between what was made available before this Government came to office in 1949 and the average cost of a dwelling and land had been maintained. I do not want to stress the fact that this is merely the policy of the Party - that probably does not have a great deal to do with it- but what is important is whether the maximum advance is sufficient for those who desire to purchase a home through the War Service Homes Division. The plain fact is that it is not. lt is quite unreasonable for the honourable member for La Trobe to argue that if the maximum advance is increased, the amount that will be available for those who require loans under the war service homes legislation will decrease. If this is to be the position, the answer is obvious. The Government must increase the overall appropriation. Since the honourable member for La Trobe has been asking questions, perhaps he might be able to provide an answer as to why the Government is not prepared to increase the appropriation. Surely if it is good enough for him to argue as he did a few moments ago, it is reasonable to expect him to answer this question. This Government has a responsibility under the terms of the legislation to provide assistance to those who require and who are eligible for assistance from the War Service Homes Division. I have already indicated to the Committee how the cost of a house and land has increased in this country during this Government’s period in office. It is quite reasonable for the Opposition to request that the maximum loan be increased to $15,000.
The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Mr Drury) - Order! The honourable member’s time has expired.
Mr Kevin Cairns:
Minister for Housing · LILLEY, QUEENSLAND · LP
—The intention of the Government is that this Bill, be passed through this Parliament as quickly as possible so that the benefits which are included in the Bill will be available to those who desire them. It has been argued that the benefits are minimal - that they are almost not desired - but, of course, those hundreds of people who are waiting anxiously for this legislation to pass disagree with that proposition. The amendments which have been moved by the shadow Minister for Housing, the honourable member for Reid (Mr Uren), seek to alter the maximum advance which is available under the Act. Let me make it perfectly clear that it is the intention of the Government to increase the maximum advance available to $9,000 at 3¾ per cent interest. The $9,000 is to be available to purchasers as well as to borrowers under the Act.
It goes almost without saying that an advance of an amount of money at any period of time and in any economic situation must be considered in the situation in which it is advanced. For example, to advance money at 3¾ per cent now is very different from a proposition to advance it in the middle 1920s, the middle 1930s or the middle 1940s. So, it is appropriate to consider whether this represents a real advantage. There are 2 calculations thatI would put to the Committee in order to demonstrate what is involved in this proposition. Is the $9,000 advanced at 3¾ per cent under this Act a real benefit or is it a sham benefit? It represents a real contribution of something like $10,000 over the time of the repayment of such a loan. That fact should be appreciated. In other words, were such a loan to be paid off over 40 years at interest rates which are chargeable by other organisations in the community and under the same conditions as apply under this Act, a person would pay $10,000 more than one who was repaying the money under the conditions of the War Service Homes Act. It is a real benefit of that amount. Unfortunately, the interest rate provision may disguise the significance of that benefit.
We could put the argument in another and different way. What would the $9,000 advance available at 3¾ per cent be equivalent to in terms of an advance were it made at 7 per cent? It would be equivalent to something like $12,500 to $13,000 were it made at going rates of interest. So. whichever way it is considered, we suggest that this is a real increase in benefits. We know from the applications that are coming into the Department that there are many applicants - many eligible persons - who desire to take advantage of this benefit. The Government desires that this legislation should pass through this chamber and through the other place as quickly as possible so that this benefit will be made available to those people who are yearning for it to be made available. Therefore, the Government does not accept the 2 amendments which have been proposed by the Opposition.
Motion (by Mr Graham) put -
That the question be now put.
The Committee divided. (The Deputy Chairman - Mr E. N. Drury)
AYES: 56
NOES: 51
Majority . . . . 5
AYES
NOES
Question so resolved in the affirmative.
Question put:
That the words proposed to be omitted (Mr Uren’s amendment) stand part of the clauses.
The Committee divided.
AYES: 0
NOES: 0
AYES
NOES
In Division:
The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Mr Drury) - Order! There appears to have been some misunderstanding. I ask honourable members to listen to what I have to say because it is important. The question put was:
That the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the clauses.
I declared that the ayes had it. I understood that the Government wanted the words proposed to be omitted to stand part of the clauses. If that is so the Government supporters should be on the right of the Chair.
The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN - I am not prepared to follow that procedure. As far as the Chair is concerned the correct procedure was followed. The doors were locked and the tellers were appointed in due course. I am not prepared to vary that procedure.
The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN- I point out in reply to the honourable member that I ordered the doors to be locked after honourable members had changed sides.
The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN- I point out to honourable members that this is a procedure that should be well known to the Committee. As far as the Chair is concerned the correct procedure was followed. At the expiration of 2 minutes, according to the sandglass, I ordered that the doors be locked. I then put the question. There was some confusion and I pointed out that Government members and Opposition members apparently had misunderstood the usual procedure. Somebody apparently started moving from the Opposition side and honourable members on my right side seemed to take their cue accordingly. But the correct procedure was followed by the Chair. The doors were locked and the question was put.
The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN- Order! Is it the wish of the Committee that the bells be rung again and another division called? Then that course will be followed. As it is now 6 p.m. a division will be taken at 8 p.m.
Sitting suspended from 6 to 8 p.m.
The CHAIRMAN:
– Order! The question before the Committee is the amendments to clauses 4 and 5. It is: That the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the clauses’.
Question put:
That the words proposed to be omitted (Mr Urea’s amendment) stand part of the clauses.
The Committee divided. (The Chairman - Mr P. E. Lucock)
AYES: 55
NOES: 48
Majority . . 7
AYES
NOES
Question so resolved in the affirmative.
Clauses agreed to.
Proposed new clauses 4a. and 4b.
Mr UREN:
Reid
– I move:
After clause 4, insert the following new clause: 4a. Section 20 of the Principal Act is amended by omitting from sub-section (1.) the words “Subject to this Act and to the directions of the Minister as to matters of general policy, the Director may, upon application in writing” and inserting in their stead the words “Subject to this Act, the Director may, upon application in writing, unless prevented by the regulations”.’
After clause 4, insert the following new clause: 4b. Section 21a of the Principal Act is amended by omitting the words “The Director shall not, except with the approval of the Minister” and inserting in their stead the words “The Director may, unless prevented by the regulations’’.’
The amendments seek to alter the Principal Act by taking from the Minister for Housing the right to issue directions to the Director of the War Service Homes Division on matters of policy in respect of the granting of loans for the enlargement of a dwelling house, the discharge of a mortgage, the completion of a partially erected dwelling house and the purchase of a dwelling house together with the land on which it is erected.
I dwell principally on the first 2 matters to which I have referred. Section 20(1.) provides:
Subject to this Act and to the directions of the Minister as to matters of general policy, the Director may . . . make an advance to an eligible person . . .
The section states further:
-
. for the purpose of enabling him -
- to enlarge a dwelling-house owned by him; or
- to discharge a mortgage, charge, or encumbrance already existing on his holding.
Section 21a provides:
The Director shall not, except with the approval of the Minister -
make advances to any one eligible person in respect of more than one property.
Proposed new clause 4a would reverse the situation.
On at least5 separate occasions Ministers have exercised their authority under section 20 and section 21a of the Act to write to the Director and to issue ministerial directions. On one occasion the ministerial direction prohibited the Director from granting loans to personnel of the Citizen Military Forces and of certain women’s auxiliary services. On another occasion the Minister gave in writing a ministerial direction about the discharge of mortgages. On another occasion a ministerial direction was issued concerning the transferring of loans. On still another occasion there was a ministerial direction concerning loans for the cost of making roads. On yet another occasion at this time there was a direction placing limitations upon the Director in respect of loans for the purposes of extensions.
If there is justification for limitations of the kinds I have just mentioned, those limitations should be clearly set out in a regulation. A regulation has to be tabled in both Houses of Parliament, so there is an opportunity to disallow it. If the regulation were unreasonable it would have the effect of denying help to people who, we believe, should be helped. Either House would have the right to disallow the regulation. We want an open, democratic discussion so that this Government is free from any vice whatsoever. We cannot disallow the Minister’s letter. We may not learn about it until months after it has been written. We may not even know of the existence of such a decision by the Minister. This is the reason for the amendment. We want all restrictions upon the Director set out in regulations which have to be tabled so that we shall have the right to examine them and if necessary disallow them. Therefore I have moved the amendments, in those terms.
Mr Kevin Cairns:
Minister for Housing · LILLEY, QUEENSLAND · LP
– The Government does not accept the amendments which have been proposed by the honourable member for Reid (Mr Uren) and I am sure that he is not surprised at this. The Government does not accept them for a number of reasons which are quite valid. One of these reasons is that his amendments would so reduce the flexibility of the administration of the War Service Homes Act and of those provisions applying both to loans and second assistances as to disadvantage considerably those people receiving assistance under the Act.
The second reason the Government does not accept the amendments is that they would be to no purpose. In fact, there are other provisions in the Act which give the power of ministerial direction and these provisions have been passed over by the honourable member for Reid. If these provisions were ignored and the amendments were accepted by the Parliament, they would have no meaning whatsoever. For example, an attempt has been made to amend section 20 of the principal Act concerning ministerial direction. The amendment moved by the honourable member for Reid is as follows:
Section 20 of the Principal Act is amended- by omitting from sub-section (1.) the words ‘Subject to this Act and io the directions of .the Minister’ . . . and inserting in their stead the words ‘Subject to this Act, the Director may, upon application in writing, unless prevented by the regulations’.
The honourable member wants to substitute regulations for the direction of the Minister.
The second clause which is proposed to be amended is a similar kind of provision. We could ask where we would arrive if the proposition put forward by the honourable member for Reid was passed. We would arrive nowhere. The fact is that during a speech earlier this evening the honourable member mentioned some of the ministerial directions that have been given over the years as being ones with which he did not agree. I might mention that one of these ministerial directions was given by a Labor Minister. The honourable member thought that by amending this section he would in fact delete the possibility of such directions. One of those directions was given under section 5(1.) of the Act, which states:
There shall be a Director of War Service Homes, who shall be appointed and employed in accordance with, and subject to the provisions of, the Commonwealth Public Service Act 1922-1947 and who shall, subject to the directions of the Minister, be responsible for the execution of this Act.
It is proposed that section 5 remain but that section 20 and section 20a be amended. I suggest that if carried, such amendments would become almost meaningless. For example, the honourable member for Reid, in speaking to his amendment in regard to section 20a of the Act, refers to the taking away of the right of ministerial direction. This section has dealt over many years with the conditions of second advances. Let me make 2 points about this. Were ministerial direction to be deleted in respect of this matter, flexibility would not occur and considerable disadvantages would accrue to those people who are in fact applying for these advantages. We know that regulations are slow of manipulation. They cannot be promulgated quickly. In fact, they can be promulgated quite slowly on a number of occasions.
Let me indicate the criteria of judgment with respect to second advances which have developed over the years and which may not have developed at the right time and in fact which may not have developed at all were such a power of ministerial direction to be deleted. One of the criteria with respect to second advances often is the position of widows - the requirement of widows to move from one house to another. Another criteria concerns medical requirements of those people who have second advances. A great many individual judgments have to be made concerning each case. Almost the philosophy of the War Service Homes Act is that it is an Act which depends upon individual judgments as to each applicant. That is the reason why such a lot of expertise and tradition has been built up concerning the administration of the Act. They would both be placed in jeopardy if the amendments proposed were carried by this Parliament. Examples would include the application for a second advance where there had been acquisition of homes for public purposes and things of this nature. Criteria of judgment have applied in such cases which would in fact be disadvantaged if the amendments moved by the honourable member for Reid were passed. If the Committee did agree to the amendments what would happen? Section 20a, which the honourable member proposes to amend, refers only to the making of advances in regard to war service homes. There is an attempt here to change the power of a Minister in relation to advances. But the Minister is left completely without any comment in the case of those who purchase homes.
For example, I refer to section 19b in which the matter of purchasing is referred to. Why, then, apply a restriction on direction to advances when purchases are in no way restricted whatsoever? It is difficult to find a strain of judgment through the amendments. In fact one would be advantaged or otherwise. In section 19b the matter of purchaser would be left completely unattended to. For these reasons, as well as for others which I think are cogent reasons, the Government does not accept the amendments put forward by the honourable member for Reid.
Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP
-I would like to say a few words in support of the amendment moved by my colleague the honourable member for Reid (Mr Uren). I think that the Minister for Housing (Mr Kevin Cairns) has deliberately set out to confuse-
Motion (by Mr Giles) put:
That the question be now put.
The Committee divided. (The Chairman - Mr P. E. Lucock)
AYES: 54
NOES: 49
Majority .. .. 5
AYES
NOES
Question so resolved in the affirmative.
Question put:
That the new clauses proposed to be inserted (Mr Uren’s amendment) be inserted.
The Committee divided. (The Chairman- Mr P. E. Lucock)
AYES: 49
NOES: 54
Majority .. .. 5
AYES
NOES
Question so resolved in the negative.
Proposed new clause 5a.
Mr UREN:
Reid
– I move:
This amendment was moved by the Opposition in November 1968 by the then Federal Labor spokesman for housing, the honourable member for Hindmarsh (Mr Clyde Cameron); so the Government has had ample time to study it. The amendment relates to very human problems arising from the personal experience of members of the Australian Labor Party. I do not move the amendment lightly. I ask the Government to give it some consideration and at least to allow some human blood to flow through its veins in dealing with these delicate problems. That is why I have moved the amendment.
Mr Kevin Cairns:
Minister for Housing · LILLEY, QUEENSLAND · LP
– The Government does not accept the amendment proposed by the honourable member for Reid (Mr Uren). which will not surprise him in the slightest. Let me state very briefly that the Government does not accept it for a number of important reasons. It is very important to determine the definition of the word ‘incapacitated’ in the matter of widows relief. The Opposition has not proposed a definition of the word. If this new concept requiring a judgment of the incapacity or otherwise of a person, or the spouse of a person, who will obtain a loan were imported, then the general criteria for judgment which are already used before an advance is made would be put aside. For example, in section 28 the general criteria are nominated, but they are judged extremely leniently and extremely lightly. Section 28 of the Act states:
The Director may, at his discretion, refuse to enter into a contract for the sales of any land or land and dwelling-house . . . unless he is satisfied that the person has a reasonable prospect of carrying out the terms of the contract of sale . . .
A commercial judgment is not made by the Director. He does not make the kind of judgment made by finance officers of hire purchase companies. If the matter of incapacity is to be imported into the determination in section 29aa new principles will be imported into the judgment regarding those to whom relief may be given.
For other reasons the Government does not accept the amendment. If the amendment were accepted what is generally known as widows’ relief would then not apply to widows but to people who are otherwise eligible. We are going to have a contradiction here between judgments as regards eligible people and we will have the importation of a judgment as to capacity. I suggest that clause 5A.(e) proposed by the honourable member for Reid may be covered to a certain extent in a number of cases by section 45 of the Act, under which payments for eligible persons may be extended for some time, but the conditions under which this occurs cannot require a lot of individual judgments to be made. Once you get away from the matter of judgments to be made in the cases which require consideration you are going to destroy almost the very philosophy of the Act. For those reasons the Government does not accept the amendment proposed by the Opposition.
Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP
– It seems to me that the Government is being very unreasonable in this matter and that the Minister for Housing (Mr Kevin Cairns) has not given a sensible reply to the points made by the honourable member for Reid (Mr Uren), it is amazing that in this matter, in contrast to the attitude that was taken during the debate on the previous amendment, the Minister is content to leave the discretion to the Director of the War Service Homes Division whereas previously he claimed that it was terribly important for the disretion to be vested in the Minister. There is an inconsistency in his attitude. It seems to me that the Minister is prepared to pluck in a willy-nilly way any sort of answer out of the air to provide something that looks like a justification for rejecting the very sensible case that has been put by the honourable member for Reid.
The Minister says that the Director has a prerogative in this matter to look at the question of the prospect of carrying out the conditions of sale. One would think that he was running a second hand store instead of a compassionate scheme designed to provide houses for the serving members of the forces and, in some circumstances, their dependants. How incredible it is that the Minister is prepared to take the view in this matter that, provided people are in fairly wholesome circumstances and are able to meet payments, he is prepared to accommodate their housing needs under the war service homes scheme. But when it comes to the category of people to whom the honourable member for Reid has compassionately referred and tried to embrace in the terms of the amendment, the Minister jettisons the whole idea. One would have thought that a compassionate housing scheme would be one that would take into account the need of the people in the most difficult circumstances. The ones referred to in the amendment are such people as widows whose husbands are temporarily or permanently insane or incapacitated or, in the case of an unmarried person, if he or she is temporarily or permanently insane or incapacitated.
The pi her provisions do not need any further recapitulating here because they have been spelt out in printed form in the terminology of the amendment. As I understand the Minister’s case, it is to the effect that it would be wrong to vest his power in Ihe Director and that the Director has the prerogative of looking at repayment capacities and things of this kind. That is not the point of the matter. The point is whether he is prepared to extend the consideration to people in these circumstances. Doubtless there are some consequential amendments to be moved, lt is quite possible there may not have been a complete and perfect drafting process undertaken here, but what we are looking for on the part of the Government is the acceptance of some basic principles in connection with the war service homes scheme because the fact is that both ex-servicemen who aspire to eligibility under this scheme and their dependants who could have the responsibility for a home subsequent to a serviceman dying or becoming insane, are entitled to the consideration which is not being extended to them here.
Right through this debate we have had the same stubborn attitude by the Minister. He is always prepared to pinpoint the little quibbles in terms of draftsmanship and matters of this kind and he continues to shift .his ground. In the one instance it is because he believes it is necessary for him to retain this doctrinaire prerogative in his own area as Minister, and then in the other instance he wants it in the hands of the Director. All these sorts of things can be sorted out in terms of working rules and so on. It is terribly important that people should know what their rights are. It is not discretion we are looking for, whether it is from the Minister or the Director of the War Service Homes Division. The desirable type of legislation is that which spells out in a very detailed and clarifying way - in a pedantic way, if you like - all the provisions which enable people to know precisely where they stand in any given situation. People do not want to be subjected to the bureaucracy or the goodwill of a Minister or anybody else, and here I believe there is an obligation on the part of the Government to look at the basic requirement of these people who can be in most distressing circumstances. I believe the amendment moved by the honourable member for Reid, once again on behalf of the Opposition, is entitled to a lot more consideration than has been extendedto it by the Minister this evening.
Question put -
Thatthe new clause proposed to be inserted (Mr Uren’s amendment) be so inserted.
The Committee divided.
AYES: 0
NOES: 0
AYES
NOES
Ayes . . . . …50
Noes . . . . . . 54
Majority . . 4
Question so resolved in the negative.
Remainder of the Bill - by leave - taken as a whole and agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment report adopted.
Third Reading
Bill (on motion by Mr Kevin Cairns)- by leave - read a third time.
page 3830
STATES GRANTS (SECONDARY SCHOOL LIBRARIES) BILL 1971
Second Reading
Debate resumed from 7 October (vide page 2035), on motion by Mr Malcolm Fraser:
That the Bill be now read a second time.
Mr BEAZLEY:
Fremantle
– I move:
I am not going to detain the House at any great length on this measure or on the amendment that I have just moved. I have colleagues who want to speak in greater detail about the legislation before us. But I do want to use this amendment as a vehicle to protest against the Government’s policy of skim and dabble in education. It skims over the surface of the deep needs of education below the tertiary level and it dabbles here and there. Usually some new snipper of policy is adopted just before an election. So we got the science blocks scheme just before an election.
Mr N H Bowen:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP
– Hardly fair.
Mr BEAZLEY:
– It is an historic fact. So also did we get assistance for secondary school libraries, lt is quite important that over the next triennium $30m is to be provided for secondary school libraries. But the needs in primary and secondary education are immense. Anybody who looks at television programmes - just to discuss as an aside the private sector of education - will have heard the Catholic Archbishop of Hobart, Guilford Young, say that 20 of his schools are bankrupt and they will have to be closed, producing a crisis in primary and secondary education in the State of Tasmania. We have had a statement from the Victorian State school teachers organisation saying that as a minimum $130m is needed in capital construction for the education of children in the City of Melbourne alone. There is a very deep-seated crisis in education. We are going to have to change many of our concepts. It is extremely doubtful that all the teachers who will be employed in the future - if class sizes are to be reduced as they should be - will be fully qualified teachers professionally. We will have to move to the idea which appears to be developing in the more, advanced States educationally in the United States of teaching teams, where, there are teachers .with specialist skills who can assist teachers without themselves being fully qualified to teach across the whole range.
The Opposition is dissatisfied with the way the Commonwealth moves into the ordinary fields of education. There is a tremendous wastage of skilled population at the secondary school level because of the large numbers of children who have to leave school, and there is a poultice on that - the secondary school scholarshipswhich does not really meet the needs of the children. The Catholic schools’ in particular are in very great financial need, so there is a flat rate grant where the most affluent get the same per capita grant as the most indigent of the schools. The whole system has grown like Topsy. The Commonwealth has found that if it is to do anything intelligent for the universities, if it is to do anything intelligent for the colleges of advanced education, it must have a special organ of sight to see the needs. So it has set up the Australian Universities Commission and the Commission for Colleges of Advanced Education. We say that it is also vitally important that the Commonwealth should set up a schools commission to perceive the needs that there are in the ordinary schools of the country.
Mr N H Bowen:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP
– But they are administered by State departments. The universities are not.
Mr BEAZLEY:
– The Commonwealth and the States are separate and colliding sovereignties. Whether we like it or not, what the founding fathers produced and what judicial interpretation.’ especially in the uniform tax case, has subsequently developed, is that the States control the expenditure departments and the Commonwealth controls the revenue department. There is no sector of education which will advance in the absence of Commonwealth financial grants. You may just as well comment upon the English structure of education where education is under the administration of local government authorities but wholly dependent upon the grants of the national Government. 1 am not saying that the Commonwealth should take over the administration of education. It has not taken over the administration of the universities. It has not taken over the administration of colleges of advanced education. In setting up a schools commission to advise the Commonwealth what it might do to assist both the Government and the non-Government sector of education it would not take over the administration of either of those sectors.
Mr N H Bowen:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP
– It would be duplicating State departments.
Mr BEAZLEY:
– But are you not duplicating State departments now? You are duplicating State departments in this matter:
Mr N H Bowen:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP
– That is only the universities.
Mr BEAZLEY:
– No, we are not talking about universities. We are talking about this Bill before us now which relates to secondary school libraries. Those which are not church schools are under the administration of the States. Libraries and science blocks in State secondary schools are under the administration of the States but this Government has seen fit to assist them. Instead, of coming in with a strategy of skim and dabble we want the Government to set up. a schools commission which will really investigate the needs, right across the board, and assist. I believe that there is another tertiary field in which this Government should assist to a. greater degree than it has done. It has already started to do so with teachers colleges and with the training of teachers. This is within the administration of the States but the Commonwealth has entered this field to assist. There is no difference in principle in what we are proposing, which is a schools commission perpetually to examine the needs and to make recommendations to the Commonwealth Government.
One thing that we know for sure, Mr Minister, is that you can look back and see the Hansard record sparkling with statements that emanated from the days when the Liberal Party of Australia had its first fine careless rapture. In that first fine careless rapture the Prime Minister of the day said persistently that the Commonwealth had no responsibility for education, until he was inched into Universities Commission, until he was inched into science blocks, until he was inched into school libraries, until he was inched into all sorts of things and what the Government denied it subsequently affirmed. I would prefer the days since the first fine careless rapture as far as education is concerned because the days of first fine careless rapture were rather arid in the field of education. I am bound to say that the successors of those first Ministers have done more for education, very much more for education, than their predecessors of earlier times. Our only complaint is that persistently there is this disclaimer - the same disclaimer as the Minister has made tonight - that it is a Commonwealth responsibility. Then, another generation of schoolchildren goes through crippled education and, finally, the Commonwealth gets around to a new adjustment 7 or 8 years after- it denied that it needed to do it. I think politically the instinct is superb. I do not begrudge the Government its electoral successes at all.
Mr Malcolm Fraser:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP
– Of course you do.
Mr SPEAKER:
-Order! There are far too many interjections coming from Ministers at the table. They can have an opportunity to speak later if they wish.
Mr BEAZLEY:
– I think the instinct of extracting the maximum electoral success from the minimum of contribution is greatly to bc admired- in .the same sense as one admires Machiavelli. But when one is discussing the educational needs, something other than skimming superficially over the problem and dabbling here and there is necessary. This, is why the Labor Party wants a schools commission as an organ of sight so that the Commonwealth will not have the excuse of not knowing what is needed. Of course, 1 realise that there is a great -peril in this. The mere fact of finding out what is needed is a moral commitment to do - something about it, but the position of education in Australia today is so serious that we feel it is essential that the Commonwealth Government should make the moral commitment to do something about it and this is why we support the idea of a schools commission..
Mr SPEAKER:
-Is the amendment seconded?
Mr REYNOLDS:
Barton
- Mr Speaker, I second the amendment. This Bill provides $30m over the next 3 years from 1972 to 1974 for the construction, equipping and stocking of libraries in secondary schools. It respresents an increase of $3m on the previous triennium and I suppose that will partly make up for the increased costs that will occur during the coming 3 years. One of the interesting provisions mentioned in the second reading speech of the Minister for Education and Science (Mr Malcolm Fraser) is the objective of the Government in this measure. The Minister stated that the objective is: . . to lift the quality of libraries in secondary schools, government and non-government, to acceptable standards.
This is a departure in principle for the Government. Up until now, the Government has been prepared to deride the Australian Labor Party when it says that it would not make finance available irrespective of needs in a community. What members of the Opposition say, and what we have said on many occasions, is that we will provide assistance to both government and non-government schools according to need. Up until now, the Government has not been prepared to accept this principle, but I see that in this Bill it does aim to provide libraries to acceptable standards in secondary schools. For the life of me, I cannot understand why the Government did not write this principle into the legislation providing for science blocks when it came before this House earlier in the year. In that Bill the Government provided grants for all non-government schools, including some of the most affluent schools in this country, at the rate of twice as much per head as it provided for those in government schools. I cannot understand why it has not been consistent in the application of its principle but, be that as it may, apparently the Government does accept in this Bill the principle that has been behind the Labor Party’s proposals for education, namely, giving aid in accordance with need.
The libraries scheme, which has been in operation since about 1966, has been responsible for some quite considerable improvements in our secondary school library resources. I am glad to note that in my own electorate, as in many other electorates, some impressive secondary school libraries have been erected. These days they are not referred to just as libraries; often, they are referred to as resource centres, since besides providing for books, they also provide for a number teaching aids, such as tape recorders, overhead projectors, various kinds of filming devices and so forth - all part and parcel of a modern educational machine. The only thing that disturbs me is that although benefits have been provided by these quite impressive buildings and by the books and equipment that are located in those buildings, not enough trained librarians and teachers are available to make the fullest and most effective use of them. Secondary schools are in just as much trouble with library teachers as thev are with a shortage of teachers generally.
One of the great regrets of many people in educational circles to whom I have talked abeu this type of legislation is that it does not apply to primary schools. Primary schools are beginning to feel that they are the poor relation in respect of any provision that the Commonwealth makes for education. As far as I know, the Commonwealth makes no direct provision for any aspect of primary education and I have found that this has given rise to quite a strong resentment in those circles. I know that there is considerable resentment felt by organisations of principals, by teachers and by parents who are connected with primary schools. These days most primary schools do not have a good library. The only schools which have effective libraries are those that are located in affluent areas where parents are able to provide for them. The interesting part about this is that the State governments give subsidies in accordance- with what the local parents and citizens associations or other parent organisations can provide, so those who have the most in resources attract the most by way of subsidy. This is directly opposed to the principle which the Labor Party espouses in this regard. Of course, as one would recognise, this leads to considerable inequality of educational opportunity. I make a plea to the Government to give consideration to the extension of this kind of aid to primary schools. After all, it is particularly in the fourth, fifth and sixth classes of primary school that youngsters develop their first habits in the use of libraries and in the technique of research - in the whole business of finding out where information is located and in being able to analyse the kind of material that is available in libraries. One must recognise that, these days, it is impossible for schools to be able to give children all the information, let alone skills that they will need in their later years.
The knowledge explosion is so great that it is impossible for any level of education today to be able to keep up with this development. So, the important thing is that people be taught to gather information for themselves, to be able to make use of books and to be able to make use of libraries and other such devices in order to study for themselves. The study habit is so important in modern education. Any teacher of any worth at all would say that this skill - this attitude - is best cultivated in the middle years of primary school and continued from that point. I make a strong plea to the Government to give consideration to extending library grants to primary schools as well as to secondary schools. I also make a plea that library grants be made to teachers colleges. These days most teachers colleges are very deficient in library facilities. This seems a most unfortunate thing because we are training people who will go into schools and teach library techniques to children. I refer to an article in the ‘Australian’ of 28th September this year. Referring to testimony given to the recent Senate inquiry on teacher education by the Director of Teacher Education in Western Australia, Mr N. G. Traylen, it states:
I don’t know of more than about three teachers’ colleges in Australia which have adequate libraries,’ he said.
The older teachers’ colleges in Melbourne and Adelaide are woefully equipped by modern standards.
Clarement and Graylands colleges in Western Australia are deficient in such everyday items as overhead projection, video-type recorders, cameras, television monitors, duplicating equipment and the like.’
So we can see that there is a very fundamental need in our community to provide adequate library facilities not only in secondary schools but also at the other levels to which I have referred.
Having said that, I strongly want to support the amendment that has been moved by the honourable member for Fremantle (Mr Beazley) which seeks the setting up of an Australian schools commission which will look into the whole realm of primary and secondary schools to see just what their needs are. The problem about giving grants, such as library grants or science block grants, is that they tend to be fragmentary; they are given in a piecemeal manner and in many cases they ignore the other needs in the school system. They tend to distort the whole provision for education. They give emphasis to some aspects at the expense of others. We want to see established some kind of inquiry which will advise both the Commonwealth and State governments on the overall needs of primary, secondary, and I would go on to add technical education, and also the education of the handicapped. The present provisions, though helpful, are, as I have said, fragmentary and often distort the overall educational programme.
As I have already mentioned, in many schools we have excellent libraries, but right next to them are situated dingy class rooms, and there is a marked inadequacy of teachers, counsellors and clerical and laboratory . assistants. So we still have a gross over-reliance on private provision for education. I think that the most sorry spectacle of this is in respect of the education of handicapped children in Australia, and I will say a little more about that matter shortly. There is inadequate research into Ihe aims, the courses, the curricula and the syllabuses of study. Next year it was hoped to introduce a new curriculum Into New South Wales high schools, . but due to insufficient teachers this programme will not be carried out. So we need a national schools commission which will not only be concerned with providing for the external things in education, such as school buildings, adequate playgrounds, various kinds of assistance in the way of staff, all sorts of library equipment and so on, but also look at the internal things in education - the content of education, what we should be teaching in this modern age and how’ we should be teaching it Maybe we should introduce team teaching, to which the honourable member for Fremantle alluded. That question could be considered. A. national schools commission could also look at the question of what we should be doing to assess what students do.
At the present time- there is a good deal of critical examination of the whole matter of external examinations in our schools. There is also the question of how our schools should be organised. Should they be separate according to sex or should there be more co-education, and when should co-education be introduced? All of these important questions could be considered by a national schools commission which would be an important, high-powered research centre. Why should every State duplicate these functions when in fact they could be carried out by a high-powered national’ research organisation which would make its findings available to both State and private education authorities? Every visitor who comes to Australia remarks on the dearth of research into the content and structure of our education programme.
As I have said, it is of special concern among primary school staff, and parents of primary school children as well, that Commonwealth specific grants have not come their way and that they are regarded as the poor relations.
As 1 have said, principals have complained bitterly that primary schools have nothing in the way of the clerical assistance that is presently available in secondary schools. Often principals of important primary schools have to carry out both administrative and teaching functions in their schools. 1 am sure there are many parents listening to this broadcast at the moment who have had the experience of going to see the principal of a school to consult him about their child only to find that the principal is in class and they have had to wait until the principal has come out of the class or else he has had to leave the class to come and talk with the parents about the problem concerning their child. This is not good enough. Principals should have more assistance. More teachers should bc available. In most cases a principal’s time is more than taken up with the administration of the school.
I have alluded to the dearth of good libraries in primary schools, and I have referred to the restriction on the amount of teaching aids available to primary schools. These days most primary schools do not have specialist teachers in music, arts, needlework and so on. Most primary teachers are required to teach the whole curriculum. This is not a proper thing, in my view, and it is not a proper thing in the view of practising teachers. They are looking for the introduction of specialist teachers into primary schools. Those are all matters which a national education commission, in co-operation with State. education authorities and the private sector of education, should be considering. It could make recommendations to the Commonwealth Government in regard to the granting of financial assistance to state schools and to non-state schools. It is just not good enough to pick out one aspect of education and try to do something about it. If the Government does that it will get the kind of distortion I have mentioned - beautiful libraries on the one hand and a dearth of librarians on the other hand; dingy class rooms; and inadequate laboratory assistance. This position’ arises when the Government deals with the problem only in a piecemeal, fragmentary way, as it has been doing.
We have problems in primary schools and, despite the national survey of educational needs, we are still left with great problems in secondary schools in New South Wales, and 1 speak particularly of New South Wales because 1 live in that State and have most acquaintance with it. Next year New South Wales secondary schools are confronted with the elimination of compulsory sport. This should disturb the national Government which is concerned with the health and welfare of its community, and also with its labour force. One has only to look at the number of youngsters called up for national service who have been ruled unfit to undertake national service, lt ought to cause this Government grave concern that compulsory sport, to which we have paid so much homage in the past, is to be eliminated from secondary schools in New South Wales next year. There is to be a cut-down of the options of students in the selection of curricula. There is to be a further cutdown on the levels at which students can study subjects. All these great problems are coming our way because of the lack of a proper nationwide survey and proper Commonwealth provision in respect of these matters.
There is also the delayed implementation of the new syllabus to which 1 referred previously. New South Wales secondary schools will be short of 1,200 teachers in 1972. This would not have occurred if there had been the nationwide inquiry for which we asked some years ago. There is the matter of the resignation of teachers. About 12 per cent of all teachers are leaving the New Sou’.h Wales teaching service, and I understand that the position is similar in the other States. Of the 2,491 university students who took up teachers college secondary school scholarships in 1968, it is expected that because of grave wastage only 800 will go into the teaching ser-‘ vice next year. Then there is another problem in the private sector. School fees have had to be increased substantially, which will place a heavy burden on parents of many children in private schools, particularly in the parish Catholic schools. Only last weekend the Archdiocese of Sydney had to announce that school fees will be increased by 22 per cent next year because ‘ of the dependence on lay teachers in Catholic schools. So we have all this evidence of need in the community which is not touched on properly because the Government gives only fragmentary attention to these matters, in the kind of programme before us at the present time. The matter of research has claimed my attention particularly. I am very disturbed indeed to notice what the New South Wales Institute for Educational Research had to say about the Commonwealth’s lack of support for educational research and I would like the Minister to note it. This is research carried out by the Australian Council for Educational Research, a body which is well known to all teachers and many parents for the tremendous amount of good it has done for education. I will quote from the report of the annual meeting of the Council. It said:
During the year the executive had prepared a submission for an increase of 40 per cent in the Slate and Commonwealth contributions to the work of ACER. The Governments of the six Stales agreed but the Commonwealth Government did not. Under the terms of the intergovernmental agreement this means that ACER received none of the additional $40,000 it sought for this financial year.
In other words, the Commonwealth vetoed what all 6 States were prepared to do and as a result this important educational research body, the Australian Council for Educational Research, will not be able to carry out anything like the amount of research that is so sorely needed in Australia. I would have liked to have had the time to talk about what the Commonwealth and the States do not do for the education of our handicapped children. Is it not a standing disgrace that parents should have to be running raffles and hoop-las and other such activities in order to educate children who happen to be mentally or physically handicapped, and in some cases both? Only 24 per cent of the cost of running schools for the handicapped in Australia is provided by governments; the rest of the financing has to be done by parents and their friends.
The high cost of teachers’ salaries is one of the burdens that confront parents in these schools. State governments subsidise approved teacher salaries but many teachers in these schools for the handicapped receive absolutely no subsidy. There is no provision for subsidies for teachers who are training the mentally handicapped who are 16 years of age. and over. Today we are making grants to universities and colleges of advanced education and doing everything possible for them but we cut assistance to the handicapped at the chronological age of 16 years, despite the fact that they might only have a mental age of 10 or 11 years. Nothing is given to help these particularly handicapped children who need a higher proportion of teachers to students. State governments only subsidise the cost of providing one teacher for every 10 handicapped children but some of these children are so handicapped that one teacher could not handle 10 of them or give them adequate instruction. There is no subsidy given in respect of pre-school children in this category and there is very little given towards the transport costs of handicapped children. It is obvious that while this Bill does make help available for libraries in secondary schools, what is really needed is a nation-wide survey to provide for the overall needs of all our schools.
Mr SPEAKER:
– Order! The honourable member’s time has expired.
Mr DONALD CAMERON:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP
– The only thing that exceeds the sincerity of the honourable member for Barton (Mr Reynolds) is his facility for living in a dream world and those people who listen on another occasion when he is speaking will hear him referring to the need to spend more money on such things as pensions, national development and irrigation. He is hoping that the Australian people will fall for the suggestion put forward by the Australian Labor Party that if the Commonwealth takes over education it will be the end of all the problems. But the fact which everyone understands is that the Commonwealth has only a certain amount of money and this type of involvement with its weaknesses would have limited benefits. It is all very well for the honourable member to compare the Australian Universities Commission with a national schools commission which the amendment put forward by the Opposition tonight seeks to establish. But the facts of life are that the honourable member for Barton would not have any idea at all how many primary and secondary schools there were throughout Australia. - Mr Kennedy - You do not know either.
Mr DONALD CAMERON:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP
– Anybody in this House could remind the honourable member for Barton and the honourable member for Bendigo (Mr Kennedy), who just interjected, that there are just 18 universities throughout Australia. To compare the control of 18 universities by an independent organisation with the control of literally thousands of primary and secondary schools is ridiculous. Does the honourable member for Barton know where the Humpybong State school is? He shakes his head. He does not know where I am talking about. He thinks I am talking about Arnhem Land. It is in the Petrie electorate on the Redcliffe peninsula. The honourable member puts forward these dreams as though they will solve ali the problems before us.
The suggestion has been made tonight that what the Labor Party would have in store if it ever came to government would put an end to the problems of education; this is so much rubbish. A few weeks ago the totalled up expenditure required to meet the promises made during the socalled mini-campaign of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Whitlam) exceeded $4 billion. On the day he spoke about education in Adelaide, when he told the Australian people it would not cost anything, he committed the expenditure of some S900m in one go. All of us, including the honourable member for Barton who feels that his electors might not be quite as sensible, know that there is only one way that the Government gets its money and that is out of the taxpayers’ pockets. So what the honourable member is suggesting is that the Commonwealth should stop giving money to the States and should take over education. I am totally opposed to a concept of centralisation when it comes to primary and secondary education, and I say that without qualification. The honourable member for Barton wandered far and wide in the debate of a Bill which really seeks to make available to the States some $30m for the creation and construction of more library buildings.
One goes back to the comment about teachers colleges. Many young teachers are leaving the profession today and I agree with the honourable member opposite that this is totally undesirable. I believe we should be more flexible in our attitude towards granting scholarships to people who are perhaps 30 or 35 years of age, not in the later stages of life but in the maturer years, and who decide they would like to become teachers. I believe quite sincerely that when a person of that age makes up his mind to choose a profession he has made up his mind on a solid basis. So many young people today go to a teachers training college only because they are able to get a teachers scholarship which gives them an opportunity to further their education. Many of them are hardly out of college, with a couple of years out in the world, when they realise it was not the profession for them. Then we have the controversial bond system under which they are held to their profession and at times pupils are subjected to teachers who are dissatisfied and only biding their time until the term of the bond expires. I do not believe that this is really in the best interests of education. I would like to return to my earlier point that there should be some reappraisal of the system of granting scholarships to older people who wish to enter the teaching profession.
The honourable member for Fremantle (Mr Beazley) in trying to remember his careless raptures, which I would suggest were probably many years ago, suggested that the creation of the concept of science blocks was purely a political move for the 1963 Federal election, which is some years ago now. The honourable member for Wills (Mr Bryant) is shaking his head. He is in agreement with his colleague, the honourable member for Fremantle, but this concept of science blocks and libraries has made a tremendous contribution towards the education of young Australians. For members of the Opposition to wipe it off as being purely politically motivated is totally and utterly unworthy of them.
It has been stated on many occasions that in this day and age when more knowledge and research are going into education the provision of these library facilities has enabled those children whom we might describe as exceptional students to take advantage of the facilities and on an equal basis with other children who also have these opportunities, to further their education. When these children eventually reach university or other high planes of education, they are more prepared to shoulder the responsibility that face them.
It gives me great pleasure to support the Minister for Education and Science (Mr Malcolm Fraser) in this Bill. I look forward to the day when the Balmoral State High Scool in the eastern end of my electorate has a new library block. A great number of secondary schools now have these library facilities. This State secondary high school still has not. Some nongovernment schools are in the same situation. I hope that this $30m allocation will not be discontinued at the end of the next triennium. Looking at the situation in my own State and studying relevant figures - and there are still a great number of secondary schools in Queensland without Commonwealthfunded libraries - 1 notice that the allocation for Queensland with respect to non-government schools is $1.338m. This is surely not enough to cover the need that exists. I advocate here and now in these early stages that because many schools still require libraries the Government should not drop this scheme at the end of. the next triennium.
I do not necessarily agree with the remarks of some members of the Opposition, but I would like to refer to the concept of providing libraries for primary schools. As I see it, there is a great waste in Commonwealth-provided libraries because, when students leave primary schools, only a small proportion of them have had the opportunity to become acquainted with the methods of use of a modern library. If we are to obtain full benefit of the great expenditure, which has been made available for building libraries - at the end of- the next triennium this amount will have reached some $57m - I think that we should be giving some thought to the lower levels of education so that these students are prepared for and are given an opportunity to understand the use of a library. When these students move on to secondary school level, virtually from the day that they arrive they will be able to take advantage of the library facilities offering.
I know that it will be argued that so much additional expenditure would be required to meet the needs of primary schools than secondary schools, because of the number of primary schools. But without distinguishing between the needs of primary and secondary schools 1 would say that libraries for primary schools could be on a much smaller scale but should embody methods to give effect to the necessity to train young people to use these libraries.
In conclusion, I state that no member on this side of the House could possibly be expected to support the amendment moved by the honourable member for Fremantle. The facts of life are that if this Bill is not passed through this Parliament in this session, the expenditure of Commonwealth funds on libraries for secondary schools will cease next year because the money will not be available. I am quite sure, that the people of Australia will recognise that the amendment moved tonight represents a political ploy and a cheap political trick by the Australian Labor Party to try to help the Leader of the Opposition out of his troubles in relation to- education. I remind members of the Opposition that in recent weeks we have seen constant battles between the Leader of the Opposition and the Minister for Education and Science, over .this most vital question. I can hardly recall a time when the Leader of the Opposition has been as touchy on any question as he has been on the question of education. Perhaps it is because he spent millions in a half-hour television discussion in Adelaide on this topic and then suddenly realised the implications of his rather exaggerated point of view. The Minister for Education and Science wasted no time in realising the errors that the Leader of the Opposition had made and quickly followed up the subject.
I do not know what is in the mind of the Leader of the Opposition. I am quite sure that very few members of his own Party have any idea. But what I do know - and I know it positively - is that the Austraiian people will not fall for cheap and unworthy promises from the Opposition but will support this Government in its plans to enable education to continue to progress in the best way that it can and to make available facilities of the type proposed in this legislation to the children of Australia in the years to come.
Mr BRYANT:
Wills
– The honourable member for Griffith (Mr Donald
Cameron) seems to be one of the most spectacular failures of the Queensland education system. Where on earth could he get all the figures through which he wandered and meandered tonight? The Aus-, tralian Labor Party has not produced any scheme which can be costed in the way in which the honourable member suggested. Where on earth he obtained the figure of $4 billion, or whatever the figure was, I do not know. Perhaps he has been studying astronomy. Again, it is the old old story: Where is the money coming from? Well, I suppose we could get it from the Fill account or from various other areas.
I turn to some of the other things that he mentioned. There is this dreadful thing called centralisation. This is the bogy with which honourable members opposite are able to try to confuse and to confound the situation. The Labor Party wants a national acceptance of responsibility for -education. I do not think the honourable member for Griffith has paid any attention to Australia’s education needs at all. He certainly has not paid any attention to the debates in this Parliament. The facts of life are that back in 1963 as a political exercise by a former Australian Prime Minister to gather in a few more votes a scheme to provide Commonwealth assistance for libraries was introduced. I have no time to debate that scheme tonight. Unfortunately, the Parliament has little time to debate these matters, or this part of the Parliament anyhow. The Senate does it better. It has a Standing Committee to look into the matter of education. There is some possibility that at least in the Senate this matter will be examined in some depth. Tonight I will confine - myself to half my ‘ allotted speaking time so that some of my colleagues on this side of the House may have an opportunity to speak.
Earlier in this session, the Minister for Education and Science (Mr Malcolm Fraser) introduced a quite lengthy statement on Commonwealth aims . and objectives in education. We should have received adequate opportunity to ^debate that statement long since. We thought that this was to be the case during the. debate on these Bills. Now. .we find that. we. are being pressured not to have an adequate debate. I raise this point: Is this concept of the secondary school population which is in this Bill a fair criterion for the development of a library system inside Australian education, particularly inside our schools?
Now, nobody can visit all the schools, but the facts are that a large number of non-State schools, particularly the nonCatholic ones, have much more adequate libraries than those in the State schools. Perhaps some of the Catholic schools are also well catered for. In other words, there is only one way to approach this subject. We cannot lump all the schools together, but it ought to be within the wit of man and the administrative skills of the Commonwealth to examine each school to see whether a library is needed at a school and how much need be done with respect to it. I support my colleagues on this side of the House who say that the present method is a hit and miss one. It is a case of picking up little bits of education here and there and trying to do something about it - or attempting to do something for political purposes.
The other point that I wish to make is that, when we read the Minister’s second reading speech we see that this is a State aid Bill. The problem in this Parliament, particularly on the other side of the House, on the subject of education is that one would be led to believe that the threequarters of the children of Australia who are in the three-quarters of Australian schools, those conducted, by State governments, did not exist. Every proposal from the other side of the House is directed towards that quarter of the population which sends its children to non-State schools. I believe that this is an important principle. The fact is, no matter how much we may squirm about it, that our responsibility is to the public institutions. This is where most of the public money ought to go. This is where the public responsibility really lies. The Opposition has moved its amendment because it believes, as the Labor.- Party has been saying for some 12 years or 15 years now, that it is only by an acceptance of national responsibility that we will get anywhere in the field of education.
What I wish to ask tonight, with as much brevity as is desirable in such a situation, is this: What is to be done about education? One may state the proposition thus: Society is changing’ rapidly in all kinds of directions; is the school changing? I think the proposition is fair that in fact the school is changing too slowly to keep up with the society for which it now is supposed to be operating.
I believe that education is under greater challenge now than it has been at any previous time. We have been plodding along in schools for centuries. There is not a great deal of difference between what is happening in most school rooms of Australia now and what happened three or four centuries ago. I suppose that the introduction of printing produced a change in the form of education. Education became participatory and personal in a sort of way that it could not be before the introduction of printing. Now we have changed some things. Instead of teaching Latin in the schools we probably teach Japanese but we probably do so in much the same old way. Instead of teaching religion in the schools now we study social studies; instead of concentrating on mathematics we study biological sciences. But the principles inside the school room and some of the principles which flow through the education system remain much the same.
There are some areas in which we are trying to produce some kind of scholarly approach. But generally speaking our approach to education is to turn a person out as a function of society. I believe, as one has said here before on a number of occasions, that there is a fundamental change required in our outlook in education because of the effects of social change. Today is in so many ways a different era even from the one in which I was born which is a little over half a century ago but in terms of education and social change that is not a very long time. Leisure is now replacing function as the principal aspect of life. I use the word leisure’ as that part of one’s life in which one does not have to clock on at work. This, I think, is the great challenge which is facing young people of today in particular. The young man and the young woman who start work now at the age of 20 or thereabouts will, by the time they are 35 or 40, be working probably only 30 hours a week. Most of them probably can expect to spend 5 weeks of the year in relaxation or on holidays. Most of their lives is going to be outside their function in commerce, in industry and in services of life. We must develop education to fit them for this role.
There is the egalitarian attitude replacing the sort of class acceptance of society. I do not believe that Australia has ever been strictly a class society in the real sense but there is a natural order of things which people accepted. When I left high school in 1932 I did not expect to go to the university. I had hopes that some day something might turn up and that L would go. Of the 88 or 90 students that started in second form with me at Frankston High School as it was I think that only four or five saw it right through to the end of secondary school and that only one or perhaps two of them went on directly to the university. But that is not the way we look at it today. The university and the whole structure of society are available to us all.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Drury)Order! I do not like to interrupt the honourable member but 1 ask him to relate his remarks to the Bill which deals with secondary school libraries. 1 remind the honour. able gentleman that this is not a general debate on education.
Mr BRYANT:
- Mr Deputy Speaker, an amendment has been moved on behalf of the Opposition and it covers the area of education and the needs of Australian society and Australian education. For Heavens sake, surely education has to do with society if it has to do with anything. The whole world is now replacing the parish as the school room’s responsibility. All the communications of the world are being developed so that everyone has access to all kinds of information, and this relates to libraries. I believe that this is one of the problems we face in this House. There is no examination in depth of one of the most fundamental social questions of the time - and that is the education system. There is something wrong with the Parliament which cannot examine this question more thoroughly than we are doing in such a haphazard way tonight. Surely one can talk for a little while on some aspects of education. We on this side of the House have taken the opportunity to expand the areas of debate by way of our amendment because we have not been given the opportunity to do so in a thoroughgoing examination of the whole scheme.
Inside the school room there has to be fundamental change. Libraries are part of the machinery by which that is to be done. We have to produce a new form of social being; a person who has a great deal more self-reliance in the way that he approaches the whole of his life. We are replacing an ordered society in which things were done for us and things were done to us with a society in which we have to make our decisions for ourselves. We are replacing the acceptable standards of moral behaviour of the last four or five or six centuries with what is known as the permissive socieity, whatever that happens to be. But I do know that such a change throws a much greater dependence upon the customer, the client, the child, the student in school and the ultimate adult and that is what we are discussing here tonight.
The library system is the basis of it all. A tremendous change has been going on in some schools, and unfortunately in too few particularly in Victoria, ft is interesting that in Victoria, which is basically I suppose in many areas more conservative than some other States, that some radical movements have developed even further. Inside some of our primary and secondary schools in Victoria there has been a greater development of what one might call team teaching, reliance on library services and the resources of the school than I find in any other part of Australia. I believe that it is essential that we develop individual responsibility in the student. No longer can they conic through the school patterned and moulded from desk to desk, from form to form, progressing through the levels of education and being turned out at the end into a society such as the one into which we entered and in which there was a pretty set pattern for our behaviour. One of the things we need is an inquiring mind. This a.cain is where the library is part of the institution.
Briefly I would like to refer to the student we are trying to turn out, why libraries are important and why I believe the Government’s approach to this aspect of education is not totally adequate. As my colleague the honourable member for Barton (Mr Reyonds) pointed out, there is a whole world of resources which we have to develop such as the use of all kinds of recorded material, the use of visual reproduction methods and matters concerning the school room such as the change m architecture and structure and design to produce effective discussion. These matters will have to be looked at because the world is going to be again one in which people will want to participate. One of the great changes in socieity has been the rejection of authority, not so much the rejection of law and order but the rejection of an authoritarian view of society. For example, none of us are going to be kicked around any more; our sons and our daughters are going to be kicked around less than what we would stand ourselves. Socieity will develop only by effective discussion between people. Effective discusson between people will develop only as a result of proper skills being developed inside of the school room. That will be done only by the development of school rooms which are fitted with all of this equipment.
We need to develop more effective human relations. We have to pattern ourselves to fit with one another and still respect the individual personality. I suppose in the school we have to develop a satisfaction in learning. In order to facilitate the debate 1 will leave the six or seven minutes which are available to me free for someone else. However, before concluding I would like to say that there are great changes going on in the world. The world is under greater threat than it has ever been before. There is more capacity for self-destruction by way of weapons of destruction; environmental destruction is threatening the world; and there is a plague of population. The people who are going to face this situation will be turned out through the schools by a more effective education system. We on this side of the House believe that this will happen only if the Commonwealth with all of its resources accepts the challenge; and the library system is part of that challenge.
I do not believe that we are approaching education in the right way. My colleague the Minister for Education and Science I think approaches this matter as well as one could expect from a person with his background and his colleagues who are not terribly perceptive and very largely insensitive to the needs of education. But surely it is possible to examine each school, school by school, and see what is needed. I am quite confident that the schools in the electorate of Wills need much more assistance than schools, shall we say, in the electorate of Higgins. Under the present system the position is likely to be reversed. Therefore, this problem will be answered only when we approach it as a national responsibility. For these reasons I accept the Labor Party’s amendment.
Mr CORBETT:
Maranoa
– We have just listened to an address from the honourable member for Wills (Mr Bryant). He questioned the arithmetic of the honourable member for . Griffith (Mr Donald Cameron) in assessing the fantastic cost of the educational programme which was outlined by the Opposition. It is very easy when in Opposition to say that one will provide everything without worrying about how these things are to be financed. I know that this argument is sometimes ridiculed by our friends opposite. The honourable member for Wills said something to this effect: ‘What about doing with one less Fill?’ The Opposition always makes the cry: ‘We will cut down on our defence expenditure to provide for expenditure in other fields’. As far as I am concerned and as far as the Government is concerned, we want adequate defence for this country and we want adequate education facilities, too. But we have to provide both and therefore as a responsible government we have the problem of seeing that we do the best for the people and that we do not cut our defence expenditure so as to jeopardise the security of this country.
The honourable member for Wills also stressed the need for an educational survey in depth. I wonder whether he has ever heard of the nationwide survey on educational needs which has taken place and a report on which was presented to the Parliament in summary form I think in September 1970. I think he should have a look at that. Listening to the speech he has made one would think that the Commonwealth had the sole responsibility for providing funds for education whereas in fact it is largely the responsibility of the State governments. The Commonwealth, realising the problem and realising the necessity of giving support to the State governments’ educational programme, has given them financial assistance to an ever increasing degree, and I am sure it will continue to do that.
I agree with quite a number of speakers that libraries are a fundamental factor in education generally. A better educational system is provided in our schools if the libraries are up to the high standard that the Commonwealth Government desires them to be and for which it has provided these funds. Libraries also provide possibly the best avenue for self help in the educational field that we can provide, so it has been of great benefit to secondary schools to have these libraries brought up to the standard that they have been brought up to in those schools that have had the benefit of this assistance.
I believe the Government is to be very warmly commended on continuing its programme and increasing the amount it makes available for secondary school libraries to $30m for the next 3 years from 1972 to 1974. I am not sure whether the honourable member for Griffith in his speech made the point that the amount of $1,358,000 that is being made available to Queensland is for I year. The total amount under this Bill for the purposes of providing libraries in Queensland is no less than $4,015,151, but the honourable member for Griffith was right about the amount that is being paid for 1 year. 1 heard the honourable member for Wills say that the Government had no concern for the threequarters of the student population who are in State schools. Let me point out that of this $30m that is being made available no less than $22,536,338 will go to government schools, ls this not giving consideration to all sections of the student population?
I believe that it is quite wrong in discussing a Bill such as this to suggest for one moment that the Government is neglecting the government schools in particular. The honourable member for Wills might claim that he was going into the wider field of the amendment which has been moved by the Opposition to establish a schools commission to advise the Commonwealth Government on all forms of assistance necessary to bring all primary and secondary schools to an acceptable standard. The bringing up to an acceptable standard of all schools is an ideal to which we would all subscribe. It is just a matter of being able physically to accomplish everything we desire in this and many other fields. There can be no question that in tackling the problem of providing. libraries to secondary schools, both government and independent, the Commonwealth has done a job that has hit on a section of education which needed special attention, and that is pretty largely what the Commonwealth has aspired to do. It has looked at the educational field. It has endeavoured then to give assistance where it felt is was most needed, and very largely, of course, in the earlier stages this assistance was given to tertiary education. It is very pleasing to me to see this assistance being given to secondary schools. ft might be worth while to mention - I will probably be accused of looking at this in a parochial fashion - that in my vast territory we do not get direct benefit from a university. We do have the advantage of a college of advanced education at Toowoomba which serves a big area. But there aire secondary schools scattered round the countryside, and the children attending those schools are deserving of assistance to enable them to reach a standard of education which will in turn allow them to take advantage of the assistance given at the tertiary level of education. 1 think that the Commonwealth is to be commended on the effort that it has made to provide those educational facilities for which it felt there was probably the most need from a national point of view.
Expenditure on education generally has increased tremendously over recent years, and the assistance that the Commonwealth. Government has given in the field of education has enabled this programme to be continued and developed. I want to support the suggestion that has been made in this debate that the provision of libraries should be extended to our primary schools. When I refer-to primary schools I mean all primary schools. I believe there is a need for libraries in primary schools, and these libraries will continue the line which will enable students generally to take advantage of the special provisions that are being made under this Bill and indeed under the Government’s educational programme generally. I am quite confident that the Commonwealth Government will have to take a continuing and increasing part in providing finance for our education generally. There are areas which need assistance now. Only recently people in these areas have formed an organisation known as the Isolated
Children’s Parents Association, which is appealing to State governments and to the Commonwealth Government for assistance. Again 1 stress the point that unless assistance is given and students in these areas can be given the opportunity to get a grounding in education they will not be able to take the advantage that they should be able to take of the educational facilities that are provided by the State governments, which are supported by the Federal Government in the amount of money that has been made available to them.
One of the ways in which assistance can be given - f believe it is a method that we could expand if we are to continue our assistance to schools - is by increasing the per capita payment. I mentioned an increasing expenditure on education generally. In my own State of Queensland there has been an increase in total expenditure on education of 21 per cent, and there has been quite an increase in the education allocations of all the States. This is all to the good. I believe the per capita grants are of valuable assistance to education generally. The Queensland Government in its Budget increased the per capita grants from $25 to $45 per annum for primary school students and from $67 to $77 for secondary school students. T believe this is one of the fields in which we can provide finance without necessarily tying it to a particular measure. I believe the’ Commonwealth should give assistance generally, including assistance to those independent schools which are in need of it while at the same time providing the facilities that are needed, in special areas, including libraries for secondary schools which is the main feature of the Bill that we are discussing. .
The importance of the assistance1 can be gauged from the great financial problem that is confronting independent schools. I am nol detracting from the needs of government schools in this field, but the Government has been criticised for trying to look after that quarter - the students who do not attend government schools. Unless we do give assistance to the- independent schools we will have them all under a State system of education. Therefore it is wise from every angle to give them the assistance that they so certainly deserve. I have bad approaches from independent schools - not only Catholic schools - in my electorate stressing the need for this assistance if they are to carry on. I have visited schools, both State and independent, whore library facilities have been provided. This has been a great advantage to them. I hope this type of assistance will be continued. I believe that we must provide the right type of assistance. I am quite happy to see surveys made and assistance provided as a result of the needs which are shown, but I point out that this has been done.
There is a great deal one could say on the subject of education. I have shortened my remarks considerably because I understand that there is a desire to get through the business before the House. For that reason I intend to limit my remarks to the time that I have occupied. I certainly feel there is a tremendous need for a continuing expansion of Commonwealth participation in education. In line with that I trust that the State governments also will continue to expand their expenditure on education to enable the students of this country to have the standard of education that we all so earnestly desire them to have.
Mr SCHOLES:
Corio
– I rise to support the amendment. I believe that there is a real necessity to examine the needs of education in our community, and in a way which will indicate where the greatest needs lie and what actions are necessary in order to meet those needs. The community is suffering from an unplanned approach to educational needs. The Commonwealth has entered into 2 fields of education, both at the secondary level - science blocks and secondary school libraries. It is quite clear to everyone that the former was an election gimmick in 1963, and one which has been carried through. The second proposition was put forward when the science block programme appeared to slacken off. But as I have said in earlier debates here, the libraries grant for secondary schools is an area in which the Commonwealth has made some errors in judgment, certainly as far as the needs of students in culturally underprivileged areas are concerned.
As to libraries provided for secondary schools, it appears that the needs of schools in the more culturally privileged areas are met before the needs of schools in the areas where good reading material and access to that type of environment are most needed by students. These latter schools are the last to be provided with their needs, lt seems to be almost an act of faith by State governments that the children from the more affluent areas have their needs met first. Let me take the case of 2 different schools in Geelong close to one another. The Norlane High School, which is in a housing commission area and where the needs would be as great as those anywhere else, could not get a science block for 5 or 6 years yet in the same city the Geelong College was able to get grants for science blocks at two of its buildings.
Mr Malcolm Fraser:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP
– You could quote some of the high schools in your electorate that have had facilities.
Mr SCHOLES:
– I. am pointing out the fact that one school was able to get grants for 2 science blocks - not one - for 2 different buildings at a period when another school was not able to get one at all. There is no way one can argue that the people of Geelong College could not have put up with the inconvenience of doing their science teaching at the parent school if it meant that the children at Norlane High School were going to get some assistance. I want to raise 2 matters about libraries. In areas of cultural underprivilege where children normally are not exposed to fairly well educated parents the problems that these children face are infinitely greater than those of other children, even leaving out totally the economic aspects and dealing only with the educational opportunities and probabilities of the child. To start a library programme at secondary level, especially in areas where general library facilities are not available to children, is to start too late for those children. Their opportunities will have totally disappeared. Their educational opportunities have to start at primary school and at kindergarten.
If they do not get a head start in an educational programme their chances of receiving a Commonwealth scholarship, under a system which is geared to the culturally and economically privileged as opposed to the culturally and economically underprivileged, are nil. This is borne out by the figures of recipients of Commonwealth scholarships which are published regularly. With some planning and cooperation with the States it should be possible to provide adequate libraries which could be utilised as a community facility, especially at primary schools, which are fairly evenly distributed through most built up areas. In country areas the operation of library bookmobiles would most likely be of great advantage to the education system and to the community, without incurring the great deal of extra money that is being expended at the moment to duplicate facilities. The school system and the community should, wherever possible, be integrated. I believe that with a degree of planning it should be possible, especially with facilities such as libraries, to bring about this type of unity, lt is also fairly true to say that in some areas the States are abusing the grants which are being provided by the Commonwealth. 1 am a member of a high school committee which opened its school in a Commonwealth library. The first permanent building was a Commonwealth library which, I must say, is a magnificent building. But next year the State Government proposes to remove some of the temporary accommodation which was provided at that school, because the library is considered to represent a number of class rooms and it is to be utilised as such. If it is a library and if its purpose is to add something to the school then surely the Commonwealth should make it absolutely essential in the conditions of grant that this should be used as a library and not as a group of classrooms which will enable the State to avoid having to provide the necessary classroom accommodation. It is a serious problem and one which I think should be dealt with, but we are picking problems out of the air. It does not matter how much we talk, unless we establish adequate facilities whereby information can be obtained, investigations carried out and recommendations made.
The honourable member for Maranoa (Mr Corbett) mentioned primary schools, as I have done several times in this House. But in my opinion the present way in which grants of this nature are made is too haphazard. They are not made on the basis of the educational opportunity needs of any- given community. They are made purely on the basis of ‘We have a certain amount of money and this appears to be a reasonably good proposition -from, our point of view’. This to me is not the way we should be running our education system. I am sure it would be far more satisfactory if the priorities for schools needing assistance were fixed on the basis of the assistance that they need, and if a priority level was developed whereby a school got the assistance that was available in the order of its need, not merely because it fell into one of the particular categories set out and there happened to be money available though money was not available in another category to provide a similar level of assistance. I do not decry the fact that many schools both private and public have benefited under the provisions of both these Acts, but in any amount of cases the needs of the situation have not been the prime consideration. Rather it has been the availability of funds within a particular education system financed by Commonwealth grants. The State school system, possibly because of the manner in which the State governments operate, appears to have suffered. I think that the prime need in the library’ field, to provide access to adequate supplies of good literature al ihe primary school level, has not been met and is not capable of being met under this type of legislation.
As I said before, it is not much good providing a child with a library in a secondary school if that child has not had the opportunity of access to a library in a primary school, particularly a child who comes from a largely uneducated parent background where there is no encouragement of learning. Once that child reaches secondary school he will have lost th s educational opportunity, so I support the amendment because I am sure any inquiry would bring out the absolute need for children to receive assistance - especially assistance in learning - and to be exposed to good literature long before they go to secondary school. I trust that honourable members opposite - after hearing his speech, I am sure the honourable member for Maranoa would support the amendment - will support the amendment because I think it provides machinery whereby we can at least find out where the real needs of the community are and I hope that at some time some effort will be made to provide children in underprivileged areas - underprivileged culturally not economically - with an educational opportunity which will enable a greater percentage of them to obtain the level of education which is available almost as a right to other sections of the community.
Mr Malcolm Fraser:
Minister for Education and Science · WANNON, VICTORIA · LP
– 1 rise to oppose the amendment that the Opposition has moved to this Bill, lt will be no surprise to the honourable member for Fremantle (Mr Beazley) who moved the amendment on behalf of the Opposition that the Government would be opposing it because the amendment obviously would mean that no library funds would be made available for a very considerable period. The proposal which was moved by the Opposition is a fundamental one which strikes right to the heart of the Commonwealth’s philosophy and approach in support of education in the Slates and tries to replace that with a proposal of an entirely different kind. I do not know how many times it needs to be said, but there is no analogy between an Australian schools commission that would need to deal separately and independently with 1.0,000 primary and secondary schools around Australia and a universities commission which now deals wilh 18 universities, all of which are autonomous and all of which have very substantial administrative organs to support their activities and to support their applications to and discussions with the Australian Universities Commission. Of course, the individual schools, whether they be independent or government schools, around Australia are not so equipped.
Of course the Opposition’s approach to and its advocacy of an Australian schools commission is not only designed to establish something which they believe might appear to be attractive to the Australian public but also is designed to bypass the decisions of State education departments. That is something which I believe that we on this side of the House, with the philosophy of government that we have, ought not to entertain because this would involve a centralisation of educational authority, as I have said before, at the very time when many of those with a concern for education want decentralisation of educational authority. To establish a situation in which every school had to make out a case to a Commonwealth Government commission to see whether it ought, to get funds or not is one that runs counter to modern educational theory and also, 1 believe, to common sense, lt would make the State departments of education administrative organs and nothing else, depriving them of the responsibility and judgment which they must exercise concerning decisions in their own particular areas.
In addition to this, if we look at the manner in which the Opposition would run an Australian schools commission we find an approach and a view which would do much to jeopardise education in Australia and certainly set a ceiling on educational quality in both government and independent schools. It has been said on a number of occasions that the Opposition would use the pattern of the advisory committee in South Australia for an Australian schools commission, lt is worth noting that although the terms of reference-
Mr Beazley:
– Who said that?
Mr Malcolm Fraser:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP
– Your Leader has indicated that on at least one occasion and, 1 think, on more than one occasion. If the honourable member puts me to the task of looking up the specific reference I will, and I will be able to find it. lt is a statement of your present Leader.
Mr Bryant:
– You should read more of his speeches.
Mr Malcolm Fraser:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP
– Not many of them are relevant. The criteria which that advisory authority ultimately used were not specifically in its terms of reference. There were several in its terms of reference and it came down and said that it had allotted the money on a certain basis. The first criterion was the quality of teaching as indicated by the teacher-pupil ratio and teachers -salaries. One has only to analyse this criterion to understand the nonsense of this approach because if a school has a poor pupil-teacher ratio it thereby qualifies for a grant. It gets a grant and is enabled to improve its pupil-teacher ratio as a result. Therefore in the next year it does not get a grant and it cannot sustain the improved pupil-teacher ratio that is desirable. This, of course, is an incentive to mediocrity because in these circumstances there would be pressure from parents and those concerned to help finance the independent schools to maintain pupil-teacher ratios at a level that would attract the maximum government grant, and that would be at a low level.
When talking about recurrent funds it will be found that those who advocate a means test, as does the Opposition, are unable to establish a single standard or a group of standards or criteria that would enable the funds to be distributed with fairness to a wide range of schools, to parents and to pupils. When talking about capital funds the problem, of course, is a different one. In this area it is possible, as this Government has done, to establish objective standards against which the entitlement Of a school can be judged. This has been done since the inception of the science laboratories programme and the school libraries programme which was introduced about 3 years ago. If a school, whether it be a Government school or an independent school, has facilities to the standards advised to the Commonwealth by a standards committee, then of eour.se that school does not get a cent from the Commonwealth, and this has always been the case.
Here we are talking about capital facilities. It is easy to establish objective standards, which we have done, and to judge a school’s entitlement accordingly. But when we come to recurrent funds the matter is difficult and much more complex. That is why the Government has in the area of recurrent funds made decisions which have the support of all State governments with the exception, I think, of one. I think that nearly . every independent school authority in Australia supports the means of payment made by this Government and by State governments, while at the same time tending to castigate the Opposition for the means test approach which it adopts.
There are some philosophic oddities in the Opposition’s desire to establish an Australian schools commission with a means test as a basis on which it would provide funds to schools. This viewpoint stands very much at odds with the Opposition’s approach to pensions which is an area in which the Opposition does not want a means test. Why place a means test on education? Why place a means test on children when the Opposition do:s not want to place a means test on age pensioners?
Mr Beazley:
– The need of a school is different from the need of an individual parent. There can be no means test on a school - a needs test.
Mr Malcolm Fraser:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP
– The Opposition spokesman on education has had his say on this matter. If the oddities in the philosophic approach of the Opposition are sometimes revealed by the inconsistency of their policies, there is no reason for the honourable member to be concerned when that is being laid bare. The only other thing 1 would like to say in relation to this matter is that the honourable member for Fremantle himself has said that it would be quite impossible to indicate the cost to the Commonwealth of the proposals that may be recommended by an Australian schools commission if it were in fact established. The honourable member did indicate that a $180m emergency grant would be provided. In a debate on another occasion he seemed to indicate that this amount would be the total . grant that might be provided or recommended. He also indicated that in a subsequent year this might be subsumed in proposals to relieve the States of the costs of education in the tertiary area. But’ the figures I had earlier given in regard to the cost of :he Opposition’s educational proposals wore valid and accurate. The honourable member for Fremantle may well have forgotten that his Party and he himself made proposals concerning pre-schools, pre-school teacher training, educational television, reduction in class size, a schools . commission which would have some recurrent expenses concerned with it, secondary and technical scholarships, financing of tertiary education, non-government teacher training, the abolition of university and college fees, an extension of living allowances and also a matter concerning the open university. As I indicated during question time the other day the annual total expenditure on these matters, including the capital expenditure which might be required to make the proposals practical over 6 years, would be about $546m over the next 6 years. I think that is a little more than the figure 1 quoted in the House but the figure has since been more accurately costed.
The matters I referred to were all specific promises. When the Opposition makes a proposal, as it has tonight for the establishment of an Australian schools commission, it has an obligation to say whether it is merely a promise which it has no intention of fulfilling or it is a promise which it is gong to put into effect in1 year, 2 years, 3 years or 20 years, that is, if it ever gets into power. But if the Opposition makes all the promises on equal terms as though it would be put into effect immediately it became the Government, if it ever did come to power, then either it is expressing itself accurately, and if so its proposal is vastly expensive when put alongside the Opposition’s other promises, or it is not accurate, in which case the Opposition is not entirely honest in its approach to the wooing of votes at this time. The cost of implementing all these matters would, I repeat, be about $546m a year. That amount is additional to the funds that the Commonwealth already provides for education, and that is a very significant sum indeed.
The Opposition has indicated that it would not be reducing defence expenditure, so that removes that area as a source of funds for educational expansion. The only other means available to the Opposition in finding additional funds - unless it is prepared to indicate some other area in which it would reduce Government activity - would be to increase tax of one kind or another. I have already indicated in the House in answer to a question that this would be the equivalent of a 16 per cent increase in the rate of income tax. Alternatively, if the Opposition did not want to touch that area, it would mean an increase of one-third in the company tax rate.
When members of the Opposition make promises or imply promises in relation to education or any other area they have an obligation to say whether they are serious on these particular matters and if so how these matters would be costed and how they should be funded. The Opposition has totally failed to indicate how its educational programmes might be funded if it were ever given the opportunity to put them into effect. This is one of the reasons, of course, why the Opposition would not be given that opportunity. The proposal to establish an Australian schools commission, inherent in the amendment, is something that the Government cannot accept, It will not advance the purpose of the Government which is to try to. progressively upgrade facilities in all schools, both Government and independent. This is an objective which is being pursued under the science laboratories programme and under the libraries programme to the great advancement of education in Australia. This is the kind of approach which the Government will continue to pursue to upgrade the. quality of education in all Australian schools. It will do this in a sensible and objective manner as resources become available and it will not entertain the kind of policies being pursued by the Opposition.
Dr EVERINGHAM:
(10.27 · Capricomia
– Mr Speaker-
Motion (by Mr Giles) put:
That the question be now put
The House divided. (Mr Speaker - Hon. Sir William Aston)
AYES: 52
NOES: 47
Majority . . 5
AYES
NOES
Question so resolved in the affirmative.
Question put:
Thatthe words proposed to be omitted (Mr Beazley’s amendment) stand part of the question.
The House divided. (Mr Speaker - Hon. Sir William Aston)
AYES: 53
NOES: 47
Majority . . 6
AYES
NOES
Question so resolved in the affirmative.
Original question resolved in the affirmative.
Bill read a second time.
Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.
Third Rending
Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.
Bill (on motion by Mr Malcolm Fraser) read a third time.
page 3849
LOAN (WAR SERVICE LAND SETTLEMENT) BILL 1971
Second Reading
Debate resumed from 19 August (vide page 364), on motion by Mr Sinclair:
That the Bill be now read a second time.
Dr PATTERSON:
Dawson
- Mr Speaker, the Loan (War Service Land Settlement) Bill 1971 provides for the raising of loan moneys of $4m for the States of South Australia, Tasmania and Western Australia. As is known to honourable members, the Commonwealth Governmentis responsible for the raising of all moneys for capital works under the war service land settlement scheme in those States. This money, for which we have seen provision made in this Parliament on an annual basis, is required principally, I understand, to finance capital works in connection with drainage, pipelines and so on, mainly in the Upper Murray region of South Australia and in the vicinity of Loxton. Also the other needs of settlers have to be met in order to enable them to carry on their work. On behalf of the Opposition I move the following amendment to the motion That the Bill be now read a second time’:
That all words after ‘That’ bc omitted with a view to inserting the following words in place thereof: whilst not opposing the provisions of the Bill, the House is of opinion that a Select Committee of the House should be appointed to inquire into all aspects of War Service Land Settlement in Australia in order to formulate guidelines for any future land settlement scheme with particular reference to the level of rentals demanded from settlers, the method of valuations and the option of purchase price of properties’.
The question of the viability of the war service land settlement scheme has continued to come before this Parliament year after year. I think from memory that approximately 17 years ago it was forecast that the scheme would be viable, in terms of not requiring additional moneys from the nation, within a short period of time, but this has not eventuated. There always seem to be more demands for Commonwealth money with which to carry on works connected with the scheme.
There can bc no question that serious economic problems have plagued the war service land settlement scheme, particularly in Western Australia, South Australia and Tasmania, for a long period of years. As we know, the scheme which commenced during the last World War is built on tradition in the sense that tremendous public opinion is generated regarding the propriety and the need to give servicemen blocks of land on which to attempt to earn a living in the future. In fact, anybody who argued against this proposition during or after the war would have had very few friends. The emotional argument was to swoop onto the big estates, cut them up and give ex-servicemen blocks of land on which to earn a living. Whether the war service land settlement scheme has been a success will be judged over time. Many farmers have been very successful, but some, particularly in Tasmania and Western Australia, have experienced serious problems, and many of these problems have arisen through no fault of the farmers; they have arisen because of poor planning, wrong assumptions and of course a drastic change in financial conditions in previous years.
It is interesting to look at the operation of the war service land settlement scheme in the various States. These figures are not accurate or up to date, but they are near enough to be relative. Since 1946 the bulk of closer settlement in Victoria has been carried out under the war service land settlement scheme. Approximately 3,000 blocks have been developed in Victoria and approximately 300 blocks have been surrendered. In the main I suppose one lo. .j .say that ih_ w:u service laud settlement scheme in Victoria has been a relative success, taking into account the qualifications regarding the problem particularly in the fruit areas, of salinity and drainage. Of course, the future will be of extreme importance to a lot of war service land settlers, especially in the fruit growing and canning areas. In Victoria the civilian closer settlement scheme has operated under the Land Settlement Act but this has been only a small scheme with approximately 440 blocks allocated. In South Australia over 1,000 blocks have been allocated and again the war service land settlement scheme has been the backbone of closer settlement there. In New South Wales approximately 3,000 farms have been settled under the scheme. In Queensland, which is not a very important State in terms of war service land settlement, approximately 470 farms have been allocated under the war service land settlement scheme. In recent years we have seen the major brigalow scheme which has been highly successful as a civilian closer settlement scheme. In Tasmania the number of farms allocated under the war service land settlement scheme is approximately 500. In Western Australia there have been about 1,000 farms allocated but there has been also quite a significant change in ownership of war service farms. Approximately 400 of the leases have been paid up and about 300 have changed hands and gone to civilians.
Taken by and large there has been a very significant contribution to Australian primary production under the war service land settlement scheme. But there have developed serious financial problems in many States and it is quite obvious that in some areas the policy of the Government is te which can only be described as suspect,rticularly in view of repayment provisions der the rental system which the Government is forcing on many farmers. It would seem from a study of some of the farms and from the evidence available that many of these high rentals are completely unjustified and have resulted in an artificial level of valuations. This is why the Opposition in its amendment moved during the second reading stage of the Bill specifically referred to the rentals and the method of valuation. A revised policy on rentals is needed. Of course, there has been a drastic change in economic circumstances but this will always be a problem in any land settlement scheme whether it be soldier settlement or civilian settlement. All the best made assumptions can fall by the wayside if there is a drastic change in the circumstances. This is why it is of paramount importance that there should be an investigation by a committee, of inquiry to lay down guidelines based on what has been learned. Honourable members will recall that during the war the Rural Reconstruction Commission investigated the performance of war service land settlement in an attempt to give the Government the facts and so avoid some of the problems and mistakes that were made in the earlier War service land settlement schemes.
One of the great problem’s with civilian and war service land settlement schemes is determining the size of farms. One can work out budgets on income and costs based on the best possible advice. There could be some scope for measuring or projecting the level of costs in line with technology, and at the same time projecting productivity as land is cleared and drained. Science and technology are able to predict with some degree of accuracy increases in yields or carrying capacity and other factors. But the one big variable in Australian agriculture, particularly if the product is being produced for the export market, is the price of the commodity. We have seen this today with dramatic realism in the price of wool. The budgets that were formulated in the early days of the war service land settlement scheme were based on the relationship of cost and income, which is tremendously different from the relationship between cost and income today due to the fact that we have seen a dramatic change in the price of wool. The same applies to other commodities. So it is essential, the Opposition believes, that in the formulation of future land settlement schemes every effort be made to provide to the public, the Government and the Parliament evidence based on the experience of war service land settlers to date.
As my colleague, the honourable member for Braddon (Mr Davies), will illustrate to the House, there are a lot of very unsavoury aspects about the behaviour up to the present time of many war service land settlement provisions, these arc matters that should be brought out into the open and from which we have to learn because we should not make the same mistakes again. This is something of utmost importance. In the early days of the war service land settlement scheme - one of the first jobs I ever had was working on it - the selection of land, the investigation of that land, the investigation of its productivity, the establishment of economic budgets and the determination of a farm size were done as thoroughly as possible. The determination of the farm size was based on an area which would allow a man, his wife and family to live comfortably once the development period was over and took into account his ability to meet his repayments. In some areas it has worked but in a large number of areas it has not and this has caused extreme hardship to a significant number of settlers. In fact the performance of the war service land settlement scheme will provide evidence for a government, whether a Liberal-Country Party government or a Labor Party government, so that it can decide whether to embark on similar types of schemes in the future.
There is a very large body of expert opinion in Australia which is very much opposed to closer settlement in view of the problems involved in it. A lot of this criticism is being directed at the performance of war service land settlement schemes. 1 have always been opposed to closer settlement unless the closer settlement has been systematically, scientifically and economically formulated. It is a fatal mistake simply to work on the emotional basis that one can sub-divide land by drawing lines on a map and putting people on the resulting blocks, particularly if the majority of these settlers have insufficient capital to begin with. This is one of the greatest problems in settling land today. There have been too many of what we call pocket handkerchief developments throughout Australia. These were undedtaken in periods when prices and costs bore a certain relationship. As we know, many of these relationships have gone haywire today.
I reiterate that the Government, whichever government it may be, must take very keen notice of what has happened in the past and apply its experience to the needs of the future because agriculture will become more and more difficult in terms of a business enterprise. This does not necessarily mean that closer settlement schemes are finished. I for one believe, as I said a few minutes ago, that if a closer settlement scheme is based on science, technology, economics and experience, it has a good chance of success provided that the incoming settler has sufficient money. As far as I am concerned, the days of the bark hut, the humpy and the axe are over. Anybody who thinks that he can go into timbered land, for example, today and make a living in his lifetime starting from scratch without any money is in for a pretty sad awakening. I would say that it is impossible.
It has been done in the past. I know that a lot of the pioneering work the results of which are seen in Australia today started that way. But, today, a land settlement scheme demands money. I think that the best example of a successful land settlement scheme in Australia today is the brigalow scheme in Queensland. It is interesting to note that brigalow development was rejected initially from inclusion in the war service land settlement scheme as a major project. I am very thankful that it was rejected because insufficient technical knowledge was available. If it had developed into a major war service land settlement scheme rather than one covering only a few small properties, that scheme would have been a smash because the properties envisaged would have been just too small.
Let me show why 1 believe this. Before the Federal Government agreed to the current brigalow scheme, years of research were carried out into the behaviour of brigalow and its associations with other types of timber, be it brigalow wilga, brigalow balah, brigalow eucalyptic varieties, brigalow softwoods. Each land class had a different characteristic. It was essential that one knew what these characteristics were because the brigalow tree is a member of the acacia family. The suckering habits of acacias are notorious because the colonies are interlocked under the soil. To ringbark one mature acacia could promote the growth of 10 or 20 acacia suckers to replace the one that has been killed. All of these matters needed lots of research. But it was carried out, particularly by the Queensland authorities and, to a minor degree, by the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation.
The same thing happened with respect to cattle research. A lot of work was done. Research work was carried out. Problems studied included growing winter crops and summer crops and weight gains in cattle. In the end, sufficient information was provided through research and practical experience of producers to be able to predict with some degree of certainty the behaviour of the brigalow areas. Then the economics came into the pic:ure. They were able to evaluate the whole area through land classification from aerial maps and from actual surveys. With the Queensland Government and the CSIRO, an up-to-date cost benefit analysis plan was put forward. This scheme, I believe, will be a success. But one must ask: What would have happened if cattle prices had fallen in the same way as wool prices have?
No matter how thorough the technical and economical examination if cattle prices had fallen in the way in which wool prices have fallen the brigalow land scheme would have been a failure in the short term. But luckily we are very fortunate in that there is apparently a very good future in cattle. All indications are that there is a good future in beef cattle for a very long time to come despite the potential threat from synthetic meats. 1 am trying to illustrate the difference between a well formulated plan such as existed in many areas of the war service land settlement scheme based on the wool price and a certain farm size in 1946 and” the brigalow land settlement scheme, a well formulated plan based on cattle prices. As I said before, the gamble is there, lt will hurt more than anyone else the battler or settler - whatever one might like to call him - who with his family goes on to the land when he does not have sufficient funds and is battling right from the word go, endures 2 years of drought and gets further and further behind. These are the great problems that face all land settlement schemes today. I strongly urge tha* governments, State or Federal, not go ahead with comprehensive or extensive land settlement schemes or closer settlement schemes unless a most thorough scientific and economic evaluation is made. It would be far better if the governments concerned, to be on the safe side, doubled the optimum farm size, lt is far better for Australia to have 90 prosperous Farmers than 100 peasant or struggling farmers simp))- because of a mistake made in determining the size of farms. It is far better to err on the side of bigness than to try lo squeeze a few more people into these schemes.
When the brigalow scheme was formulated there was an argument between the Commonwealth and the Queensland Government with respect to farm size. The State wanted blocks of an average of 7,000 acres while the Commonwealth wanted an average of about 10,000 acres. Luckily the Commonwealth economists were able to convince the State that in the long run it would be far better to err on the side of bigness because of The conditional freehold title that applied. They argued that if the larger blocks proved successful to the point of going into agriculture they could be cut up later into smaller blocks. This will happen. In time the 10 million acres of brigalow country being developed today will be a very intensive farming area based on coarse grain and some wheat - basically summer grains and cattle fattening. What I am trying to illustrate is that it is essential to apply good planning to both schemes.
The Bill before the House which provides this money is, as I said, a perennial one - we get it every year. But what I would like to ask the Minister is this: Has he any estimate of when this scheme in terms of making continuous capital grants for these properties, will be finalised. My colleague the honourable member for
Braddon (Mr Davies) will point out that the scheme has dragged on and on year after year. In view of the problems in the south west of Western Australia, in some parts of South Australia and certainly in some parts of Tasmania, it seems to me that the scheme will drag on for another 20 years. One point that has to be emphasised, I believe, is that some compassion has to be shown towards those settlers who are in serious financial trouble through no fault of their own. That is the most pressing problem facing the Government today. It has to show some compassion to the mounting - not decreasing - number of soldier settlers in these 3 States, but particularly in Western Australia and Tasmania, who are in serious financial trouble, it seems to me that they have no hope at all of getting out of their financial trouble, but rather will get further and further into trouble. I believe that the Government’s policy with regard to rentals is iniquitous and one of which the Government ought to be thoroughly ashamed. It is most difficult to find out how this rental system works and how this valuation system works.
Mr Davies:
– It is crooked.
Dr PATTERSON:
– According to my honourable friend, it is crooked. I have no doubt that he will explain what he means by that. 1 believe that the Government has to come clean in relation to this matter and give the Parliament and its members more information, because there have been some fairly unsavoury aspects in some cases with respect of this scheme. There have been cases in which it would seem that officials have gone back on their word in regard to this scheme. But, speaking generally, I believe that the Government ought to support the amendment, principally for the purpose of initiating an investigation from which we can learn. 1 think that every fair minded member of this House would agree that the present scheme was initiated in good faith after the Rural Reconstruction Commission made certain recommendations and that we can learn many lessons from ihe operation of the scheme. Land settlement schemes will go on in Australia, particularly in the northern areas, for a long time to come. We have to learn from our mistakes.
Of course, we have not only war service land settlement schemes but also civilian land settlement schemes. The scheme implemented by the Australian Mutual Provident Society, for example, is reasonably successful. On the other hand, the less we say about Humpty Doo the better. The Esperance scheme did not get off to a very good start, as those who were associated with it in its early days know. Bli? n >. learn from all these schemes. One can always learn from mistakes.’ lt is for that reason that the Opposition has moved an amendment with particular reference to rentals and the method of valuations. I conclude by saying again that the Government has to act and show some leniency understanding and compassion towards those soldier settlers and their families ‘ :n Australia today who, through no fault of their own, are in pitiful and serious financial difficulties.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Cope:
SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES
– Is the amendment seconded?
Mr BARNARD:
Bass
– I second the amendment, which reads in part: . . the House is of opinion that a Select Committee of the House should be oppointed to inquire into all aspects of War Service Land Settlement in Australia in order tq formulate guidelines for any future land settlement scheme with particular reference to the level of rentals demanded from settlers, the method of valuations and the option of purchase price on properties.
As other honourable members have pointed out, this is a machinery measure which comes before the. Parliament each year. Last year for the first time the Opposition moved for the appointment of a select committee of this House to inquire into all aspects of war service land settlement in Australia and to formulate guidelines for future land settlement. The honourable member for Dawson (Dr Patterson) has moved in similar terms for the Bill now before the House to be amended so a select committee of inquiry can be appointed. One of the main reasons for such an investigation is that it is almost impossible to assess the functioning of soldier settlement from a national viewpoint.
Each year the House gets a number of excellent contributions on aspects of the scheme in the various States. The honourable member for Dawson is able to give the House the benefit of his wide associa tion with closer settlement schemes, in particular the development of the Queensland brigalow country. The honourable member for Braddon (Mr Davies) has dealt in some detail with the problems of soldier settlers on King Island, which has been acknowledged by successive Ministers for Primary Industry as a major problem area. The honourable member for Riverina (Mr Grassby) informed the House of the problems of soldier settlers in the Mumimbidgee Irrigation Area and at Coleambally. On the Government side the most regular contributor to these debates has been the honourable member for Angas (Mr Giles), who has drawn the attention of the House to soldier settlement problems in the Upper Murray region of South Australia.
A number of detailed regional studies of soldier settlement have been put before the House but it has not been possible to paint an overall picture. The amount of information available at the Commonwealth level is extremely meagre, although the Commonwealth is responsible for the policy direction of the scheme and its general supervision. There is no statutory body administering the scheme. Accordingly there is. no accounting to this Parliament each year of the annual operation of the soldier settlement scheme. It. is also surprising to learn that the scheme has been beyond the scope of the Bureau of Agriultural Economics, which has not made any comprehensive study of soldier settlement. A considerable amount of information is available at the State level, but it is a major piece of research work to gather this material, analyse it and draw it together into a coherent critique of soldier settlement.
For these reasons the Opposition wants soldier settlement to be assessed as part of a national rural policy. The scheme has not been reviewed since its inception at the end of the war. Now that the Government has embarked at least on a comprehensive investigation of the repatriation structure, which is the other major piece of Commonwealth legislation affecting exservicemen, it would be timely to have a look at rural resettlement projects for war veterans. Last year when this amendment was moved by the Opposition the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Anthony), who was then Minister for Primary Industry, indicated that he had some measure of sympathy for a review of the scheme. He conceded that there was some meaningful purpose in such a review but rejected it because the record of the Government did not warrant reassessment. This stand was based on the rather curious view that demands by eligible settlers for land had been satisfied. It ignored the point at issue, that it was the difficulty of settlers already farming under the scheme and not the supply of land for potential settlers which warranted re-examination. According to the Deputy Prime Minister’s logic, the balance achieved between supply and demand meant that the scheme was successful. He agreed that there were pockets of difficulty but did not feel that these warranted a full scale inquiry into the scheme. He said that these difficulties were being dealt with on an individual basis by the Department of Primary Industry and that any inquiry, by the House of Representatives would only duplicate ibis work.
The Minister pointed also to the committee of inquiry into war service land settlement conducted by the Legislative Council of Tasmania. He considered it most Inappropriate to set up a Commonwealth committee while the Tasmanian committee was conducting its inquiry. This difficulty has since been removed by the completion of the Tasmanian investigation and the presentation of the committee’s report to the Parliament of Tasmania. There is very little substance in the other objections given by the Deputy Prime Minister to a Commonwealth inquiry. In view of the investment in soldier settlement, the wide spread of soldier settlement through Australian rural areas - and the heavy concentration of soldier settlers in some regions there are very strong reasons for reassessment and planning for the future along the tines indicated by the honourable member for Dawson.
I would like to make some general comments about this Bill and the operation of the scheme before looking more closely at the report of the Tasmanian Committee of Inquiry. Each year the Commonwealth arranges the raising of loan moneys for the 3 agent states - Western Australia, South Australia and Tasmania. These 3 States account for about one-third of Australia’s soldier settlers. The Commonwealth has raised a total of approximately S324m for capital costs. This Bill provides for the raising of S4m to be devoted in the main to capital spending. Development spending is concentrated mainly on drainage and irrigation works in the upper Murray region and presumably this is a continuation of the .development announced when last year’s land settlement Bill was before the House.
Some development spending is allocated to drainage work in Tasmania and additional work to increase the productivity of some later developed farms. This allocation for marginal farms that have been developed in recent years raises one of the most crucial problems facing the soldier settlement scheme. The most successful settlers have been those who received land soon after the war and were well established before the buoyant commodity prices of the 1950s. There were failures from the immediate post-war group, but because the scheme was administered with caution, because holdings were better and because individual farmers were more skilled there was little of the economic hardship experienced bv soldier settlers after World War I.
Later settlers were not so fortunate. Some of the land which was opened for settlement was of a marginal character and could not be made to pay. in other oases holdings were too small to be viable. Later settlers were also extremely vulnerable to the deterioration of market prices. At a time when all rural producers are feeling a squeeze on income, late comers to soldier settlement with little capital are finding it extremely difficult to survive. They did not have a chance adequately to establish themselves before the onset of the rural recession. There are quite astounding variations in the relative status of soldier settlers, not only from State to State but also from region, to region. These fluctuations are illustrated dramatically in evidence given to the Tasmanian Committee. According to figures contained in the Committee’s report 549 farms have been established in the State, including the Bass Strait islands. When farms vacated and reallocated were taken into account, it was found that a total of 654 soldier settlers were assisted under the scheme. Of that number 104 either voluntarily surrendered their leases or had them terminated by the Board because they could not meet their financial commitments.
At the end of last year the total amount of arrears owing by settlers to the Board was $493,400. Another $696,700 owed by settlers had been written off by the Commonwealth. Those figures give a rather depressing measure of the operation of the scheme in Tasmania. The broad conclusion of the Committee was that the scheme had failed but because of the wide variation of circumstances of settlers it was not possible to assess the extent of the failure. The report points to settlers who were able to acquire a substantial equity in their holdings and to build up their financial status. At the other end of the scale were settlers without capital and in debt for all livestock, plant, machinery and other improvements. They could not meet their commitments and could not make a reasonable living.
The assistance provided in the BUI before the House is designed to reduce some of this hardship by providing finance for current working expenses and the purchase of stock and plant. Judged on the Tasmanian experience, this assistance has not prevented many later settlers with little capital from getting into difficulties. The committee observed that an unfortunate aspect of the scheme was that the later an eligible person settled, the higher were his capital valuation and option price, the higher his rent and general costs of production and the lower his gross return. An important cause of this impossible economic situation has been the sharp increase in rentals particularly since 1956 when new Commonwealth scales were adopted.
Section 18 of the Act provides that a rental should be fixed to give a settler a reasonable standard of living, even if he starts off with no capital. In practice the rentals just have not worked out this way. Some settlers who started just after the war at lower rentals are in as good or better position than civilian farmers. Others paying post-1956 rentals are in hopeless financial difficulties. Much of the blame for this has been laid on the new scale of rentals adopted by the Commonwealth in 1956. On the evidence available it is difficult to dispute this contention. It seems that section 18 of the Act has not been applied fairly to assess the rental so a settler can live reasonably after other costs have been met.
Another vexed question raised by the Tasmanian committee is option of purchase prices. Again there has been much criticism of the interpretation of the provision of the Act for assessing the option price. There have been many disputes over valuations and who is to blame for anomalies. The issues and the evidence are much too complex to summarise here. But there seem to be good reasons for supporting the committee’s recommendation that option prices be reassessed and in many cases recalculated. This recommendation was based on evidence that the option prices were substantially above market value and therefore infringed the Act.
The matters 1 have raised derive from an investigation of the soldier settlement scheme in only one State. It would be unwise to apply the experience of Tasmania to the operation of the scheme in other States. The Tasmanian report does indicate grave problems in the operation of the Act. It seems that abuses have sprung up, perhaps from lack of co-ordination between State and Commonwealth or lack of precision about respective responsibilities. The Tasmanian inquiry put much of the blame for the failure of war settlement to achieve its objectives on defects in the system of dual State and Commonwealth control. This has been reflected in delayed or amended decisions causing confusion, injustice and resentment among settlers.
In the words of the report of the committee that conducted an exhaustive inquiry into the conditions of war service land settlement in Tasmania, the Commonwealth authority seemed to exercise a dominating and in some cases unreasonable attitude. Because of Treasury pressures it had shown little regard to farming problems under a system of ‘no capital contribution’ by settlers. These are strong criticisms. Certainly they do much to refute the claim made by the Deputy Prime Minister that a full-scale Commonwealth inquiry is not justified because there have been very few complaints from settlers. Dissatisfaction among settlers and the very serious problems confronting the scheme are stated quite bluntly in the report by the Tasmanian Legislative Council. Because the Act has functioned for 25 years without review, it is most urgent that it be completely reassessed and the legislation reshaped for the future. If the scheme is neglected and allowed to run along on present lines, soldier settlement could deteriorate into a major social problem. For these reasons the Opposition urges the Government to reconsider the attitude that it expressed previously and to open the way for a major review by this House of the operation of the war service land settlement scheme. I cannot emphasise too strongly that the Legislative Council in the Parliament of Tasmania conducted a long and exhaustive inquiry into the conditions of war service land settlement in Tasmania. One would believe that the Minister has carefully studied the findings of the committee of the Legislative Council of that State. If he has done so he cannot ignore completely the problems in Tasmania.
I have conceded that the problems related to soldier settlers in Tasmania may not necessarily apply to those in other States where land has been granted under the provisions of the Act, but even from my own experience - I do not intend to adopt a parochial attitude on this - I have gained some knowledge of the workings of the war service land settlement scheme in Tasmania. My colleague the honourable member for Braddon has devoted a not inconsiderable amount of his time to a study of this vexed problem. Anyone who has had an opportunity to look at these problems in Tasmania knows that there is something wrong in the situation relating to those who have been granted assistance under the provisions of the Act. I want to be perfectly fair and 1 am being fair when I make the point that some soldier settlers in Tasmania, and presumably some in other States also, have done very well. They are the ones who were settled on the land in the early post-war years. Their financial circumstances were certainly much better than the financial position of those who followed in later post-war years. But in addition to this they had the opportunity to begin operations on their properties at a time when rural prices generally were at a very high level.
If I wanted to be parochial about this matter I would point to some of the problems that I have experienced personally in relation to some of the soldier settlers on Flinders Island. I say quite frankly that I believe that part of the report of the committee of the Legislative Council in Tasmania has some substance when it refers to the lack of co-operation between the Commonwealth and the State. I have made representations to the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Sinclair) in relation to individual cases that have been brought to my attention only to be told that it was a matter for the State, but then, conversely, to be told by the State authorities that it was a matter for the Commonwealth. The plain fact is that one can get nowhere on this issue - nowhere at all.
I invite the Minister to consider the case of one farmer on Flinders Island who was granted 300 or 400 acres of land for use as a dairy farm whereas 1,100 acres were provided for those who were conducting wool producing operations. The Minister must know that for the dairy farmer it would be a completely uneconomic proposition, but nobody is prepared to look reasonably at his case. The matter goes backwards and forwards between the Commonwealth and the State, It was problems of this kind to which the committee of the Legislative Council drew attention. The committee had the opportunity to interview people and to consider their cases, and it came up with findings which in my view, and I believe in the view of honourable members who think carefully about the problems, warrant the same kind of investigation at a Commonwealth level. Even on the basis merely of the recommendations of the committee of the Legislative Council in Tasmania the Minister should give serious consideration to and, I hope, accept the amendment moved by the honourable member for Dawson which provides for a full scale inquiry into the conditions and circumstances which now apply in relation to war service land settlement in Australia.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Cope)Order! The honourable member’s time has expired.
Mr GILES:
Angas
-! was most interested to hear the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Barnard) point out the difficulty of trying to come to grips with problems affecting war service land settlement when on the one hand he is told that nothing can be done because it is the Commonwealth’s responsibility and on the other hand he is told it is the State’s responsibility. T would agree with him to a point and point out that my main difficulty has been when I have been, told that it was the responsibility of both the State and Commonwealth governments because that is sometimes very hard indeed to sort out. Perhaps it is only right that I should say with some pride that with the Upper Murray Ex-Servicemen’s Land Settlement Association, which is. in my electorate, I succeeded on one well-known occasion in getting both the Federal Minister and the State Minister at the same table at the same time, and we discussed mutual problems. This was considered a great breakthrough and one that I was delighted with personally, and I am sure the Association felt that they also were taking part in history.
I intend to be just as parochial as my friend the Deputy Leader of the Opposition said he was not going to be because I think at this time I can afford to be. I do not have to talk of these things on a national scale or in a visionary way as perhaps he feels he should and I say unashamedly that 1 am delighted that this Bill has come forward. I am delighted that out of the $4m that is allocated through the raising of loan moneys $1,683,000 will be made available to South Australia and, as the honourable member for Dawson (Dr Patterson) suggested, principally to toe area of Loxton which is in the top end of the electorate of Angas. This has been a successful scheme, by and large. I will not comment on it in detail except to say that I agree with much that has been said before.
The faults that have occurred in this area are the faults of trying to discover whether a good settler has not done well because he is on a bad block, whether a medium settler has done just medium well because he is on a medium block, or whether we have a bad settler doing quite well on an extremely good block. It is difficult to know all these things. If I have time later on I intend to bring up the case of a Mrs Pring who I think has had a pretty raw deal all round. But before I do that 1 think it is right that we just note in passing that in the Loxton area the reason for these funds being made available was to make advances to settlers to provide adequate working capital to cover current working expenses and adequate capital funds for replacement of plant. Most settlers under the war service land settlement scheme started on their holdings with little or no capital of their own. These points were set out in the second reading speech of the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Sinclair), and I would comment in passing that a precondition to application was that no means and no capital reserves should not be a bar to successful application for a war service block. That has been a principle that settlers have held dear over many years., I think it is most noticeable, though this was not said by the 2 previous speakers, that not only were those who got their blocks early when prices were better in relation to costs successful but also that those who went on to their blocks with a bit of capital have tended, quite logically, to be more successful than those who did not.
One ponders whether the precondition that lack of capital should be no bar to successful application has applied properly to some settlers with just as much capacity as perhaps the man next door. But that is a matter of opinion and could probably be debated at length. Towards the end of the Minister’s second reading speech he pointed out:
Expenditure on development is mainly on continuing work on block drainage for irrigated horticultural holdings in the Upper Murray region of South Australia and on the irrigation headworks, including channels and pipelines, which supply water to settlers on holdings at Loxton in South Australia.
The last 2 points interest me very much. Firstly, the Minister said that some drainage work is to be carried out in Tasmania as well as at Loxton in South Australia. I notice that when leases are surrendered - I will again touch on this matter when I run through the several successful matters that the Land Settlement Association and f have taken up over the years - all drainage work ceases irrespective of whether the block is taken over by an ex-serviceman on private treaty. Secondly, the Minister said that a small sum is required for some reconstruction work to bring a few of the later developed farms to the planned level of productive capacity. It was for this reason that some time ago, after many letters to and fro and being egged on by the Upper Murray organisation, I sought and was able to get agreement from the Government on the amalgamation of blocks. That agreement really came about as a result of 2 separate negotiations. The first problem which we successfully overcame was the allowing of a settler to take over by way of private treaty the mortgages and general commitments of another settler. Having established that as a fact, we then thought that we should try to get the approval of the Government to allow settlers to be given first option at the reserve price on blocks for which the leases had been surrendered and which were due to go to auction prior to those blocks going to auction. This permission was duly granted earlier this year by the Minister. 1 would like to touch on some of the views I hold in relation to this matter. Firstly, I do not believe it is of much use for the Government to say that it believes in areas becoming more viable and that farmers should look either towards an increase in production in relation to their overhead costs or. if possible, adopt privately principles such as those espoused in the marginal dairy farms agreement or in the rural reconstruction scheme in the case of those blocks in the Upper Murray - I am now being parochial in the spot of which I am thinking - if it is not consistent in trying to achieve the same conditions for the people who wish to enlarge these blocks and become more viable.
Let us look at the problems involved in the latter extension of the principle on which we got the agreement of the Government some time ago. First of all, when I last approached the State Government in South Australia it would not put up for auction any more soldier settler blocks that were surplus and for which the leases had been surrendered. It will not do so for the reason that it considers - 1 must say that I support it in this regard - that the reserve price placed on those surplus blocks is far too high to be considered reasonable. So a position of complete hiatus has been reached. Because the State Government in South Australia is not putting up blocks for auction - or it was not when I last inquired - ill will is being engendered. The settlers who have been waiting for some time - some of them have, amazingly enough, a 15 per cent deposit - to try to take over some of these blocks in order to enlarge their own holdings have not been able to do so. 1 put to the Government that it has a responsibility to be consistent in its actions in relation to this matter. It should try to help those people who want to help themselves and who want to make their farming enterprises more viable.
The settlers have also listed the following points: Firstly, the reserve prices are far in excess of what they consider to be reasonable business propositions. This is supported by the State Government. Secondly, the 15 per cent deposit has certainly precluded many from bidding for blocks at previous auctions. Thirdly, the normal bank interest rates which apply at H per cent or whatever the bank interest rate is at this point of time, is considered to be a trifle too much. Fourthly, the farmers are expected to take over blocks that have been allowed to become run down. Talking about blocks being run down, the farmers see a lack of drainage concession on a new block as a factor that would add considerably to the cost before rehabilitation could properly be commenced. As soon as these properties reverted to the Crown, all drainage works ceased and no attempt was made to do any more than maintain minimum maintenance on the block. The Association also says that the 15 years - I think that that is the correct figure - is too short a period for the loan.
Earlier in the letter to which I have referred the Association stated that it requested that the remainder of the term of the original mortgage be reasonable. I think that this is a reasonable request. This is exactly the condition that we obtained Government agreement on in the case of private negotiations for one settler taking over another settler’s block. Now we have extended this principle so that they have an option to take over a block at the reserve price prior to the auction. In the case of a surrendered lease the same condition evidently does not apply.
There are other matters with which I would like to deal. Perhaps I can cover them by saying this: Not only have the Association and I succeeded,, as I have already pointed out, in getting 2 Ministers, one from the Stale and one from the Federal Parliament, to meet and negotiate on problems affecting these farmers but not long afterwards we were also able to reach agreement with the Government for loans at a reasonable rate of interest in regard to under trees sprinklers. This was the time of great salinity problems in the River Murray. We also achieved a low rate of loan for drainage to overcome other problems of salinity in those areas. We have also had private negotiations which 1 have already mentioned. We have achieved the purchase of surrendered leases at the reserve price. Within the substance of the reasoning that 1 have just put forward I must say that every courtesy has been extended by officers of the Department and by the Acting Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Nixon) in bringing these negotiations to a successful conclusion.
Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP
– Will the honourable member finish on that note?
Mr GILES:
– I did intend to go much more fully into other matters about which the Association was not happy at thus point of time. These matters include appeals for a review of valuations. Perhaps, in view of the interjection I might touch briefly on this point. Some of my constituents on these blocks have waited a great number of years for their interviews and inspections of their farms to lake place. The Association said in this letter which is dated 26th October 1971 that it had not heard any outcome whatsoever of the review referred to in that letter. The Association said that it was well over 12 months since the first batch of interviews had taken place after having waited 3, and sometimes more, years for that review to be instituted. 1 have inquired from time to time as to what has happened. I have not at this stage received an answer. I would like to receive an answer.
The matter of arrears is also a problem that concerns the Association but I will leave this subject to one side and deal with lt on another day. I have already dealt with the subject of surplus properties and their disposal and surrendered leases. The matter of the living allowance will, I think, always be a constant running sore. If I may come back to my opening remarks made after the Deputy Leader of the Opposition concluded his speech I would like to say that it has never been a satisfactory procedure that 2 governments should be concerned with a closer settlement scheme whether it be for exservicemen or not.
One of the limiting factors of any review, royal commission or anything else is that it would take in only the 3 smaller States with which the Commonwealth has joint responsibility. The big problem has been the joint sharing of responsibility. 1 do not think it has worked altogether to the advantage of settlers, lt- is time the Federal Government entered into negotiations with State governments to see under what conditions responsibility could be handed over to them. One thinks immediately of the disadvantages of obtaining capital amounts such as the amount wc are debating tonight. However I. believe it would be possible and desirable for the Federal Government to negotiate with a view to handing responsibility over to the States. There are too many difficulties involved in administration from this end and in joint administration. Ii is very hard to get efficient staff that can really give proper information to a Minister sitting in Canberra. The Department has been extraordinarily lucky over the years in having such a man doing most of the field work. He has advised in a good, tough, rugged and honest fashion. I gather that that is not to bc the position from now on. If 1 were the Minister 1 would negotiate lo see under what conditions the States would take over control.
Mr Daly:
– Were you not going lo finish?
Mr GILES:
– The ex-servicemen in my area will not be pleased to hear me being bludgeoned and bullied by a member of the Opposition front bench and asked to sit down before I finish putting a case for them. The Government also should consider fully whether some of the debt structure should be wiped off. I know that a lot of work has been done in relation to this. We have seen what has happened in other areas. I recall the cannery Bill which was debated in the closing stages of :he last Parliament. This Government got a canning firm out of a mess - we have perhaps one or two more to deal with - and saved it from having a crippling interest and capital repayment onus. Some of these settlers could be quite successful if they were given similar conditions and treatment.
I congratulate the Government generally on the trouble it has taken and the meticulous way it has gone about trying to overcome some of these problems. 1 feel that we have had a certain amount of success but I ask for an even better capacity to overcome the problems. We on this side of the House in particular feel that these exservicemen should have special treatment from society for the service they rendered to the nation.
Mr DAVIES:
Braddon
– The Bill before the Parliament provides for additional finance, totalling $4m, for war service land settlement in the agent states of South Australia, Western Australia and Tasmania. The scheme has dragged on and on and makes a mockery of the prediction by a former Minister in charge of war service land settlement, the later Sir Wilfrid Kent Hughes who in 1954 said, when introducing a Bill such as the one now before us, that the scheme would end in 5 years. Despite this prediction, the scheme has dragged on beyond 1959 for a further 12 years - 17 years in all - and the deception practised in setting rentals and valuations has gradually emerged until it is now crystal clear and warrants the inquiry sought by the Opposition.
Each year we go through this routine of reviewing the progress made under the scheme and over the years we have been able to get the Government to accept some recommendations, such as re-development, which have been of some assistance to the settlers concerned. Over the years, too, I have been an advocate for the release of option of purchase prices, long before redevelopment, because I have maintained time and time again in this House that this would have meant the ‘green light on the hill’ for the settlers. They would have known where they stood instead of being crippled with the burden of high rentals and annual commitments year after year while the option of purchase price was deliberately withheld from them. I hope to indicate as I develop this theme that it was deliberately withheld from the settlers.
In the debate on the Loan (War Service Land Settlement) Bill last year, I referred to a committee of the Legislative Council which had been set up by the Tasmanian
Parliament last year to inquire into war service land settlement with the following specific terms of reference:
- The administration of war service land settlement in Tasmania in relation to the amount of rent and other commitments demanded from settlers and the option of purchase price of properties.
- The responsibility for and the basis upon which opinion prices should be determined.
- Whether the basis of fixing option prices preserves sufficient equity to settlers, having regard to the effluxion of time since holdings were occupied.
The committee was indeed well qualified for the job. The Chairman was Hon. C. B. M. Fenton, a member of a pioneering farming family in Circular Head, Tasmania, with properties in the Smithton district and at Temma on the west coast, and a person well versed in the problems of war service land settlement, because the main problem areas of Preolenna, Mawbanna, Togari and King Island are within his electorate, as indeed they are mine. The other members of the committee were Messrs Dixon and Hodgman, 2 prominent lawyers, qualified to study the legal ramifications of the war service land settlement agreement between the Commonwealth and the State of Tasmania; Mr Foot, a qualified accountant, to probe the bookkeeping methods employed by the Authority; and Messrs Shaw and Cairns, 2 successful farmers, with Mr Cairns holding the post of chairman of the butter producing factory in his area and being head of the local government organisation in Tasmania.
Before dealing with the committee and its findings, I wish to refer to an earlier committee on King Island, which up until now has been treated as ‘Confidential’. However I am advised that the ban now has been lifted and that the Select Committee of the Legislative Council, in its report tabled in August 1971, refers to this earlier committee. This earlier committee consisted of a chartered accountant, the Principal Research Officer of the Commonwealth Bureau of Agricultural Economics, the Assistant Under-Treasurer o.’ Tasmania, a representative of the King Island Settlers Association and the Accountant from the Agricultural Bank of Tasmania. Honourable members will agree thai it is quite an impressive line-up. The committee found, after analysing the average costs and returns of dairy farms for the years 1957-58 to 1961-62 - I should like honourable members to take particular note Of the commencing year 1957, because that was when Tom Colquhoun put it over the State of Tasmania - that the average settler had, after providing for a living allowance of $2,534, a balance of, $80 a year from which he was expected to pay rent, interest and capital repayments to the Authority over the 5-year period, with payments of $308 during the last 3 years of the period to meet these commitments. These findings are set out on page 36 of its report, which is marked ‘Confidential’ but from which, as I said, the wraps have been lifted.
In ils findings, the committee reported that settlers on dairy farms on King Island could reasonably have been expected to pay only $200 a year to the Government for the 5 years from 1957 to J 962. Now we know why the report was classified as Confidential’. lt was because the Government warned it hushed up. The Government had no intention of reducing rentals to an economic figure., despite the findings of the competent group of experts to whom 1 have referred. The Tasmanian Government had vested control of war service land settlement in the Closer Settlement Board and it asked the Board to comment On the committee’s findings in 1964. The Board recommended that rentals be adjusted >u a more equitable scale, but thu Commonwealth authorities just were not interested. They had other plans in mind. We naturally ask: Why was the Common.wealth not interested? For years now, I have maintained that the Commonwealth has insisted on high rentals and commitments in order to reduce the ‘write-off’ and I am pleased to note that this is borne ou! by the findings of the Select Committee of the Legislative Council.
Under the scheme, the excess cost of development was written ofl’, if the cost of development exceeded the capital value of the farm. This excess or loss was to be shared as to 3/5 ths by the Commonwealth and as to 2/5 ths by the agent State. The bill to be borne by Tasmania as its share of the loss is now $ 12.7m. I agree with the Select Committee that the high level of rents insisted on by the Commonwealth was an important factor in increasing capital valuations and reducing the loss on developmental cost and subsequent write-off. I maintain that in order to satisfy any criticism by the Treasury of the everincreasing amount of *write-off’ the Commonwealth, through its Authority, kept insisting on higher and higher rentals. One has only to consider how the Commonwealth set the rents. It looked at the farm and worked out a budget. It estimated the profit that the farm was capable of making and after providing for commitments on advances and a living allowance for the settler it considered that the balance should be available as the rent for the farm.
The Authority then took this rental figure and multiplied it by 40 to give the capital value. If the rent or the balance was $600 the capital value became $24,000. The higher the rents were fixed - that is the amount that was left over after the settler received his living allowance and so on and these were set by the Authority on its budget figures - so the higher the capital value and the less the write off value. Honourable members can see why the earlier report was hushed , up. The Committee found that these settlers between 1957 and 1962 had only $200 over. When that figure is multiplied by 40 the farms on King Island would have had a capital value of only $8,000. The influence of Treasury can be seen much clearer later - as I have stated before and will repeat again tonight - in trying to have the option price related to this inflated rental based capital value in order to avoid a further write off.
If an inquiry was needed before then there is a pressing need for one now. I must agree with the Select Committee of the Legislative Council when at page 10 of its remarks it staled:
As a level of rentals of 21 per cent of capital value of a holding was adopted by the authorities, the normal and equitable method of calculating the amount payable on this basis should have been lo rim! the capital value of the holding assessed by accepted valuation procedures, deduct therefrom the cost of structures and take 21 per cent of the result as rent. Working in reverse, to calculate capital value from an arbitrarily assessed rent may he an easy system of determining the write ofl’ of development losses, but when its unrealistic impact affects the settler unfairly, this method cannot be condoned.
Surely in view of this indictment by a competent and impartial inquiry, instituted by an agent State, the Commonwealth must now set up a select committee to investigate the basis of rentals charged in the past, whether these were reasonable and, if not, the extent to which reduced rentals should apply retrospectively to the date of the allotment of the farm to the settler. I refer those who wish to check this method of fixing rentals to page 22 of the transcript of a judgement given earlier this year by Mr Justice Bright in the case of Henrich v. Dunsford in South Australia. After considering the new set of conditions sent to South Australia by the Commonwealth Minister on 30th July J953 His Honour summed up the position as follows:
So the real was to be 2i per cent of the capital value based on productivity with some prescribed deductions and additions.
I have outlined the basis of fixing rentals on the budget basis. T now turn to the change in fixing rentals as demanded by the Commonwealth authorities on 9th March 1956. This is what I meant by the interjection which I made when the honourable member for Dawson (Dr Patterson) was speaking. Despite strong opposition from the Closer Settlement Board in 1956 and final acceptance, reluctantly, only after several months of correspondence, the new increased scale based on per cow equivalent in. the case of dairy farms or fat Iamb equivalent in the case of sheep properties was finally agreed to. The closer settlement Board maintained, in fact, that the rentals should have been reduced to what is known as the third valuation or $198 per cow equivalent for the calculation of capital value from which rental was assessed as 2i per cent of that capital value. To illustrate this situation and the effect on rentals I point out that a dairy farm on King Island carrying 57 milking cows at a No. 3 valuation of $99 per cow equivalent paid a rental of $366. At the No. 4 and No. 5 valuation of $110 per cow equivalent the rental was $405. The new 1956 scale arranged by this Authority and by the Commonwealth and forced on to Tasmania increased the rental to $470. For a dairy farm with a carrying capacity of 57 dairy cows, the rental was increased from $366 to $470. The Committee drew attention to the inequalities in this plan. It stated:
The variations in basis of calculation that have been imposed have created undesirable and unfair discrepancies between settlers, sometimes in the same settlement.
For instance, it must surely be unfair that dairy farms, with the same assessed carrying capacity and therefore income earning ability, should have widely varying rates of annual rent.
Six of the dairy farms on Pegarah Estate al King Island are assessed at 57 dairy cows and replacements, and have annual rent;, ranging from J270 to $415.
I would like the Minister to give me an explanation. Here we have 6 dairy farms side by side, with the same carrying capacity of 5,” dairy cows, and their rents range from $270 to $415. Where is the equality or justice in this? The same inequalities can be found in the case of sheep properties.
This is not confined to the State of Tasmania. I refer to the case earlier this year of Henrich versus Dunsford in South Australia and to the judgment of the Honourable Mr Justice Bright. Mr Henrich was a soldier settler, and in 1954 his rental was fixed at $400 per year. In 1963 the agent State, no doubt under instructions from Canberra, raised the rental from $400 to S962 per year. Mr Henrich made a declaration ‘that the latter fixation, $962, was invalid and that the proper rent was $400, or if not, was a sum to be determined by computation either according to a method set forth in the petition or alternatively, according to a method as shall be thought just and in the latter event, he seeks an inquiry’.
I refer to the finding by Mr Justice Bright which is in keeping with the findings of the Tasmanian Select Committee. Mr Justice Bright said:
J find that the proper method of fixing the rental for the petitioner’s land was to assess the value in terms of para. 5 (in other words, capital value) and to take 2i per cent of that figure with the adjustments provided therein.
In referring to valuation - I want to quote this very specifically - he said: 1 cannot find expressly lhat the valuations made were improper. It may be that they are completely just and proper. It is obvious that I cannot adjudge what is a proper rent. But is not clear that the valuations are proper and I am justified in directing the attention of the Crown to this matter.
I ask the Minister: What has he done about this case? The judgment refers to other irregularities His Honour continued:
I am therefore left quite uncertain whether the rent has ever been properly fixed and 1 am clear that it has never been property notified.
He went on to say, however, that he had no power to direct the Minister or to order an inquiry. But surely after the comments made by Mr Justice Bright and the report by the Tasmanian Select committee, an inquiry of this Parliament s’-ould be held, particularly in relation to valuations and rentals. J have referred to the change in fixing rents which was introduced in 1956. The Select Committee is critical of the former Commonwealth Director, of War Service Land Settlement, Mr Colquhoun who appeared before the Committee for 2 days. 1 want to make it clear that the Commonwealth Director was in the witness box for 2 days and he made no reference to the change in rentals upon which he insisted. The report states that he ‘failed to inform the Committee that since 1956 all rentals have been determined from a set scale of rentals applying to carrying capacity levels’. The report continues: lt should be slated here that the efforts of the Committee to obtain a clear picture of the basis upon which rents were calculated in the various ureas and at various limes were frustrated and confused by the apparent Jack of frankness by ihe former Commonwealth Director of War Service Land Settlement. f ask the Minister, who in the Department still confuses him regarding the setting of rentals and the basis on which they are set? I have a letter here dated 17th September 1971 in reply to a letter in which I asked ihe Commonwealth Minister how the rents were fixed. I want the Minister to listen to this. This is the basis on which they were set right up to 1956. The letter states:
In practice, a budget is prepared on the estimated returns and the cost which would be expected to apply to a holding, commitments which had to be met on borrowed capital and a reasonable provision for living expenses. The surplus of the budget would be the sum a settler could afford to pay in rent.
The Commonwealth Minister is still being advised by the Commonwealth Department - because he wrote the letter - that this is the way in which rentals are being fixed. But the Minister for Agriculture in Tasmania knows different. He knows that the former Commonwealth Director of War Service Land Settlement put the boot down in 1956 ami because of changing economic circumstances on farms - I hope to have a chance to deal with this later - the method o! assessing rentals was changed completely The Munster for Agriculture in Tasmania knows this, but the Commonwealth Minister for Primary Industry does not. In a letter dated 4th November 1971, the Tasmanian Minister for Agriculture says:
In regard to determination of rentals since 1 956, these are calculated on the assessed carrying capacity of each holding at the maturity of the planned work, based on the average settler management.
This assessment is then applied to a scale of rentals per Fat Lamb Ewe Equivalent, Dry Sheep Equivalent or Dairy Cow and Replacement Equivalent, prepared by the Bureau of Agricultural Economics and supplied by the Commonwealth War Service Land Settlement Authority.
So the Department told the State Minister for Agriculture one thing and the Commonwealth Minister for Primary Industry another. This confusion has existed from the date when the method of determination of rentals was changed under pressure from the Commonwealth in 1956. When the Select Committee placed the Commonwealth Director of War Service Land Settlement in the witness box last year - he was there for 2 days - he did not advise the members about the change. The Committee had to drag from some other witnesses the evidence that there had been this dramatic change in the method of assessing rentals. The budget method of determining rentals was scrapped in 1956 because there had been good seasons until then and the profitability level enabled the Authority to get the maximum rental possible. But it set the budget, there was a fair bit over, it took that as the rent, multiplied it by 40 and got a very high capital value for the farm. So the Authority was able to push the capital value up close to the development cost and there was less write-off to satisfy Treasury demands. But when conditions changed mid rising costs, falling prices and lower levels of profitability would have revealed in a budget the inability to pay the higher rents, the method of fixing rentals also charged, despite very strong opposition from the Tasmanian authorities. The rentals were pushed up, despite declining farm income, in an attempt to reduce the write-off and make things look better than they were.
I turn now to the value or option of purchase prices. There can be no doubt now that the allegations of dummying the figures are correct and no Minister can sit back and close his eyes now.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Scholes:
CORIO, VICTORIA
– Order! The honourable member’s time has expired.
Wednesday, 1 December 1971
Mr NIXON:
Minister for Shipping and Transport and Minister for Primary’ Industry · Gippsland · CP
– There is no question at all - 1 think it has been recognised by all the speakers tonight - that the war service land settlement scheme as conceived by the Commonwealth and State governments has been an excellent programme and that it has led to the very successful settling of thousands of settlers in the various States around Australia. The difficulty is that in these times when prices for wool, mutton and one or two other products are very low the settlers have run into problems; but 1 think it is quite wrong for us to blame the war service land settlement scheme for problems that are completely unrelated to it. indeed, the Government is very conscious of the genera] problems facing some of the primary industries and it is, of course, very active in trying to correct these problems. It is far better for us to tackle the problems in a genera] circumstance relating to farmers, whether they be war service land settlers or whether they be farmers in general. We should not forget that the soldier settlers equally benefit from the subsidies that the Government pays on fertilisers, from any of the drought concessions that have been made, from funds that have been made available for wool, from the dairying industry subsidy, from the wool deficiency payments scheme and, in addition, they are eligible under the rural reconstruction scheme. In other words anybody holding land under any of the land settlement schemes can gain any of the benefits that might flow to farmers in general.
There have been several questions raised tonight by various speakers and I would like to deal with them. The first and most common question involves the problem of rents and there seems to be some difficulty on the part of some honourable members in understanding how the rental levels are set. They are set by applying 2i per cent of the cost* of the project or the productivity valuation, whichever is the lower. Again 1 stress that whilst the change in conditions in rural industries has resulted in a justification for looking at the level of rentals it is quite wrong to suggest that the level of rents was too high. The financial basis of the scheme was generous and appropriate for such a scheme. It involved the write-off of very substantial sums in development costs, which will not be recovered in rents, in addition to grants for living allowances in the early stages and the costs involved in training the farmers. The honourable member for Dawson (Dr Patterson) was one who particularly raised this question.
He also raised the question of how long we could expect to have a Bill of this nature coming into the national Parliament. I suppose the answer to that question is that it will come into this Parliament while ever there are capital expenses involved in the provision of water and the materials for which the Bill presently before the House provides. This Bill seeks $4.83m in advances to settlers for working expenses and plant etc, and $517,000 for drainage and other works. Advice I have received is that we are just about ai the end of the programme. 1 cannot be. categorical about it because there may well be further costs involved that will need ‘o be the subject of future Bills before the Parliament. One or two honourable members have raised the question of the report of the select committee of the Legislative Council of Tasmania. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Barnard) and the honourable member for Braddon (Mr Davies) were particularly interested iu this report. The facts are that this report dated 10th August 1971 has not yet reached the Commonwealth Government because it was apparently necessary to reconvene the committee to make clear the meaning of recommendation No. I in the report. The committee had to meet in Tasmania on 10th November 1971 and the Government is still waiting for a copy of that report. The Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Sinclair) has indicated that at some time he will have a general examination made of the effect of the problems of rural industries on the revenue stability of war service land settlers and I. have no doubt that when he is making that examination he will take into account the representations made tonight by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition and the honourable member for Braddon as well as the Tasmanian report when it comes to hand.
The honourable member for Angas (Mr Giles) raised the problem of the 7 vacant land settlement holdings at Loxton and the 2 holdings at Cooltong. These holdings were developed for horticultural and viticultural production under irrigation. Other settlers asked that they be given the opportunity to purchase these holdings at the reserve prices instead of the holdings being sold at open auction. The Minister for
Primary Industry agreed andlaid down certain terms. In his speech the honourable member for Angas mentioned some figures among which were that the deposit would be 15 per cent, the interest for 5 years only would be at 6¼ per cent and the balance of the price with interest would be paid over 25 years. The holdings were advertised in the South Australian Government ‘Gazette’ on 4th November and following this the settlers association claimed the reserve prices were too high. Applications have now closed and 26 applications were received for 8 of the holdings. These applications are currently under consideration by the South Australian Minister for Irrigation.
The Government rejects the Opposition’s amendment because inherent in it there is no proposition for correction of any of the difficulties that the settlers now face. It talks about future land settlement. I think it is far better to tackle any land settlement problems industry by industry, whether the problems to be tackled are in the fruit industry, the dairy industry, the sheep industry or whatever industry it may be. Therefore, on behalf of the Government, I reject the amendment.
Mr KIRWAN:
Forrest
Tonight we are debating the Loan (War Service Land Settlement) Bill 1971.
Motion (by Mr Giles) put:
That the question be now put.
The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker - Mr P. E. Lucock)
AYES: 48
NOES: 42
Majority . . . . 6
AYES
NOES
Question so resolved in the affirmative.
Question put:
The words proposed to be omitted (Dr Patterson’s amendment) stand part of the question.
The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker - Mr P. E. Lucock)
AYES: 48
NOES: 42
Majority . . . . 6
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.
Dr PATTERSON:
Dawson
– Clause 4 of the Bill reads:
Moneys borrowed under this Act shall be issued and applied only for the expenses of borrowing and for the purpose of financial assistance to the States of South Australia, Western Australia and Tasmania in accordance with sub-section (1.) of section 2 of the States Grants (War Services Land Settlement) Act 1952-1953.
I wish to refer specifically to the loan of $1.6m to Western Australia. Also, I want to protest at the way in which the honourable member for Angas (Mr Giles) so blatantly moved the gag on the second reading stage of the debate on this Bill. The honourable member is not even listening to what I have to say and that shows how much he cares about this chamber. Honourable members who spoke during the second reading stage came from Tasmania, South Australia and Queensland. The honourable member for Forrest, whose electorate is in. Western Australia, repre sents an area which has grave problems in war service land settlement. I think it is a disgraceful episode in the history of this Parliament that the honourable member for Angas should have the audacity to gag one of the most sincere and most dedicated members of this House who wants to speak about his own electorate in relation to this problem. I submit, Mr Deputy Chairman, that you should allow him to speak.
Mr KIRWAN:
Forrest
The amount of $1.6m is to go to Western Australia this year for its war service land settlement scheme, and I want to suggest how that sum of money ought to be spent. First of all, I ask for leave to incorporate in Hansard a copy of a question that I asked and the answer received from the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Sinclair) earlier in the year in relation to this subject.
The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN Mr (Cope) - Is leave granted? There being no objection, leave is granted. (The document read as follows): (Question No. 2949)
page 3867
WAR SERVICE LANDSETTLEMENT
The following figures relate to the War Service Land Settlement scheme in Western Australia. I hope this information will be satisfactory to the honourable member. Any dissection against geographical areas, etc., would entail an excessive amount of work.
The honourable member will appreciate that the present problems of rural producers are industry-wide and not specific to war service land settlers. The reduction or abolition of rentals payable by these settlers would have to be considered in conjunction with measures designed to assist all farmers experiencing the same or similar problems.
Measures have already been introduced, on an industry-wide basis and the Government is making sizeable funds available to the State to assist and relieve the economic difficulties of primary producers especially in the seriously affected wool and dairy industries.
Mr KIRWAN:
– I will confine my remarks to war service land settlement in Western Australia, particularly where it occurs in my own electorate. The first war service land settlement project considered in Western Australia was that of Mount Many Peaks near Albany. It was followed by Rocky Gully, Perillup, Bokenup Kybellup, Jerramungup, Gairdner River, Eneabba and Denbarker respectively. Almost all of those projects fall within the bounds of the Forrest electorate or just outside it. The exception is Eneabba which is north of Moora. A condition of the Second Schedule under which the States of South Australia. Western Australia and Tasmania operate is that holdings must be allotted on perpetual leasehold tenure, the general terms and conditions of the lease to be approved by the Commonwealth. Principles of operation, as. stated in Commonweal*h Year Book No, 37, are as follows:
- Settlement shall be undertaken only where economic prospects for the production concerned are reasonably sound; and the number of eligible persons to bc settled shall be determined primarily by opportunities for settlement and not by the number of applicants;
- Applicants shall not be selected as settle; s unless a competent authority is satisfied as to their eligibility, sustability and qualifications for settlement under the scheme and their experience of farm work;
- Holdings shall be sufficient in size to enable settlers to operate efficiently and to earn a reasonable labour income;
- An eligible person deemed suitable for settlement shall not be precluded from settlement by reason only of lack cf capital, but a settler will be expected te invest in the holdings such proportion of his own financial and other resources as is considered reasonable in the circumstances by the appropriate State authority;
- Adequate guidance and technical advice shall be made available to settlers through agricultural extension services.
So much for the principles underlying the scheme. The scheme was and is fine in principle. It has assisted a large number of more fortunate ex-servicemen to establish themselves and become successful farmers. The scheme also has led many to heartbreak and failure through the wrongful use of land in some cases, through insufficient acreage in other cases and also through misleading information.
The average acreages in the different project areas in Western Australia are 840 acres with 600 acres pastured m Mount Many Peaks for fat lamb and wool growing; 1,000 acres in the Rocky Gully area for fat lambs, merino wool and beef production; 2,350 acres in the South Stirlings for wool production; 2,780 acres in the Jerramungup area for wool production; and 600 acres of pasture were provided in the Denbarker project area for production of fat lambs and beef. People who know the consistency of the land or the type of land in those areas will be fully aware that the acreages provided are totally inadequate and have been the main cause of failure The acreages provided in every case have proved insufficient for the provision of an adequate living, except where the total acreage allocated was of high quality. Even in the latter case there are now settlers who are faced with severe financial difficulties. Whereas settlers have been able to meet their commitments and increase production in past years, they are now finding it difficult, if not impossible, to pay rentals and commitments.
Because settlers were able to meet the criteria laid down in the original Act and because they have been able to remain on their farms to the present time, I believe that there can be no doubt that the present distressing situations confronting settlers are not due to the inefficiency or unsuitability of these settlers for their chosen occupation. I believe that they are victims of circumstances beyond their control and that the seriousness of their plight demands special measures to assist the persons and families involved. To illustrate the situation confronting people in my electorate J will read extracts from letters that are representative of a great number sent to me. One settler on a farm near Bridgetown states in part:
I pay $1,013.44 rent per annum. This is due on the last day of the year, but for the firsttime sinceI have been here,I am unableto pay it. I have been here for 18 years and have always paid all my commitments on time. Now I am unableto pay the $2,250I owe War Service Land Settlement each year or the $1,080 due to the Commonwealth Development Bank each half year.
Farm production has been increasing, but obviously not fast enough to cope with these debts.
Another settler from Gairdner River, outside my electorate, writes:
Unfortunately 1 am one settler of the group around me who are all faced with debts arising from sub-standard land and rental repayments.
Theroad on whichI live served 7 settlers when we moved here 12 years ago, 5 of whom had left during the first 6 years.
These farms were badly ploughed and the paddocks were full of box poison and it was over 6 years before we had the pasture paddocks poison free. In the early years lambing did not match sheeplosses.
He lists all that he has done to develop his farm and then goes on to say:
I have been warned that my debt position is dangerously high and therefore I am indanger of being unable to obtain necessary funds to continue. No settler has or could have worked harder than I and my 3 sons have worked over the years.
He continues:
Believe me. I would not have been in this financial situation had the farm not been substandard.
A third letter reads as follows:
Large numbers of farmers are having a great deal of difficulty in running their farms and meeting their commitments under the present circumstances of reduced return for wool, sheep and other products, together with quotas and steadily rising costs. Of these a proportion are Soldier Settlers who are not immune to these problems and need assistance in the way of reducing or eliminating rentals-
That is whatI am pressing for - or reducing annual repyaments of loans which which ease the situation to some degree.
In my case a farm, which was definitely a thriving economic unit in the early 1960s, was later found to require expansion to keep up with rising costs. This expansion was accomplished with further finance from Commonwealth Development Bank, and by 1967 was running well over 3,000 sheep. At that time income from wool and sale of surplus slock was quite sufficient to meet commitments, but since then falling returns and steadily rising costs have made it impossible to do so. In the past 3 years the value of my property has fallen by about $25,000. and the value of my stock has fallen by at least the same amount.
He continues:
Could you please advise if there is likely to be any special consideration given to the difficulties of Soldier Settlers in the present rural crisis. Would it be possible to have repayments of loans deferred until such time as more stable conditions in the industry prevail, and wool and sheep prices improve? Could some consideratio n be given to revising Commonwealth Development Bank term loans to Primary Producers to (a) increase the payment period to say 25 years;(b) reduce interest rate to say 4 per cent.
Another settler has written to me in the following terms:
I am writing to you in connection with the payment of ‘Perpetual Lease Rent’ on War Service Land Settlement farms.
I bought this property from a soldier settler and have paid to the Western Australian Land and Surveys Department an annualrental of $995.
When wool was above 40c per lb, and lamb andmutton a reasonable price, this money was not impossible to find, but under theruling prices, this annual rental has become burdensome.
He continues:
Under the present depressed rural economy, it would enable many occupiers of these ‘Perpetual Lease’ farms to remain viable, if the Commonwealth Government could waive the payment of this rental.
I ask that the Minister have the Government abolish annual rentals or at least waive them for a period of 5 years to allow farmers to ride out the current crisis or to withdraw from farming operations if unable in those circumstances to redeem themselves. I ask that this action be taken as early as possible in view of the seriousness of the situation as it has been revealed by previous speakers and by the letters I have read tonight.
I believe that there is merit in the suggestion contained in one of the letters I have read, in which the writer asked that government finance be used to consolidate debts at an interest rate of 4 per cent or lower. In view of the service given to the country by the settlers concerned and in view of their perseverance in the face of the many adversities over which they have triumphed to remain on their farms I ask that the Minister give the suggestions I have made early, serious and favourable consideration.
Mr FULTON:
Leichhardt
– As the time allowed for me to speak in this debate has been cut down from 20 minutes to 10 minutes I will have time only to give details of the case I have in mind and not to elaborate on the amendment moved by the honourable member for Dawson (Dr Patterson). The case concerns a young serviceman returned from Vietnam who is an experienced tobacco grower. On his return to Australia he married and he and his wife decided to go onto a farm. They came to see me. I was not sure then whether the soldier settlement scheme extended to share farming but I was informed that it did. The young returned serviceman applied for assistance and his eligiblity was established. He applied for a loan of $6,000 and a questionnaire was sent to him. He filled in the form and returned it. As we had heard nothing after 3 weeks had elapsed I rang the Authority and was told that the application was before the Minister. 1 said: ‘If you do not do something about it I will have to ring up the Minister. ls it favourable or unfavourable?’ On being told that an unfavourable decision was expected I asked why. I was told that the property tendered by the young man as collaterial or equity was worth only about $6,000, or the same amount as the loan he had requested. I said: ‘If you had told me that in the first place we might have adjusted it.’
I got in touch with the lad again and another property, worth about $12,000, was tendered as collateral. I rang the Authority to give that advice and was told that the loan should be approved. Details were sent to the Authority and another 3 weeks passed. I rang the Authority after 3 weeks had elapsed and again was told that the case was before the Minister for his consideration. I said: ‘Now look, you told me that before. Is it favourable or unfavourable?’ The officer said: ‘We do not think the lad has enough equity’. I got in touch with a man named Collins, a tobacco grower, and he told me that the lad was an experienced tobacco grower and that the property offered as collateral was a good one. I conveyed that information to the Authority but was told that the farmer who owned the property might sell out. I said: ‘Yes, but that farmer has already told you that if he sells out it will be part of the agreement of sale that the lad still be a share farmer. Surely that is good enough*.
This sort of thing went on for about 9 months before the young man received a definite knock back from the Authority. He has had to obtain private finance to carry him through. When he approached a private financier he agreed to help without any qualms at all. If it is good enough for private enterprise to finance a serviceman who has played his part in Vietnam, surely to goodness the Government should accept the collaterial offered as adequate to justify the loan for which he has applied. It is not too late. I ask the Minister and the Authority to reassess this case. The loan could be switched over from the private financier to the Government and the young man would then pay a lower interest rate. Perhaps the Authority can take it over for him. He deserves it.
The young man concerned is very energetic. He is an experienced tobacco grower and there is no reason in the world why the Authority should knock back his appliiation for a loan. He is young, just starting off his married life. The farmer who owns the property concerned has already guaranteed that if he sells the property a condition of the sale will be that the young man is to remain a share farmer on it. Surely this should be good enough for the Authority to lend the amount of money requested. It has taken a long time to get a decision and the young man concerned had to go in to debt. He had to fertilise the property and take all the steps required of a tobacco farmer before the crop matured. Then he had to rely on the crop being sold. This has been done. He is a good farmer and he has proved it. There is no reason why the Department should have knocked back his loan of $6,000 on the assumption that he did not have enough equity in the arrangement. The guarantee that was put up by his people was a property of flats in Mareeba valued at $12,000. Surely that property valued at $12,000 by the valuer in the area would be a good enough guarantee for a $6,000 loan. It was good enough for a $6,000 loan from the private financiers. I do not see why the Government should not have taken up this matter.
I hope that the Minister and the Department will have another look at this and see whether they can relieve this man of his burden.
Motion (by Mr Giles) put -
That the question be now put.
The Committee divided. (The Deputy Chairman - Mr Drury)
AYES: 45
NOES: 39
Majority . . . . 6
AYES
NOES
Question so resolved in the affirmative.
Original question resolved in the affirmative.
Bill agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.
Third Reading
Motion (by Mr Nixon) - by leave - proposed:
That the Billbe now read a third time.
Mr GRASSBY:
Riverina
In connection with this measure before the House at the third reading stage a point that should be made is that New South Wales has not had an opportunity-
Motion (by Mr Giles) proposed:
That the question be now put.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Lucock:
LYNE, NEW SOUTH WALES
– Order! The question is that the question be now put.
Dr Patterson:
– Mr Deputy Speaker, on a point of order, I question your wisdom in putting this question. I am sure that nobody heard the honourable member for Angas (Mr Giles)say anything.
Question put. The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker - Mr P. E. Lucock)
AYES: 46
NOES: 39
Majority , . . . 7
AYES
NOES
Question so resolved in the affirmative.
Original question resolved in the affirmative.
Bill read a third time.
page 3872
ADJOURNMENT
Motion (by Mr Swartz) proposed:
That the House do now adjourn.
Mr GRASSBY:
Riverina
Mr Deputy Speaker, I had a brief in the Parliament today to make a point on behalf of 600 settlers in New South Wales-
Motion (by Mr Giles) agreed to:
That the question be now put
Original question resolved in the affirmative.
House adjourned at 1.5 a.m. (Wednesday)
page 3873
ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS UPON NOTICE
The following answers to questions upon notice were circulated:
Terendak Army Base (Question No. 3526)
Mr Fairbairn:
LP
– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
-
- The arrangements were that the capital cost of constructing the base was to be shared by the United Kingdom, Australia and New Zealand in proportion to their establishment strengths. Works maintenance costs were to be borne in proportion to the average monthly strengths of the three contingents during the year. Subsequently separate arrangements were settled for distributing operating costs depending on the nature of the service, e.g., supply of rations water and electricity costs, hire of furniture, etc.
- The outlay by Australia for capital costs was$5.6m. In addition Australia paid a further sum of approximately $850,000 as a consequence of a bilateral arrangement between Australia and New Zealand. Details of operating costs paid by Australia specific to the base are not known as they are included in overall Australian Army expenditure figures for the Malaysia/Singapore area generally.
- (a) The Australian forces occupied the Terendak base as part of the Commonwealth Strategic Reserve and the agreement between the United Kingdom, Australia and New Zealand provided that the Australian and New Zealand Governments would share in any disposal proceeds in proportion to their contributions to the original capital costs of construction. (b) As the base was a United Kingdom installation Australia made no arrangements directly with Malaysia regarding occupancy.
- When the base was no longer required by the United Kingdom or Australian and New Zealand forces it was handed over to the Malaysians by the United Kingdom under arrangements made between the Governments of those two countries.
- The Australian investment contributed to the defence of Malaysia during the presence of the Strategic Reserve and is still doing so during the occupation of the base by units of the Malaysian Armed forces. Australia obtained good value for its capital outlay during almost a decade of use by some thousands of Australian soldiers and their families.
Postal Services (Question No. 4458)
Mr Scholes:
asked the Postmaster-Gen eral, upon notice:
Has the practice of placing the Royal Insignia on post boxes and vehicles of his Department been discontinued? If so. when and why?
Sir Alan Hulme:
LP
– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
The Royal Cypher is displayed with the words Royal Mail’ on mail vans but not on other vehicles as their use is not restricted to mail services. Post Office policy also provides for the Royal Cypher to be displayed on letter receivers. Although many receivers do not at present portray the Royal Cypher, this is being progressively corrected in conjunction with routine maintenance.
Postal Services (Question No. 4496)
Dr Klugman:
PROSPECT, NEW SOUTH WALES
asked the Postmaster-Gen eral, upon notice:
- Do post offices perform any services tor Commonwealth Government departments in addition to those connected with (a) electrical registration - Department of the Interior, (b) alien registration and application for naturalisation - Department of Immigration (e) registration for national service - Department of Labour and National Service, (d) War Service Homes loan repayments - Department of Housing, (c) taxation forms, lax stamps and tax books - Department of the Treasury, (f) applications for age, widow and invalid pensions, child endowment, supplementary, assistance, pre-natal allowance and pensioners reduced television and radio licence - Department of Social Services and (g) applications for war widows’ pensions and war widows’ reduced television and radio licence - Repatriation Department.
- Does his Department receive any payment for these services?
If so, what amount has been received from each of the departments concerned during each of the last 5 years?
Sir Alan Hulme:
LP
– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
- Yes.
- Yes.
- Details of payments received from each of the Departments concerned are as follows. The amounts shown represent the payments received for the various functions performed on behalf of the Departments concerned.
Television (QuestionNo. 4533)
Mr Collard:
KALGOORLIE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA
asked the PostmasterGeneral upon notice:
- What stage has been reached in establishing atelevision station to serve the SouthernCrossBullfinch area in Western Australia.
- Will the station also serve Koolyanobbing.
- Can he give approximate dates as to when the station will be (a) commenced, (b) completed and (c) operative.
Sir Alan Hulme:
LP
– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
- The technical operating conditions for the Southern Cross-Bullfinch stationwere recently determined by the Australian Broadcasting Control Board. Detailed planning for the provision of (he station is currently receiving the attention of my Department.
- While it is not expected, because of the distance involved, that Koolyanobbing will be served by the Southern Cross-Bullfinch station, the operating conditions determined by the Board will permit the establishment of a translator station at Koolyanobbing at a later dale if such a station can he justified. At this stage it would appear that the costs of a translator station would be prohibitive having regard to the fact that the population which would be served is of the order of 300 only.
- As the honourable member inaware, the Southern Cross-Bullfinch station is one of 38 stations tobe established in relatively remote and widelyseparated areas throughout the Commonwealth as the current or seventh stage of television development. The whole task is one of con siderable magnitude and it would notseem practicable on present indications,for the Southern Cross-Bullfinch station to be completed before mid 1973. However, every endeavour is being made to achieve an earlier commencement date.
Television (Question No. 4534)
Mr Collard:
asked the PostmasterGeneral upon notice:
- To whichcentres or district in Western Australia, other than those included in stage seven, is it intended to extend the national television service during(a) 1974. (b) 1975,(c) 1976 and (d) 1977.
- Which centres or districts in Western Australia (a) have been surveyed, (b) are currently being surveyed and (c) will be surveyed shortly in relation to future extensions of television.
Sir Alan Hulme:
LP
– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
- and (2) There are no firm proposals at this stage for further development of television services in Western Australia. The Australian Broadcasting Control Board has under continuous review the possibilities of the further extension of televisionto areas for which service has not yet been authorised but, as the honourable member will appreciate, there are both technical and economic difficulties involved in the further extension of television to relatively remote and sparsely populated areas such as those, generally, remaining without service. The Board’s engineers have made investigations in relation to a number of such areas throughout the Commonwealth including some areas in Western Australia, but it istoo early at this stage to indicate the likely outcome of the Board’s studies.
Postal Services (Question No. 4595)
Mr Armitage:
CHIFLEY, NEW SOUTH WALES
asked the Postmaster-
General, upon notice:
-
How many district postal managers in Aus tralia have previously been postmasters before their appointment as manager?
- Why are so few postmasters selected as district postal managers when experience as a postmaster would seem to be a prerequisite for such an appointment?
Sir Alan Hulme:
LP
– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
- None of the present 70 District Postal Managers were designated Postmaster immediately prior to promotion as District Postal Manager. However, earlier in their career, 23 held an appointed position of Postmaster and a further 40 acted as Postmaster.
- Postmasters are eligible for promotion as District Postal Managers but selections are usually made from officers who have the wider administrative experience as an assistant to a District Postal Manager. It is the usual practice for officers who wish to make a career in district management to move from a Post Office to a District Office at an early stage so as to gain administrative experience.
Papua New Guinea: Legal Aid (Question No. 4633)
Mr Whitlam:
asked the Minister for
Externa] Territories upon notice:
What progress has been made in preparing the Ordinance with respect to legal aid and the duties of the Public Solicitor in Papua New Guinea (Hansard, 15 September 1970, pages 1089 and 1092).
Mr Barnes:
Minister for External Territories · MCPHERSON, QUEENSLAND · CP
– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
The Papua New Guinea Administration has prepared provisional legislative proposals. The comments of the Judiciary and the legal profession upon these proposals have been sought and it is hoped that they will be obtained shortly. A submission will then be made to the Government and the Administrator’s Executive Council with a view to the preparation of legislation.
Diplomatic Posts (Question No. 4646)
Mr Keogh:
asked the Minister for
Foreign Affairs, upon notice:
- In which non-English speaking countries has Australia Consular representation?
- How many officers are on the staff of each of these consulates?
- How many officers in each consulate are able to communicate in (a) the local language and (b) any language other than English.
Mr N H Bowen:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP
– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
- (b) and (c). The following table lists the countries where English is not in common usage for official purposes and in which the Department of Foreign Affairs has responsibility for one or more diplomatic or consular posts.
Column 1 of the table indicates the number of Australia-based officers performing diplomatic, consular and administrative duties at diplomatic, and consular posts in the countries concerned. Column 2 indicates the number of officers who are able to communicate in one or more of the languages commonly used for official purposes in the country concerned. Column 3 indicates the number of officers at the post able to communicate in a language other than English.
Pakistani Refugees (Question No. 4657)
Mr Kennedy:
asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice:
In view of the hunger, malnutrition and starvation threatening Pakistani refugees, and in view of Australia’s large surplus of egg products, will he consult with the Minister for Primary Industry on the possibility of making free gifts of appropriate egg products to refugees iti Bengal, over and above supplies and moneys already provided?
Mr N H Bowen:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP
– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
The Government’s policy, in providing aid for the refugees in Bengal, is to make the maximum effective use of the funds provided by supplying goods and commodities in accordance with priorities established by the Indian and United Nations authorities who are caring for the refugees. We concentrate on providing those priority items which are readily available from Australia. On 5th November 1971 the Indian Ministry of Rehabilitation listed the following priority requirements: woollen blanket!,, shelter materials, milk powder, medical supplies and sugar. The Government is sending a full load of blankets by RAAF HerCuk. in early December and we are also helping with the airlift of blankets collected through the Austcare appeal. We are also sending sugar and shelter materials.
The Government is continuing its regular con.sultations with ihe Indian and United Nations authorities about the forms of aid most urgently required, and in discussions about foodstuffs has informed there of ohe availability of commodities from Austrafia, including high protein foods such as egg powder and other egg products.
If the Indian and United Nations authorities decide thai egg products should be given priority over other forms of aid the cost of supply and shipping the aid will be a charge against the Government’s ntd allocation for the refugees.
Migration Agreements anil Discussions (Question No. 4691)
Mr Whitlam:
asked the Minister for Immigration, upon notice:
- Which countries did he visit in October and November 1971.
- With which governments did he have negotiations or discussions on (a) new migration agreements, (b) renewed migration agreements, (c) assisted passages, (d) visa- arrangements, (e) social sen ices, (f) taxation concessions ‘ and (g) professional qualifications.
- What was the outcome of these negotiations and discussions.
Dr Forbes:
Minister for Immigration · BARKER, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · LP
– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
- United States of America. . Canada, Britain, Portugal, France, Austria, The Netherlands, Germany. Greece. Japan. Hong Kong.
- Useful and wide ranging discussions on matters of mutual migration interest were conducted with relevant Ministers and officials in all of Australia’s migrant source countries visited.
As a matter of course assisted passage arrangements, social services and the recognition of professional qualifications were covered.
Also there were discussions on new and existing migration agreements.
None of the Governments indicated any desire for a change in the existing visa arrangements.
For many years normal taxation concessions in respect of dependants living abroad have been available to migrants in Australia where the dependants intend to join the breadwinner in Australia. This concession ceases if the dependants du not join the head of the family within 5 years of his arrival here. Presumably these facts are known to the Governments of migrant source countries and the subject was nol raised by them.
- Negotiations and discussions on a number of matters are continuing. When the position is reached where it would be appropriate to make a public announcement on any particular item this will be done after consultation with the other Government concerned.
D Notices: Issue to News Media (Question No. 3480)
Mr Hayden:
OXLEY, QUEENSLAND
asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice:
- Are D Notices still being issued by the Government; if so, on what subjects.
- How many D Notices were issued in the laSt quarter of 1970. and on what subjects.
- Has there been a case in recent years where an embargo, either official or informal, has been issued by the Government on the fact that a D Notice itself has been issued on a particular subject; if so, when and on what subject.
Mr Fairbairn:
LP
– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
- The last D Notice was issued in 1966.
- None.
- All D Notices are issued to the news media on a Private and Confidential basis. There arc no special embargoes related to particular subjects.
Recruitment of Teachers Overseas (Question No. 3648)
Mr Whitlam:
asked the Minister for Education and Science, upon notice:
Will he bring up-to-date the information which his predecessor gave on 23rd September 1970 (Hansard, page 1581) on State campaigns to recruit teachers overseas.
Mr Malcolm Fraser:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP
– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
Information on the recruitment of overseas teachers since 1970 was supplied by the Education Departments of New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia, Western Australia and Tasmania. The Queensland Education Department was unable to provide any details.
New South Wales
In the period from 12th February 1971 to 8th October 1971, the New South Wales Education Department advertised in the United Kingdom, United States of America and Canada.
This resulted in 19,071 inquiries from the United Kingdom and 10,124 inquiries from the United States and Canada. Five hundred and one actual applications from the United Kingdom and 3.905 applications from the United Stales and Canada were received. Of this number, 1,613 were qualified for employment and were offered positions. One thousand and nine teachers accepted these offers and by 8th October, 454 teachers had arrived in New South Wales.
Victoria
There has been some extension of the direct recruitment programme since last year.
-
DIRECT RECRUITMENT
- Direct Recruitment in the United Kingdom
Mr H. . 1. Russell has completed a 2 month tour and carried out interviews in the United Kingdom. As a result 25 permanent Direct Recruits and 21 temporary teachers have decided to teach in Victoria.
- Direct Recruitment in Canada
Mr G. R. Maddocks, a member of the Board of Secondary Inspectors who was completing his Ph.D. at Alberta has been employed as Interviewing Officer to obtain Direct Recruits. These were offered a single air fare from the capital of their province to Melbourne on the undertaking to teach one academic year. Mr Maddocks has completed an interviewing programme involving over 100 teachers most of whom will be arriving between now and the beginning of the school year 1975
- Direct Recruitment in the West Coast of the United States of America
At thesuggestion of Professor Claire Pederson who worked in Victorian Colleges in the mid-sixties a Direct Recruitment Programme in California and Washington State was established These teachers were offered either a single ticket for the teacher alone, given an undertaking to teach to the end of 1972, or a single ticket for the teacher and his dependants given an undertaking to teach to the end of 1973. Professor Pederson and a team of enthusiasts interviewed over 600 applicants and 110 teachers have been selected and arrived in Melbourne on a special Qantas flight on Tuesday, 31st August.
It must be emphasised that these Direct Recruitment Programmes have been for secondary teachers only and in the fields of Mathematics, Science, English, Geography, Physical Education and Music. All teachers recruited had to have a minimum preparation of 4 years including a degree and 12 months of teacher education courses and leaching practice.
- INTERNATIONAL TEACHING FELLOWSHIP PROGRAMME
The International Teaching Fellowship Programme Second Series has been instituted in the United Kingdom. Canada and the United Slates of America. The conditions ofthe Fellowship have been modified slightly from those which applied in the First Series.
Although finance for this programme was obtained because of the shortage of teachers this programme is a highly selective one being similar in kind to such Fellowships as Harknes, Carnegie, Fort and Fulbright. The persons who have been awarded these Fellowships in the First Series have outstanding records as teachers and have already made considerable contribution in the teaching of mathematics and science in their own countries. Their average age is thirty-five and their average qualification at the Masters level. These people are already contributing over and above their normal teaching function in Victoria. Although the programme will not be finalised until December already 10 scholarships have been awarded in the United Kingdom and several of the states and provinces of the United States of America and Canada have already forwarded their selections.
South Australi a
The South Australian Education Department has advertised for teachers in the United Kingdom the United States and Canada.
As at 17th September 1971, there hadbeen 1,535 letters of inquiry about teaching positions from which 184 teachers had been recruited.
Western Australia
The Western Australian Education Department only conducts active recruitment for teachers in the United Kingdom although applications are received from other countries. No records are kept of this latter group.
Since August 1970, 66 teachers from the United Kingdom have beenemployed by the Western Australian Education Department. Forty-four of these have been employed in 1971. No figures are available on the number ofapplications received from the United Kingdom teachers.
Tasmania
The Tasmanian Education Department has advertised in the United States and the United Kingdom. The number of applications received is not available. The number of acceptances arc:
United Kingdom - 45
United States- 13.
Nation-wide Survey of Educational Needs (Question No. 3652)
Mr Whitlam:
asked the Minister for
Education and Science, upon notice:
Has any State, apart from South Australia and Western Australia, published the full text of the Nation-wide Survey of Educational needs as far as that State is concerned.
Mr Malcolm Fraser:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP
– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
I understand that details of the Queensland Survey have been released to the Press and that a copy has been filed in the Queensland Public Library. I believe the Tasmanian Report is also available to the public on request from the Tasmanian Education Department. Copies of the report of the Australian Capital Territoryand Northern Territory Surveys were made available to members on 5th October as an attachment to my statement on the Commonwealth Education Programme for 1971-72.
Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 30 November 1971, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1971/19711130_reps_27_hor75/>.