House of Representatives
24 May 1973

28th Parliament · 1st Session



Mr SPEAKER (Hon. J. F. Cope) took the chair at 10 a.m., and read prayers.

page 2571

PETITIONS

The Clerk:

– Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows and copies will be referred to the appropriate Ministers:

Abortion

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

That grave concern is felt at the imminent introduction into the Commonwealth Parliament of legislation to permit abortion on demand.

Your petitioners most humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled should not admit into the laws of this land a principle which violates a fundamental right - the right to life.

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

Petition received.

Abortion

To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representativesin Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectively showeth:

  1. That grave concern is felt at theimminent intro duction into the Commonwealth Parliament of legislation to. extend the situations in which abortions may be legally obtained and which will, it is believed result in a situation in Australia where abortions are available on demand.
  2. That if as some argue the unborn child at the time abortions are performed does not constitute human life, then Justice and reason demand that anyone so arguing has the onus of proof upon him and that this onus has not been discharged.
  3. That all have the right to life and that abortion is not merely another form of contraception but is the deliberate taking of innocent human life.
  4. That while acknowledgingthat unwanted preg nancies do often present serious problems, the answer lies notin the slaughter of the innocents but in fostering a genuine concern in the well being of all our fellow Australians - with all that entails.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled should not admit into the law of this land a principle which violates a fundamental right, the right to life.

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

Petition received.

Lake Pedder

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

  1. That Lake Pedder, the heart of the South-West National Park of Tasmania is now being flooded as a consequence of the Gordon River Power Scheme.
  2. That Lake Pedder is one of Australia’s foremost natural assets and part of the inheritance of all Australians.
  3. That the International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources, Morges, Switzerland, the world’s leading conservation organisation, has requested our Commonwealth Government to secure Lake Pedder in its natural state. This request is supported by numerous other international conservation organisations.
  4. That 220 independent conservation societies throughout Australia support the restoration of Lake Pedder.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the members in Parliament assembled will move to make available to the Tasmanian Government a special grant for the purpose of securing Lake Pedder in its natural state.

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

Petition received.

page 2571

QUESTION

EDUCATION: ISOLATED CHILDREN’S ALLOWANCES

Mr DRUMMOND:
FORREST, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– My question is directed to the Minister for Education. I believe that many representations have been made to him, particularly from Western Australia, regarding the Commonwealth’s living away from home allowance for isolated children. Did the Minister anticipate when introducing this benefit that some States would discontinue their assistance in this field? Secondly, is he aware of the reality of the means test in truly isolated areas such as the north of Western Australia?

Mr BEAZLEY:
Minister for Education · FREMANTLE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP

– I have not had many representations on this issue at all. I have had representations from a gentleman named Withers in the State Parliament in Western Australia, and the nature of the campaign that he is waging on this issue, I believe, has so misrepresented the means test that it is discouraging people from applying for allowances. The rate of applications in Western Australia is astonishingly low. Some thousands of application forms have been sent out but probably only about one-third of them have come back. Over 700 have received the minimum isolated children’s grant of $350 plus the living allowances. I agree that there is a problem in this area and I am having examined the question of zonal allowances to see whether the means test, which we have simply adopted from our predecessors, is realistic or not. That is something that is subject to review. One other aspect of the honourable gentleman’s question has slipped my mind.

Mr Drummond:

– It related to the reality of the means test in the north in view of the cost of living.

Mr BEAZLEY:

– That is the. matter which I said was subject to review. The other aspect related to the question of the States. When we launched this scheme an appeal was made to the State governments to continue their forms of assistance monetarily, their travel warrants, rail warrants and so on that assist isolated children. Not all of the States have retained them. This is a matter we will have to consider. But I urge people to apply. The rate of applications is very slow. All isolated children are entitled to a minimum of $350 and it is vitally important that all their applications come in so we can get a clear picture of where we going in what is after all a new scheme as far as the Commonwealth is concerned.

page 2572

QUESTION

MIGRANTS: TASK FORCES

Mr INNES:
MELBOURNE, VICTORIA

– I address my question to the Minister for Immigration. A number of migrants in my electorate have contacted me indicating that they believe that if the migrant task force is permitted to operate in a positive way without simply becoming a rubber stamp for the Department of Immigration it will offer a great service to migrants in general. I have been told that a memorandum has been issued in the Department to the effect that information is not to be released to the task force. Will the Minister assure the House that the memo w.~s circulated without his authority and that the task force will have any information made available to it to enable it to complete the work allocated to it?

Mr GRASSBY:
Minister for Immigration · RIVERINA, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I want to make it plain at the outset that task forces have been established to identify the most urgent problems and to recommend solutions in the short term in the areas in which they have been established. They have been set up in every capital city in all States. I gather that the honourable member was asking about the Victorian task force set up in Melbourne. I must say very bluntly that I have not heard of any such memo. I know of no such memo. I would be very surprised if one had been formulated in those terms because I have given clear instructions that all possible help, cooperation and information will be made available to these forces. That is the exact position in regard to the task forces. They must have all possible help in order to do their jobs because they are essentially a short term force to do emergency jobs in relation particularly to the Government’s desire to stop the wastage and to end the drain of people from our country. Following upon the question that has been posed by the honourable member I will have urgent inquiries made and I will advise him before the end of the day on the specific matter that he has raised. But he has my assurance that there will be the fullest cooperation and the maximum facilities will be made available to enable the task forces to discharage their important jobs.

page 2572

QUESTION

PACIFIC ISLANDS REGIMENT: ROLE

Mr PEACOCK:
KOOYONG, VICTORIA

– I ask the Minister for Defence why the Pacific Islands Regiment is still being trained in internal security techniques notwithstanding the Minister’s own denial of such a role in the future.

Mr BARNARD:
Minister for Defence · BASS, TASMANIA · ALP

– It should be pointed out at this stage that the future of the Pacific Islands Regiment and its role are matters being discussed between departmental officials from Papua New Guina and officials from the Department of Defence. No decision has been made on any of these matters. It was at the request of Mr Somare, the Chief Minister of Papua New Guinea, that the discussions are being held. In point of fact they are taking place this week. Any decision made would be with the approval of the Papua New Guinea Government.

page 2572

QUESTION

SUGAR: SALE TO CHINA

Mr FULTON:
LEICHHARDT, QUEENSLAND

– I ask the Minister for Northern Development whether it is a fact that a large sale of sugar has been made to China in recent days. Was this sugar sold within the provisions of the International Sugar Agreement? What was the price received for the sugar?

Dr PATTERSON:
Minister for Northern Development · DAWSON, QUEENSLAND · ALP

– It is a fact that a substantial quantity of sugar - 50,000 tons - has just been sold to the People’s Republic of China. The honourable member will appreciate that I am not able to give the precise details of the price because of obvious commercial reasons and the practice that is followed when selling sugar to countries within the provisions of the International Sugar Agreement. China is not a member of the Agreement and all aspects of the sale were conducted within the provisions which apply to the sale of sugar to countries which are not members of the Agreement. The sale is excellent news as far as Australia is concerned because following on the successful achievements of the trade mission which is at present in China with respect to wheat and wool it is now clear that this very large sale of sugar heralds the expansion of good trading relations between Australia and China. I can assure the honourable member that the actual value of the sugar certainly is in conformity with existing commercial prices, which would mean that based on the present world free trade price the sale would be worth about $8. 5m. I believe that Australia also has an excellent chance of selling more sugar to China. There is every indication that this will occur, particularly in view of the ability of this country to supply very high grade sugar, to provide regular shipments and to live up to the highest standards of international trade.

page 2573

QUESTION

HMAS ‘SYDNEY’: FRENCH NUCLEAR TESTS: WITHDRAWAL OF AUSTRALIAN FORCES FROM SINGAPORE

Mr SINCLAIR:
NEW ENGLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is directed to the Minister for Defence. Accepting, as members on this side of the House do, the necessity for all reasonable steps to be taken to try to prevent future nuclear explosions in the atmosphere, whether by the People’s Republic of China or by France, what purpose does the Minister believe will be served by the dispatch of HMAS ‘Sydney’ or any other Australian naval vessel to Mururoa Atoll or thereabouts, apparently in order to intrude on the nuclear explosion area? What manner of option is to be provided for the personnel on board HMAS ‘Sydney’? Are all ranks and all persons to be given the opportunity to elect whether or not they will sail on the ‘Sydney’? Is it not true that if all men were to exercise that option the vessel would be unable to sail? Finally, what effect will the dispatch of the ‘Sydney’ have on the withdrawal of Australian forces from Singapore if the previously announced forward program for the ‘Sydney’ - namely, its refitting and then its sailing to South-East Asia in order to withdraw troops later this year - is disrupted?

Mr BARNARD:
ALP

– I made a statement in answer to a previous question in this House concerning the Government’s attitude to nuclear testing in the Pacific area. The Government believes that there is a responsibility on it to protest in a vigorous way and for that purpose it has instituted proceedings before the International Court of Justice. It is the Government’s view that emphasis should be placed on this protest in this way. As a result of my discussions with the Prime Minister of New Zealand, who had indicated previously that the New Zealand Government would be sending a frigate to the area, and having regard to the request which he made to the Australian Government through me for assistance with refuelling, I indicated that a ship would be made available - either the HMAS ‘Supply’ or the HMAS ‘Sydney’ - for that purpose, but that the ship would remain outside the fall-out area.

Instructions have been issued by me to the commanding officers involved that the exercise is to proceed in this way. It is therefore regarded as a normal naval exercise, but the vessel will provide refuelling facilities for the New Zealand frigate. These are the clear instructions that have been given to the Department of the Navy. I indicated at tha same time that as it was a naval exercise it was not anticipated that crew members would not want to participate in that exercise, but that if any crew member believed, for political or other reasons or as a matter of conscience, that he should not remain a member of the crew he would be given the opportunity to withdraw from the planned schedule of sailing. This has been done. As the honourable gentleman would know, under the normal process, a seaman under the regulations is able to provide reasons why he believes he should not join or participate in an exercise and those regulations still apply. Any member of the crew will have the right to have his objection considered and if it is regarded as a reasonable objection in the terms of the conditions which I have just put to the House, he would not be required to join the complement on that exercise.

In regard to the last part of the honourable member’s question, I can give him an assurance that it is the firm intention of this Government that the withdrawal to Australia of the battalion and the battery, the combat forces now located in Singapore, will begin at the end of 1973 and be completed early in 1974. The anticipated exercise of the ‘Supply’ or the ‘Sydney’ will have no impact on that program.

page 2574

QUESTION

CANADIAN HEALTH SCHEME

Dr KLUGMAN:
PROSPECT, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Has the Minister for

Social Security seen a statement alleged to have been made by the Canadian Deputy Minister for Health and Welfare and used by the Australian Medical Association, the General Practitioners Society and professional letter writers employed by Messrs Turner and Cade of the hospitals contribution fund and medical benefits funds who quoted the Canadian Deputy Minister as saying:

We have come to the inescapable conclusion that we have the wrong system.

Has the Minister for Social Security had any checks made on that statement and can he tell us whether in fact that quotation referred to the whole of the Canadian health system?

Mr HAYDEN:
Minister for Social Security · OXLEY, QUEENSLAND · ALP

– It is true that the various associations and other bodies mentioned by the honourable member have in fact been using this quote, especially the General Practitioner’s Society and its Federal President, Dr Peter Arnold. In fact, in an after dinner chat last night with Peter, I drew his attention to the fact that it seemed - inadvertently, I am sure - that the Society and other bodies mentioned by the honourable member were using the quote out of context. My Department has been in correspondence with Dr LeClair, the Deputy Minister for Health and Welfare in Canada, about this quotation which, incidentally, has been used by those bodies in Australia in reference to the Canadian health insurance program. The letter sent by Dr LeClair is a copy of the letter he sent to the Wall Street Journal’, which was the source of the quote used in Australia. The ‘Wall Street Journal’ did not see fit to print his letter, which was written as a protest. Dr LeClair said:

The statement attributed to me that, ‘we have come to the inescapable conclusion that we have the wrong system’, has been taken completely out of context. When this remark was made I was referring to the health care delivery system being too hospitaloriented (and thus expensive) and not to our major health insurance programs.

The professional letter writers and the people with special interests who are using this quote, also used it in conjunction with a claim of uncontrollable cost escalations besetting the Canadian system of health insurance. These bodies quoted the year 1972 and used various figures indicating increases of 11 per cent or 13 per cent in medical costs. They neglected to point out that in 1972, under our present program of insurance, Australian medical costs increased by over 21 per cent. We would be doing well to achieve the sort of result the Canadians did. These bodies have also made the claim that the Canadian system has led to over-utilisation and unnecessary utilisation by members of the public, so I should make 2 more quotes from Dr Leclair’s letter in reference to the McGill and Alberta universities. He said:

The McGill study showed that there is about the same proportion of patients coming to see doctors without reasonable cause’ since medicare as before. A study by the University of Alberta found that in that province the average annual rate of physician visits per insured person was not significantly changed as a result of the introduction of universal coverage. These are ‘hard facts’ based on careful study as opposed to intuitive speculation.

However there is sufficient data to establish that the rate of increase in medical costs is rather less than it was prior to the introduction of the program, but still higher than the rate of growth in Gross National Product.

That faster rate of growth in costs than the rate of growth of gross national product is a problem common to developing economies. I trust that the people who have been using this quote will now correct the wrong impressions they have been creating. I am sending a copy of Dr LeClair’s letter to the Australian Medical Association journal in the hope that it will give it equal prominence to the article from the ‘Wall Street Journal’ which it fully published and which was a complete misrepresentation of Dr LeClair’s statement.

page 2574

QUESTION

WAR SERVICE HOMES LOANS FOR BRITISH EX-SERVICEMEN

Mr LLOYD:
MURRAY, VICTORIA

– My question is addressed to the Minister for Defence. The Victorian State President of the Returned Services League was reported in the Melbourne ‘Sun’ of 15 January as saying that the Minister for Defence, prior to the election and when he was Deputy Leader of the Opposition and spokesman on defence and repatriation matters, had informed the President of the British subbranch of the Returned Servicemen’s League that if elected the Australian Labor Party would amend the appropriate Act to provide war service homes loans for British exservicemen resident in Australia. I ask the Minister: Did he make such a promise in writing to the President of the British sub-branch of the Returned Servicemen’s League prior to the election and, if he did, when will eligibility be extended to this group?

Mr BARNARD:
ALP

– The history of this matter, of course, goes back to the days of the previous Government when it adamantly refused consistently to extend the benefits of the War Service Homes Division and repatriation benefits to British servicemen in this country. Representations were made to me at that time advising that the then Government had refused such request. I indicated at the time that both the Prime Minister and myself were sympathetic to this request and that it would be examined. I have since had discussions with my colleague, the Minister for Repatriation, Senator Bishop, and he has authorised an investigation within his Department. It is hoped that the Government will be in a position to be able to make a statement concerning its attitude to providing additional benefits in this way if it can be done within the limits of other budgetary considerations. Therefore the decision from the Department will be available for the Government’s determination at the time of the Budget.

page 2575

QUESTION

HEALTH: ABORIGINAL CHILDREN

Mr MATHEWS:
CASEY, VICTORIA

– Is the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs aware that the incidence of scabies among Aboriginal children in east Gippsland threatens to reach epidemic proportions? Is he aware that health services in the area are not coping with this emergency? Does he believe that since the 1967 referendum the Australian Government has had the responsibility for making good deficiencies of this kind? Will he therefore dispatch as a matter of urgency an Australian Government medical team to the East Gippsland area?

Mr BRYANT:
Minister for Aboriginal Affairs · WILLS, VICTORIA · ALP

– I am aware that the honourable member visited the area recently. I have received quite a number of protestations from people in the area about the neglect by the Victorian Government of its duties to the people in the district. One of the difficulties one faces is that the Victorian Government does not come forward and say that it needs help in this area. It also has inflicted upon the people an attitude towards Aboriginal self-help which is, in fact, a piece of ideology. In other words, the Victorian Government leaves the people very much to themselves. I am arranging for a study of the area to see whether we can establish some medical service of the type which is now operating in Sydney. I shall discuss the matter with my colleague, the Minister for Health. I shall also discuss it with the appropiate Minister in Victoria to see whether we can, by some cooperation, establish a full time, thoroughgoing medical service for the people in the district.

page 2575

QUESTION

DOMICILIARY NURSING BENEFIT

Mr BOURCHIER:
BENDIGO, VICTORIA

– My question which is addressed to the Minister for Social Security concerns an anomaly which has arisen under the domiciliary nursing scheme. Recently the Department of Social Security rejected an application for this benefit by a person residing in the town of Maldon on the basis that the patient must be receiving nursing care by a registered general trained nurse on a regular basis involving multiple visits each week. The Department went on to say that some exceptions may be made when persons live in remote areas and that in this instance each individual case will be considered. It then went on to point out that a trained nurse did not visit this case and that Maldon is not considered to be a remote area. As Maldon has no registered nurse in the area and therefore the facility is not available, what is considered to be a remote area in this context? Will the Minister reconsider this case in the light of the fact that it would be one of many where nurses are not available to provide the service required?

Mr HAYDEN:
ALP

– I am aware of the honourable member’s concern in this case because he has raised the subject with me before. I checked the details with the Department because of this quite understandable and commendable concern. I cannot give the honourable member a definition of what is supposed to be meant by ‘remote’. It seems to be an administrative arrangement which at this stage is still being developed towards some point of precision. To establish an arbitrary cut off point would lead to further anomalies and irritations. I think that experience might be a better guide. I might point out that this situation was passed on to us by the previous Minister for Health who appreciated the problems associated with trying to give a precise definition of a remote situation. There is an arrangement where if it is felt or it is clear that there is remoteness a more flexible requirement can be adopted in regard to nursing attention. Nonetheless there is a requirement for some sort of periodic nursing attention.

I have asked the Department to investigate fully the situation at Maldon which the honourable member has mentioned. The Department has informed me that it is making inquiries at present at nearby Castlemaine where there is in fact a domiliciary nursing service available to establish whether some arrangement can be made on some more flexible basis than that required in a normal situation where there is a readily available home nursing service. I will keep in contact with the Department about this matter and make sure that the honourable member is fully informed of the developments as they transpire. Finally I point out to the honourable member and to other honourable members that he has pinpointed another area of deficiency in this scheme and that it is the sort of area that leads to anomaly and irritation. This is one of the reasons why we want to change it if we can.

page 2576

QUESTION

MEDICAL BENEFIT FUNDS

Mr BERINSON:
PERTH, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– Has the attention of the Minister for Social Security been drawn to the reported allegation by the General Manager of the Medical Benefits Fund of Australia that figures released this week showing a large increase in hospital insurance reserves had been ‘deliberately distorted’ - I am using the General Manager’s words-to put the funds in a bad light? Have the figures been distorted deliberately or otherwise? Have they in fact been prepared on any different basis from that used in previous annual reports? If not, would it be fair to say that, whatever one’s view of the correct amount of resources, at least the indicated movement of reserves, that is, upwards, must be correct?

Mr HAYDEN:
ALP

– The only distortion in fact has been in statements by representatives of the health fund referred to. The basis for the accumulation of reserves and indeed, for calculating the financial performance of the fund mentioned in the report tabled in the Parliament this week, is exactly the same as that used last year and in previous years by the previous Government. I have checked with the Department of Social Security and I am advised that the arguments which have been put forward by spokesmen for the funds are not legitimate arguments and are not accepted, and that the basis on which the Department has made these calculations on this occasion - and it is consistent, I repeat, with every past occasion when they have made these calculationsis legitimate and is valid.

page 2576

QUESTION

NATURAL GAS PIPELINE

Mr FAIRBAIRN:
FARRER, NEW SOUTH WALES

– In the absence of the Minister for Minerals and Energy I ask the Prime Minister a question. The honourable gentleman will recall that the Minister for Minerals and Energy issued a statement on Tuesday in which he blamed the reason for any delay in the delivery of Gidgealpa gas to Sydney entirely on the New South Wales environmental impact inquiry. Is the Prime Minister aware that the Managing Director of Santos Ltd has written to the Australian Gas Light Co. advising that its ability to maintain the 1 December 1974 target date for the completion of all planned facilities relating to this initial supply to Sydney will begin to slip as it has been necessary to terminate arrangements with the engineering contractors for detailed design and specification? Is he also aware that this action was deemed necessary because the Minister for Minerals and Energy advised Santos Ltd during an interview that, until such time as the situation as to the ownership of the pipeline had been clarified, the consortium should not undertake any major capital investment? Does this not mean that the Minister was not correct when he claimed that only the environmental inquiry was delaying this project?

Mr WHITLAM:
Prime Minister · WERRIWA, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I recall that my colleague made a statement on this matter earlier this week. I have not seen any reference to a letter from Santos; still less have I seen a copy of any letter from Santos. It is now clear that the significant delay to the Pipeline Authority is not any environmental inquiry in New South Wales but the proceedings of the honourable member’s Party - that section of it - in the Senate.

page 2576

QUESTION

HOME UNITS FOR AGED PERSONS

Mr LUCHETTI:
MACQUARIE, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Will the Minister for Social Security cause a searching inquiry to be made into the conduct of home unit organisations to ascertain the operation of the administration of such organisations where pensioners and other aged persons are required to pay substantial sums of money to gain admission? I bring to the attention of the Minister a case that I referred to him some time ago where at Ryde, New South Wales, an age pensioner was called upon to pay$2,000 to gain admission and subsequently was asked to leave because she was in the process of selling a home which she owned at that time. Since then she has sold her home, has lost her $2,000 deposit and is in urgent need of accommodation.

Mr HAYDEN:
ALP

– The practice of paying key money is quite unsavoury. It is a practice to which my Party objected on many occasions when it was in Opposition. Any instances that are brought to my notice will be fully investigated. Indeed, I take the honourable member’s complaint a step further. I think that there is a strong case for having resident representation on any boards administering these homes or hostel units. It is most unsatisfactory that so many of the residents feel that accommodation rates are adjusted without any reference to them and without any explanation, to levels which they often regard as unjustifiably high. Whether they are right or wrong is not as important as the fact that they should be involved in the various processes of decisionmaking. Similarly, on request the residents in these homes ought to have full access to the minutes of any meetings of these committees and full access to the financial statements of the organisations. In my opinion, no increases in the accommodation rates should be made until a full explanation for such increases has been put to all the residents in these accommodation units. These are some of the areas that I currently have under review. In conjunction with the case mentioned by the honourable member, I will arrange for my Department to give even further consideration to them.

page 2577

QUESTION

REPATRIATION PENSIONS

Mr HOLTEN:
INDI, VICTORIA

– My question is addressed to the Minister for Defence in his capacity as Minister representing the Minister for Repatriation. I preface it briefly by reminding him that the Australian Labor Party’s pre-election policy speech stated that the Labor Government would ensure that the pension for totally and permanently incapacitated ex-servicemen would equal the minimum wage, that the general rate pension would be adjusted to 50 per cent of that wage and that other pensions and allowances would be adjusted proportionately. As the minimum wage recently was raised by $9 a week and in order to keep faith with that pre-election promise, will these 2 major pensions - the TPI and the general rate - and other pensions and allowances be adjusted forthwith? Has the Minister any idea how much these adjustments would cost?

Mr BARNARD:
ALP

– In Opposition the Government expressed the view, which of course was restated in the policy speech delivered by the Prime Minister, that the total and permanent incapacity rate, the special rate pension, would be adjusted in line with the minimum wage in this country. The honourable gentleman, as the former Minister for Repatriation, will know that one of the first actions of the first Whitlam Ministry was to adjust the TPI rate to that figure. Incidentally, the honourable member for Indi was the Minister who presided over a department that left the 100 per cent general rate pension unaltered for about 8 years. There has since been-

Mr Holten:

– We are talking about the future now.

Mr BARNARD:

– I ask the honourable member to show some patience. I know there is not a great deal of understanding of these matters, but he will know that there has been an increase in the minimum wage. Obviously the Government will consider what attitude it should take to raise the rate of pension to the new level of the minimum wage. Surely no one would expect that this ought to be an immediate decision, but naturally since it is a policy matter it is now under consideration by the Minister for Repatriation. Again, in line with other decisions relating to social security and repatriation benefits generally, this will be part of budgetary decisions when these matters are under consideration in the very near future.

The former Minister for Repatriation also asked me whether I was aware of the actual cost of increasing the special rate of pension to the new level of the minimum wage. I indicate to the honourable member that this is a matter that would naturally be considered by the Minister for Repatriation. I shall endeavour to obtain the information for the honourable gentleman and provide him with an answer.

page 2577

QUESTION

QUEENSLAND TELEPHONE SERVICES

Mr KEOGH:
BOWMAN, QUEENSLAND

– I ask the PostmasterGeneral: Is he aware that in the last 2 financial years the actual demand for telephone services in Queensland has exceeded the national average and has been shown to have been 10.6 per cent in 1970-71 and 13.5 per cent in 1971-72? Can he say whether these figures and the increase indicated by them show the seriousness of the current backlog of service connections in the Brisbane and surrounding metropolitan areas where some people face a 2-year wait for the connection of telephone services? Can the Minister also say what plans, in addition to those he has already announced and put into operation, are proposed to reverse the alarming trend disclosed in the figures I have quoted?

Mr Lionel Bowen:
KINGSFORD-SMITH, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– It is true that the situation in Queensland is acute and has been acute for some period of time. The demand in Queensland is some 40 per cent higher than in the previous year. It is well above the national average which is about 29 per cent. The number of deferred applications is in excess of 5,000, of which some 2,000 would be in the metropolitan area of Brisbane. It is also interesting to note that in 1970 the deferred applications were a mere 800, whereas at December last they were 5,000. This goes back to the failure to recognise where demand would occur and the inability to allocate resources. This coming year more money will be made available to Queensland on the basis that more telephone services will be provided. It is expected that demand will continue to increase even further because of the basic defect of failure to plan in advance. I am not hopeful that the honourable member’s question will be satisfied to the extent that we can say that all outstanding applications will be met, but it is clear that the number of new services to be connected in Queensland in the coming financial year will be at least 10,000 in excess of those connected this financial year.

page 2578

QUESTION

FRENCH NUCLEAR TESTS: TELEPHONE BAN

Mr SNEDDEN:
BRUCE, VICTORIA

– I direct my question to the Prime Minister. Did he privately tell the telephone switch girls’ union one thing in relation to bans on communications with French enterprises in Australia and did he say the opposite publicly? What is his Government’s attitude to the present union bans?

Mr WHITLAM:
ALP

– I did see some such allegation in the newspapers. It is completely without foundation. I have not spoken to any of the organisations concerned other than in the terms of the telegram which I sent to all of them and which I read to the House last week. Honourable members will be glad to know that Australia’s international obligations to French posts in Australia are being fulfilled.

page 2578

QUESTION

INDUSTRY RESEARCH FUNDS

Mr WHAN:
EDEN-MONARO, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I direct my question to the Minister for Science. Does the practice of funding research from industry funds create difficulties in planning research? Has the Minister received complaints from research groups on aspects of this funding and the difficulties that are created?

Mr MORRISON:
Minister for Science · ST GEORGE, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– The question of the research funds provided through industry levies does give cause for some concern. The efficacy relies on the buoyancy of the industry, so when the industry is enjoying a buoyant time research funds are available. However, when the obverse is correct, I do not think it really relates to the necessity of research. One could well require more research when the rate of development in secondary or primary industry is down. It seems to me that a research program based on the buoyancy or otherwise of an industry is perhaps not the best way of approaching research programs. I can tell the honourable member that the Minister for Primary Industry and myself are now examining the various research programs. The major one that we are looking at is the wool research program. When we have finalised a viewpoint on the future of the research programs, particularly in the primary industries, we will make a proposal to the Government and in due course the House will be informed.

page 2578

QUESTION

GAS PIPELINE: DELAY IN CONSTRUCTION

Mr GORTON:
HIGGINS, VICTORIA

– The Prime Minister will remember that a few minutes ago he informed the honourable member for Farrer that the month’s long delay in the construction of the gas pipeline was due to the actions of the Liberal Party in the Senate. Since the Bill to construct the pipeline only passed through this House at the end of last week and was introduced in the Senate only this week, and since debate on it already has started, will he agree that his attribution of delay to the actions of the Liberal Party in the Senate is ill based, erroneous and misleading?

Mr WHITLAM:
ALP

– 1 am very happy to take the opportunity that the right honourable gentleman affords me to make matters a bit clearer on this issue. I believe I said to the honourable member for Farrer that any delay would now be due to the- (Opposition members interjecting)-

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The House will come to order.

Mr WHITLAM:

– It certainly has not been my view or the view of my colleague the Minister for Minerals and Energy that there should not be an environmental inquiry into this matter in New South Wales, under New South Wales law. In fact my colleague, and my other colleagues, the Minister for Urban and Regional Development and the Minister for the Environment and Conservation, all jointly briefed counsel to assist the New South Wales authority in coming to a conclusion on the environmental aspects of this pipeline. My Government has applauded environmental statements being prepared on all such matters, and in fact we are insisting that they should be prepared where any Commonwealth funds are concerned. What the right honourable gentleman says about the Pipeline Authority Bill, of course, is quite true. It went through this House without opposition by any members of any party. The Bill should now have gone through the Senate, but it seems to be one of those unfortunate cases where the Liberal Party finds that it is 2 parties in this Parliament. There is a party in the House of Representatives and a party in the Senate. Who runs the Party as a whole? Things have deteriorated, if that is possible, since the right honourable gentleman inherited a united Liberal Party in this Parliament. It is a matter of great alarm to all Australians - not least those business interests, those investors to whom I see the present notional head of the Liberal Party has made an appeal - that their representatives in the Senate are making such a mess of the Australian economy and are persisting in all proposals which will dissipate Australian resources. That is, we find that the Liberal Party in the Senate is now taking a completely different attitude from the Liberal Party in the House of Representatives on matters such as the Seas and Submerged Lands Bill and the Pipeline Authority Bill.

Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

– The Victorian elections are over.

Mr WHITLAM:

– I notice there are some interjections. Of course, what Liberals should realise in the Senate is that even Liberals can survive if they get on the wave length of the future, and the Liberal Leader in Victoria got on that wave length.

page 2579

WHEAT RESEARCH ACT

Dr PATTERSON:
Minister for Northern Development · Dawson · ALP

– Pursuant to section 18 of the Wheat Research Act 1957, I present the 15 th annual report of the activities under the Act for the year ended 31 December 1972.

page 2579

AUSTRALIAN EGG BOARD

Dr PATTERSON:
Minister for Northern Development · Dawson · ALP

– Pursuant to section 23 of the Egg Export Control Act 1947-1966, I present the 25th annual report of the Australian Egg Board on the operation of the Act for the year ended 30 June 1972 together with financial statements and the report of the Auditor-General on those statements. An interim report of the Board was presented to the House on 12 September 1972.

page 2579

AUSTRALIAN COUNCIL FOR THE ARTS

Report and Ministerial Statement

Mr WHITLAM:
Prime Minister and Minister for Foreign Affairs · Werriwa · ALP

– by leave - For the information of honourable members, I present the interim report which I have received from the Australian Council for the Arts.

In my Policy Speech I indicated that a Labor Party Government would provide substantially increased support for the arts. This support would relate to a 2-fold objective - the pursuit of excellence and the spread of participation in the arts. We also proposed to extend the range and effectiveness of that support by setting up a new and independent council based on a series of specialist boards dealing wilh different art forms. When my Government took office, action was taken immediately to give effect to these policies. At the same time it was important to honour commitments already entered into by the previous Government so that there would be no interruption to work already in progress and planned. Furthermore, it was necessary to get responsible estimates for the increased activities envisaged and to prepare legislation for the new Council structure. I therefore decided to appoint the new Council, and its constituent boards, to undertake these tasks. On 26 January, Australia Day, a Council of 24 was appointed, including the Chairman cf the constituent Boards and others capable cf providing special knowledge of the arts and of the needs of the community in this field. On 16 February, after receiving advice from the chairman based on consultations in their respective fields, I appointed the members of boards dealing with theatre, music, visual arts, crafts, literature and film and television. The Aboriginal Arts Board was appointed later. I asked the Council to see that existing support for the arts was not disrupted; to prepare for me a charter for the new organisation and an outline of its operations which would serve as a basis for legislation; and to let me have urgently budgetary estimates for the coming year.

These initial arrangements were very flexible. Appointments to the Council and boards were for terms of no more than one or 2 years to allow for change and development and to ensure that the membership could quickly be adapted to any changes in the structure which might arise from the report of the Council. The boards have met a number of times. Some, in defining the scope of their work, have already proposed to move into new areas, to plan further ahead, and to tackle long-standing issues of importance to Australian artists such as the public lending right and copyright. Proposals to extend public enjoyment of and participation in the arts, to raise the status of artists in the community and to explore means of opening doorways to the arts for young people have also received prompt attention. The Council has now put together this preliminary report outlining how, in its view, it and the boards might operate. The report is based upon the broad objectives of government policy and defines the purposes of the Council and its powers awd responsibilities as a statutory corporation. In accordance with the Government’s policies, it provides that the powers of the Council should be used in ways which will ‘respect, uphold and promote the rights of artists to untrammelled freedom in the practice of their arts.’

In defining the structure of the Council. and boards and their inter-related procedures, the report aims to ensure that artists and others active in the arts are predominant in the proposed membership, while ensuring ade quate consideration of the interests of the public generally. The report is not final. The Council has asked me to authorise its release - along with notes on some of the main areas of differing opinion - to organisations and persons interested. I have told the Council that I am happy to invite organisations and persons with a special interest in the arts freely to express their views on the proposals.

Mr Speaker, I welcome the opportunity which this preliminary report presents to reaffirm the importance which my Government attaches to the arts. The legislation which will follow the Council’s final report will be designed not merely to improve the material conditions of those engaged in them and to widen the range of those who participate but to guarantee to the arts the independence without which they cannot flourish. Around the world there are great writers whose works never see the light of day in their own countries, painters obliged to bend their talents to political dictation, creative talent crippled by censorship and control. The legislation will, we hope, be seen as a charter to safeguard the integrity of our artists and their works.

I hope, therefore, that honourable members, as individuals and as members of appropriate committees of this Parliament, will study this interim report so that we may have the benefit of their wisdom as well as that of all those Australians who value the arts and see in them, as does my Government, a means to the enrichment of life for all Australians.

page 2580

PERSONAL EXPLANATIONS

Mr SNEDDEN:
Leader of the Opposition · Bruce

Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! Does the honourable gentleman claim to have been misrepresented?

Mr SNEDDEN:

– Yes. I have been misrepresented by 2 people. It is curious to find such a combination of 2 persons both misrepresenting me on successive days. The honourable member for Blaxland (Mr Keating) said at question time yesterday that he had put questions on the notice paper. He said in his question yesterday:

  1. . after I was informed by the then Prime Minsiter and Treasurer -

The then Treasurer was myself. The honourable member said that after being informed by them he withdrew the questions. The honourable member later withdrew the allegation. I did not inform him. He came into the House later, attempted to make the position clear and said that I had sent a message to him. It is not true that I sent a message. In fact, I have never sent any kind of message to him in my life - not even a happy 21st birthday message. The fact of the matter is that the honourable member is being juvenilely naive. This place is well known to be a place of pranks and obviously what has happend here is that somebody has played a prank on the honourable member. I can only suggest to him that if he wants to defend himself against similar pranks in the future he should consult with the honourable member for Moreton (Mr Killen) who will give him some of the folklore of this place about how people like him have been misled. I did not inform the honourable member for Blaxland; I sent no message to him; and nobody was authorised on my behalf to take him any message at any time about anything. All I can suggest to the honourable member is that if he has been naive and has had a prank played on him, the sooner he apologises for the imputations the better it will be for his reputation.

Mr McMahon:

Mr Speaker, I have been misrepresented.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The leader of the Opposition has a second personal explanation to make.

Mr SNEDDEN:

– As my colleague, the right honourable member for Lowe (Mr McMahon), was misrepresented in the same, way, I will save my second personal explanation until after he has dealt with this matter.

Mr SPEAKER:

-I call the right honourable member for Lowe.

Mr Keating:

Mr Speaker, could I seek leave to -

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I have already called the right honourable member for Lowe. Does the right honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?

Mr McMAHON:
Lowe

– Yes, I do. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr Snedden) has mentioned the facts leading up to this incident in the statement he has just made and I will base my remarks on them in the statement I now intend to make. I will put it as shortly as I can. I had not discussed the question of the withdrawal of the relevant questions that were placed on the notice paper, relating to travailing allowances, with the Leader of the Opposition at any time, until yesterday; nor did I request any member of Parliament to approach the honourable member for Blaxland (Mr Keating) and convey a message to him from me asking him to withdraw the relevant question. The fact is that from the date of the withdrawal of the Kerr recommendations relating to members salaries and allowances I had given an unqualified commitment to have those increased Canberra travelling allowances brought before, the Parliament in due course.

Mr KEATING:
Blaxland

- Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?

Mr KEATING:

– Yes, by both the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Snedden) and the right honourable member for Lowe (Mr McMahon). The details as I outlined them yesterday were correct. The salaries Bills were introduced by the then Prime Minister in December and after the failure to pass the Bills I placed on notice a question relating to the payments, other than salary, made to each Minister in the year 1970-71. That question lay on the notice paper for a period of 4 months. It was placed on the notice paper on 9 December.

On 19 April 1972 1 was approached by an intermediary who said that he had a message from the. 2 honourable gentlemen I have mentioned requesting that I take the question off the notice paper and indicating that if I did not do so the increase in the Canberra allowance from $15 to $22 would not be forthcoming to my colleagues. I told him that that was not the way I normally operated and to tell the 2 honourable gentlemen to take a jump at themselves. The next day he came back again with the same request, only this time it was in more serious terms. He said: ‘If you do not take it off none of them will get the increase, and I do not think you ought to hold it back for every member of the House’. So I went to the Senior Parliamentary Officer at about 11 o’clock in the evening and asked him to take the question off.

I have here page 13302 of the notice paper of 20 April 1972. It shows question No. 4941, asked by the honourable member for

Grayndler (Mr Daly), followed by my question No. 4944. On the next day of sitting, 26 April 1972, notice paper No. 167 showed question No. 4941, asked by the honourable member for Grayndler. My question had gone from the notice paper. Mr Speaker, yesterday I also mentioned that you had asked questions on a similar subject and that you had been given the same treatment. In notice paper No, 166 of 20 April 1972, following question No. 5119, asked by the present Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam), there were 3 questions asked by you relating to a similar topic. On the next day of sitting, 26 April, question No. 5119 which was asked by Mr Whitlam remained on the notice paper but yours had disappeared. But yours, Mr Speaker, had not disappeared because they were answered; they were taken off in a similar way to mine. The next day of sitting was 26 April. That same day the then Prime Minister made a statement dated 26 April containing details of the allowances. So I will leave it to the Parliament to make its own assessment

Mr Whitlam:

– That was the only rapid decision they ever made.

Mr KEATING:

– Quite so. The point is chat the 2 gentlemen may not remember the circumstances but they are very humble and contrite gentlemen these days. I ask the Mouse to cast its mind back to 1971, when the now Labour Opposition burst into

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The honourable gentleman is starting to debate the question. I think he has made his case.

Mr KEATING:

– No, Mr Speaker, I am trying to outline the circumstances concerning this matter.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The honourable member is not allowed to debate the matter.

Mr KEATING:

- Mr Speaker, let me say this: I removed my question from the notice paper because I was approached twice by an Intermediary. If the 2 right honourable gentlemen opposite want to know who it was, I will not break a confidence but will write the name on a piece of paper and give it to them, and they can sort it out themselves. Obviously, Mr Speaker, you also removed your question. It was not answered. It was a question on a similar subject to mine and we had had a conversation about it. We both know why it was taken off the notice paper; the increase was subsequently paid. I know that the 2 honourable gentlemen concerned want to try to wriggle out of the allegation but they cannot; it is as simple as that.

Mr SNEDDEN (Bruce- Leader of the Opposition) - Mr Speaker, I wish to make a statement about this matter.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! Is leave granted?

Mr Whitlam:

– Oh yes!

Mr SPEAKER:

– There being no objection, leave is granted.

Mr SNEDDEN:

– The honourable member for Blaxland (Mr Keating) continues to make an allegation that somebody went to him. If anybody went to him about anything they did not do it at my request or with my authority. I have no idea whom the honourable gentleman mixes with and anybody who talked to him did not talk with my authority. While the honourable member continues to make the allegation that whoever the messenger was, was there with my authority, he is lying. If he continues to do that, that is the only way it can be described.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I think the right honourable gentleman would be aware that the word ‘lying’ is unparliamentary. There are other ways of expressing it.

Mr SNEDDEN:

– I have used the words: ‘If he continues-

Mr Whitlam:

– Then you should withdraw.

Mr SNEDDEN:

– If the honourable member for Blaxland continues to do it, that is what it will be because I have said that nobody with my authority went to the honourable member as a messenger about anything. I cannot be responsible for conversations which the honourable gentleman has with any other person, whether the honourable member writes the name on a piece of paper or does not write it on a piece of paper. Nobody had a discussion with him on my behalf and he ought to know that he should not persist with that allegation.

Mir Keating - Mr Speaker, could I make a further personal explanation?

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I think we have reached a stage now-

Mr Whitlam:

– The word ought to be withdrawn.

Mr SPEAKER:

-I put to the Leader of the Opposition that there are other ways of expressing it. If he states that something is not true, I think the correct phrase to use is that it is a false statement, rather than accuse anyone of lying.

Mr SNEDDEN:

– Well, it is a false statement.

Mr Keating:

– I ask that the Leader of the Opposition withdraw that imputation because-

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The Leader of the Opposition just withdrew. He said it was a false statement. He is quite entitled to put it in that manner.

Mr Keating:

– No, Mr Speaker, I want him to withdraw the imputation that it was a false statement, because I want him to explain to the House, to clear my name, why you and I both withdrew our questions and why, on the next day of sitting-

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! There is no substance to the point of order.

Mr Keating:

– May I request that the relevant documents lie on the table?

Mr SNEDDEN:

– Yes, you can put them on the table, by all means.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The honourable member for Blaxland cannot table anything unless it is done by leave.

Mr Keating:

– Have I leave?

Mr SNEDDEN:

– Leave will be given him to table his grandmother, if he wants to.

Mr Keating:

– I seek leave to table the documents and have them incorporated in Hansard.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Is leave granted? There being no objection, leave is granted. (The documents read as follows) - 13302 No. 166-20 April 1972

  1. What was the (a) purpose, (b) length or visit and (c) total cost of each visit.
  2. On how many occasions was the wife of the Minister or office holder included in the delegation and what were the names of the persons concerned.
  3. What was the cost for the wife of those concerned on each occasion.
  4. What is the total cost of all these overseas visits during the 27th Parliament to date. 4941 Mr Daly: To ask the Prime Minister-
  5. How many visits abroad have been made by departmental officials in each year since the commencement of the 27th Parliament.
  6. What was the (a) purpose of each visit, (b) name and department of the officer concerned, (c) destination,

    1. countries visited and (e) total cost in each case.
  7. On how many occasions has the wife of an official accompan ed the delegation and what were (a) the names of those concerned and (b) the separate costs to the Government in each case
  8. What is the total cost of all these overseas visits during the 27th Parliament to date. 4944 Mr Keating: To ask the Prime Minister - What payments, other than salary, were made to each Minister during 1970-71, and what do these payments represent. 4946 Mr Keogh: To ask the Minister representing the Minister for Health-
  9. What amount was paid by the Commonwealth to Queensland (a) under the National Health Act as subsidies for both insured and uninsured occupied beds in public wards in Queensland public hospitals during 1969-70 and (A) under the amended National Health Act as a result of the requirement to pay a full $2 subsidy on all occupied beds during 1970-71.
  10. What is the estimated difference between the amount paid under the amended Act during 1970-71 and the amount which would have been paid if the amendment had not been made. 22 February 1972 4956 Mr Grassby: To ask the Prime Minister-
  11. Is it a fact that the plan which he announced in early December 1971 to remove 14,000 woolgrowers from the countryside involves families exceeding 40,000 people.
  12. Is it also a fact that the established ratio of producers to other rural residents is one to four so that the evacuation of about 100,000 people is involved in the plan.
  13. Is it the intention of the Government to establish refugee camps for the dispossessed within the capital cities.
  14. 4) Will steps be taken to provide transport for these people, preferably not in sheep trucks, as the $1,000 loan to be provided by the Government to those dispossessed will hardly cover the costs of moving 4957 Mr Klugman: To ask the Treasurer-
  15. What is the amount of Commonwealth estate duty payable in cases where an estate passes to a widow, widower, children or grandchildren, and where the dutiable value of the estate is (a) $19,999 or less, (b) $25,000, (c) $30,000,(d) $40,000, (e) $50,000 and (f) $100,000.
  16. On how many estates was probate granted during each of the years 1967-68. 1968-69, 1969-70 and 1970-71.
  17. How many of the estates referred to in part (2) were assessed for Commonwealth estate duty in each of those years. 4959 Mr Klugman: To ask the Minister representing the Minister for Health - What was the saving to (a) the Department of Health, (ft) hospital funds and (c) medical funds by treating psychiatric hospitals and their patients differently to other public hospitals in (i) non-payment to patients and (ii) non-payment to hospitals, in each of the last 10 years. 13398 No. 167-26 April 1972
  18. What was the (a) purpose, (ft) length of visit and (c) total cost of each visit.
  19. On how many occasions was the wife of the Minister or office holder included in the delegation and what were the names of the persons concerned.
  20. What was the cost for the wife of those concerned on each occasion.
  21. What is the total cost of all these overseas visits during the 27th Parliament to date. 4941 Mr Daly: To ask the Prime Minister -
  22. How many visits abroad have been made by departmental officials in each year since the commencement of the 27th Parliament.
  23. What was the (a) purpose of each visit, (ft) name and department of the officer concerned, (c) destination, 00 countries visited and (e) total cost in each case.
  24. On how many occasions has the wife of an official accompanied the delegation and what were (a) the names of those concerned and (ft) the separate costs to the Government in each case.
  25. What is the total cost of all these overseas visits during the 27th Parliament to date. 4946 Mr Keogh: To ask the Minister representing the Minister for Health -
  26. What amount was paid by the Commonwealth to Queensland (a) under the National Health Act as subsidies for both insured and uninsured occupied beds in public wards in Queensland public hospitals during 1969-70 and (6) under the amended National Health Act as a result of the requirement to pay a full $2 subsidy on all occupied beds during 1970-71.
  27. What is the estimated difference between the amount paid under the amended Act during 1970-71 and the amount which would have been paid if the amendment had not been made. 22 February 1972 4956 Mr Grassby: To ask the Prime Minister -
  28. ls it a fact that the plan which he announced in early December 1971 to remove 14,000 woolgrowers from the countryside involves families exceeding 40,000 people.
  29. ls it also a fact that the established ratio of producers to other rural residents is one to four so that the evacuation of about 100,000 people is involved in the plan.
  30. Is it the intention of the Government to establish refugee camps for the dispossessed within the capital cities.
  31. Will steps be taken to provide transport for these people, preferably not in sheep trucks, as the $1,000 loan to be provided by the Government to those disposessed will hardly cover the costs of moving. 4957 Mr Klugman: To ask the Treasurer -
  32. What is the amount of Commonwealth estate duty payable in cases where an estate passes to a widow, widower, children or grandchildren, and where the dutiable value of the estate is (a) $19,999 or less, (ft) $25,000, (c) $30,000, (d) $40,000, (e) $50,000 and (/) $100,000.
  33. On how many estates was probate granted during each of the years 1967-68, 1968-69, 1969-70 and 1970-71.
  34. How many of the estates referred to in part (2) were assessed for Commonwealth estate duty in each of those years. 4959 Mr Klugman: To ask the Minister representing the Minister for Health - What was the saving to (a) the Department of Health, (b) hospital funds and (c) medical funds by treating psychiatric hospitals and their patients differently to other public hospitals in (i) non-payment to patients and (ii) non-payment to hospitals, in each of the last 10 years.

No. 166-20 April 1972 13313

  1. What has been the (a) number and (ft) percentage of pupils at each school in each year who (i) sought and (ii) gained Commonwealth secondary scholarships.
  2. Which of these secondary schools have received assistance under the States Grants (Science Laboratories) Act or the States Grants (Secondary School Libraries) Act and what was the (a) date and (ft) amount of assistance in each case.
  3. What amount has been received each year by each of these schools under the States Grants (Independent Schools) Act. 5119 Mr Whitlam: To ask the Minister representing the Attorney-General - Since the Attorney-General’s answer to question No. 3334 (Hansard, 6 May 1971, page 2868) on what occasions and with what results have (a) the National Labour Advisory Council, (ft) its committee and (c) its sub-committee met to examine the urgent action recommended by the Commonwealth Industrial Court in Moore v. Doyle on 25 February 1969. 3123 Mr Cope: To ask the Prime Minister-
  4. Does the electorate allowance paid to the 125 Members of the House of Representatives and the 60 Senators comprise the following 5 cost components as determined by the Richardson Report: (a) car and other travel expenses within the electorate, (ft) postage stamps, (e) home telephone expenses, (rf) donations and (e) social activities.
  5. Do all Ministers and those with the same entitlements as Ministers receive for themselves and wives (a) unlimited use of car travel anywhere in Australia.(b) free postage stamps and (c) a free home telephone.
  6. If so, is there an apparent anomaly in Ministers and those with the same entitlements as Ministers receiving similar electorate allowances to private Members. 5124 Mr Cope: To ask the Prime Minister -
  7. Do Ministers and those with the same entitlements as Ministers receive a ravelling allowance when travelling outside Australia.
  8. Is it a fact that, if the wife of a Minister and those with the same entitlements as Ministers travels with her husband, all travel and accommodation costs of husband and wife are met by the Commonwealth. 5125 Mr Cope: To ask the Prime Minister - What sum was paid in travelling allowance, excluding the Canberra allowance, to each Minister and others with the same entitlements as Ministers in each of the financial years 1968-69. 1969-70 and 1970-71. 5126 Mr Everingham: To ask the Minister for Trade and Industry - Is he able to say what incentives Governments in Australia provide to reverse the trend towards adoption of planned accelerated obsolescence in consumer durables. 5136 Mr Wallis: To ask the Minister for the Environment, Aborigines and the Arts - What was the per capita expenditure on Aborigines for all purposes by both the Commonwealth and the States in each State in each of the last 5 years. 5138 Mr Hurford: To ask the Minister for the Interior-
  9. On how many occasions in 1971 did public servants of (a) the Northern Territory Division of the Department of the Interior, Canberra, and (b) other Commonwealth Departments in Canberra and the Northern Territory travel on duty first class by international airline between Darwin and Sydney.
  10. What were the main reasons for this travel by international airline instead of by internal airline.
  11. What was the aggregate additional expense incurred in fares because of this travel by international airline. 5144 Mrender by: To ask the Minister representing the Attorney-General -
  12. Have the Commonwealth Police completed their inquiries into the incident that was alleged to have occurred at the Prime Minister’s Lodge on 23 December 1971 when several shots were alleged to have been fired and an attempt made to use a petrol bomb.

No. 167-26 April 1972 13409 5119 Mr Whitlam: To ask the Minister representing the Attorney-General - Since the Attorney-General’s answer to question No. 3334 (Hansard, 6 May 1971, page 2868) on what occasions and with what results have (a) the National Labour Advisory Council, (6) its committee and (c) its sub-committee met to examine the urgent action recommended by the Commonwealth Industrial Court in Moore v. Doyle on 25 February 1969. 5136 Mr Wallis: To ask the Minister for the Environment. Aborigines and the Arts - What was the per capita expenditure on Aborigines for all purposes by both the Commonwealth and the States in each State in each of the last 5 years. 5138 Mr Hurford: To ask the Minister for the Interior -

  1. On how many occasions in 1971 did public servants of (a) the Northern Territory Division of the Department of the Interior, Canberra, and (b) other Commonwealth Departments in Canberra and the Northern Territory travel on duty first class by international airline between Darwin and Sydney.
  2. What were the main reasons for this travel by international airline instead of by internal airline.
  3. What was the aggregate additional expense incurred in fares because of this travel by international airline. 5144 Mr Enderby: To ask the Minister representing the Attorney-General -
  4. Have the Commonwealth Police completed their inquiries into the incident that was alleged to have occurred at the Prime Minister’s Lodge on 23 December 1971 when several shots were alleged to have been fired and an attempt made to use a petrol bomb.
  5. If so, what are the results of those inquiries.
  6. Has anyone been apprehended arising out of the incident.
  7. Have any charges been preferred.
  8. Has any inquiry by the police or otherwise been conducted into the part played in the incident by the Commonwealth police officers concerned.
  9. If so, what was the result of that inquiry.
  10. Has any disciplinary or other punitive action been taken against any Commonwealth policemen for any part played in the incident.
  11. Will the Attorney-General publish a full report of what happened. 5149 Mr Enderby: To ask the Minister for National Development-
  12. Is it a fact that three Japanese Companies, Marubeni Corporation, Okura Shoii and Nipon Kohan and Kaisha (Japan Steel and Tube Corporation) have been negotiating with an Australian Company, Magellan Petroleum Australia Ltd, which owns natural gas concession rights in Palm Valley, south-west of Alice Springs, to develop the natural gas resources of the Northern Territory and export natural gas to Japan.
  13. Is it also a fact that the Japanese firms have announced that they will invest some $1,000 million in this project.
  14. Have the announced preliminary surveys shown deposits of between 5 and 10 million cubic feet of natural gas to exist in the area.
  15. Does the project call for the construction of a 621 mile pipeline to carry the gas to the loading port of Carpentaria.
  16. Does the project also provide for the Japanese Companies to receive big orders for steel pipes, gas liquefying plants, liquefied natural gas (LNG) carriers and other relevant equipment.
  17. Can he supply details of the likely value to the Japanese Companies of the orders for this equipment.

page 2586

TRAVELLING ALLOWANCES FOR MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT

Statement by the Prime Minister, the Rt Hon. William McMahon, C.H., M.P.

In response to representations from both sides of the House, the amounts of travelling allowances paid to Members of Parliament have been reviewed.

Along with his recommendations for increased salaries, Mr Justice Kerr in his report tabled in Parliament on 8 December 1971 recommended that travelling allowances payable to Members and to Ministers and Office holders be increased. The Government subsequently decided not to proceed with any of the three Bills relating to increases in parliamentary salaries and allowances. That remains the position. Travelling allowances are not covered in this legislation and can be regarded separately from salaries, electorate allowances and ministerial allowances.

The travelling allowance or Canberra Allowance, paid to Members of Parliament for living expenses and out-of-pocket expenses incurred in attending parliamentary sitting has been $15 a day since 1968. Mr Justice Kerr recommended $22 a day. In several areas of the Commonwealth Service in Canberra in the less senior grades, the travelling allowance now paid is higher than the Canberra Allowance paid to Members of Parliament. It has been put that to meet Members’ increased living costs in Canberra and the increased costs of out-of-pocket expenses, the current rate of Canberra Allowance should be increased. It has been decided to accept this view and to increase the allowance to $22 a day as recommended by Mr Justice Kerr.

Mr Justice Kerr made recommendations about the payment of Canberra Allowance for party and committee meetings held when the Parliament is not sitting. These recommendations will be accepted.

It was also recommended that the conditions of payment of travelling allowance be clarified. With this objective, a review of the conditions of payment will be undertaken.

As part of his general review, Mr Justice Kerr recommended that Members of Parliament residing in the A.C.T. should receive half the Canberra Allowance. As this matter is now being treated in isolation, it has been decided that Members of Parliament residing in the A.C.T. will not receive any increase in Canberra Allowance but will not have the allowance reduced. These Members will continue to receive $15 a day.

Mr Justice Kerr recommended increased travelling allowances for Ministers and Office holders. In general, the amounts of these allowances have not changed since 1964. The allowances are paid for travel away from Canberra on official or parliamentary business. The recommended allowances were:

Prime Minister - $42 a day

Senior Ministers and Leader of the Opposition - $36 a day

Ministers, the Presiding Officers, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition and the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate - $33 a day

Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate and the Leader of the Second Non-Government Party in the Senate- $28 a day

These recommended amounts of travelling allowance will be paid.

The current travelling allowance of $21 a day payable to Members of some parliamentary committees for meetings away from Canberra will be increased to $25 a day. Travelling expenses will be reimbursed to assistant Ministers to a maximum of $25 a day.

The new rates will be payable from tomorrow. 26 April 1972.

Mr SNEDDEN:

– The second misrepresentation to which I referred was the misrepresentation by the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) in relation to the Pipeline Authority Bill. The rest of his diatribe I will ignore but on the Pipeline Authority Bill our position was made quite clear in this House by my colleague, the honourable member for Farrer (Mr Fairbairn) who moved an amendment to the second reading of this Bill, that the Opposition, through its policy committee, had not had ample time - indeed, it had had very little time - to consider its attitude to the Bill and any amemdments of detail which should be moved. Therefore, a general amendment was moved to the second reading of the Bill. We made it clear at the time that, because of a lack of time to consider the Bill in the Party and because of a guillotine on the Bill which would prevent us from moving all our amendments at the committee stages of the Bill, we would have to take a different attitude. It will be seen by a reference to the journals that we voted for our amendment and against-

Mr Whitlam:

– Did you vote on it in the Party?

Mr SNEDDEN:

– We voted against the second reading.

Mr Whitlam:

-It was consensual?

Mr SNEDDEN:

– Oh, be quiet, you foolish fellow. We voted against the second reading of the Bill in this chamber and made it clear that when the matter came to the Senate we would give it a passage through the second reading stage because we were not objecting to the principle of the Bill but we wanted the Bill to appear in a better form than that in which it appeared in this House. There have been a number of amendments moved and about to be moved in the Senate and to suggest a change of attitude is to state what is wrong. What did happen was what was intended to happen and was the view of the Party. As to the interjection by the Prime Minister asking whether we voted in the Party room on this matter, the answer is no, we did not, because we do not believe in our Party that members who may form a very considerable minority should be totally ignored and overridden in their attitudes to policy, even if the honourable gentleman wants to use his numbers in this House in that way.

page 2587

PIPELINE AUTHORITY BILL

Ministerial Statement

Mr CONNOR (Cunningham - Minister for

Minerals and Energy) - by leave - I wish to clarify a matter which was raised during my absence at question time this morning. Firstly, I regret my delay in arriving for question time. It was associated with matters relating to the Pipeline Authority Bill and its term in the Senate. It should be said that there has been a quite conscious attempt to load on to the Government any responsibility for the delays in connection with the construction of the proposed pipeline. Contact was made in mid-January with Sir William Pettingell and an offer was made to him that we would transmit through that pipeline the gas in the terms of the contract that he had entered into with the consortium at Gidgealpa on the same terms and conditions and that the gas in the terms of our concept would occupy only a small proportion of the total capacity of the pipeline. That offer still stands and we have at all times in our contacts with the spokesmen for the consortium and its various members stressed that point. The offer still stands. We will honour to the letter the undertaking which has been given. But this fact has been conveniently forgotten: At no time could the construction of the pipeline even commence unless and until the recommendations had been made by the commissioner who was holding an environmental impact survey. Under the terms of the New South Wales legislation, the East Australian Pipeline Corporation Ltd, which is a subsidiary of the Australian Gas Light Co. Ltd and which was used by it - and legitimately - for the purpose of the negotiations, the feasibility studies and the like, and which itself is actually the contracting party with the Gidgealpa consortium, in fact was the applicant under the terms of the New South Wales Pipelines Act for a licence to construct a pipeline. Unless and until that licence was granted no action could have been taken by East Australian Pipelines. That position still stands. The first decision to set up the environmental impact survey was taken by the New South Wales Government and it was announced that it would commence about 1 February last. The inquiry has concluded. The Commissioner, Mr Coffey, is still considering his recommendation. It has not yet been presented. He is a most dedicated and conscientious man. We have every respect for him and his judgment. When it is given we will certainly consider our position and give due weight to the recommendation.

Regarding the gravamen of the question asked by the honourable member for Farrer, naturally at all times - the Government has been contacted repeatedly by various members of the Gidgealpa consortium - we have indicated the position. To do otherwise would have been unfair. Having stated the facts to them fully and fairly it was a matter for their commercial judgment as to what action they took in the interim. The overriding question has been, as has been our special emphasis, that when the Commissioner gives his recommendation, as from that time we will be right into construction. In addition we propose at all times to do the utmost we can. In fact we have taken delivery of the pipes progressively as they have come from Japan. We have paid for them. They are being stored in Commonwealth custody. There have been very happy relations and continuous contact between the executive member of the proposed authority, Mr Donald, the technicians and professional advisers of the various companies associated with Sir William Pettingell. Everything that could be done has been done to expedite the construction. It is completely mischievous for the honourable member for Farrer to draw the inference he has chosen to draw from his particular question. It is rubbish.

Mr FAIRBAIRN:
Farrer

- Mr Speaker, I seek leave to make a statement on the same subject.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Is leave granted? There being no objection, leave is granted.

Mr FAIRBAIRN:

– This will be only a short statement but the Minister for Minerals and Energy (Mr Connor) said that it was rubbish for me to make an inference. I am glad to see that the Minister is in the chamber. I believe it is the duty of Ministers of the Government to be in the chamber at question time. The Minister would know that on 3 occasions it has been necessary for me to approach the Government Whip to find out why the Minister was not here because I was trying to ask important questions or refer matters to him. I hope that in future we will see him in the chamber. This, I believe, is the first priority of a Minister and not to be elsewhere during the hour devoted to questions. 1 point out that I was not making an inference. The Managing Director of Santos Ltd was not making an inference but was telling the person concerned to whom he will be selling his gas that it was perfectly clear that there would be a slippage in the delivery date and that there was nothing he could do about it because he had been forced, after an interview with the Minister, to terminate arrangements with the engineering contractors for detailed design and specifications. This is made clear in his letter. It is his allegation, not mine. He wrote:

Most of the Consortium companies are unwilling to undertake any major capital expenditure until such time as the participation and financing for each individual company has been finalised and agreed. This matter is being actively worked upon and we expect some concrete results within the next month. Nevertheless, it would appear unlikely that the group would be in a position to provide gas until about 1 May 1975 assuming the problems of participation and finance are overcome by early July of this year.

There is a slippage date of 6 months already, yet the Minister is trying to say that this was nothing to do with the present Government and that the only reason for any slippage date was the inquiry instituted by the New South Wales Government. That is completely incorrect.

page 2588

REPORT OF PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMITTEE

Mr HURFORD:
Adelaide

– As Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee I present the 143rd report of that Committee.

Ordered that the report be printed.

Mr HURFORD:

- Mr Speaker, I seek leave to make a short statement concerning the report.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Is leave granted? There being no objection, leave is granted.

Mr HURFORD:

– The 143rd report of the Public Accounts Committee comprises 3 Treasury minutes relating to previous reports of the Committee. These reports were the 121st report on the Department of Shipping and Transport - now the Department of Transport - the 127th report on the AuditorGeneral’s report for the financial year 1969- 70 and the 134th report, which dealt with under-expenditure from the Consolidated Revenue Fund under the Appropriation Acts for 1970-71.

The 121st report deals with a general inquiry into the financial administration of the Department of Shipping and Transport. In the conclusions to the report your Committee expressed concern, amongst other things, about the division of the Department’s central office between Melbourne and Canberra. It is pleasing to learn from the Treasury minute that the resumed program for transfer of departmental central offices to Canberra will result in that Department moving most of its central office to Canberra by the end of 1975. Also, in this Treasury minute we were informed that the Navigation Act, about which the Committee expressed some reservations, is being revised by a former First Assistant Secretary of that Department, working as a special consultant.

When we examined the Auditor-General’s report of 1969-70 the Committee expressed some concern about responsibility for school buildings. It may be recalled that this issue arose as a consequence of a major fire which destroyed the Lyneham primary school. We were pleased to be informed in the Treasury minute that the former Departments of the Interior, now Services and Property, and Education and Science, now Education, and the Department of the Treasury had agreed firstly, that all school buildings in the Australian Capital Territory should be regarded as special purpose buildings, and secondly, that the responsibility for maintaining assets registers for those buildings should rest with the Department of Education and Science.

The Treasury minute also told us that installation of thermal fire protection services in existing Australian Capital Territory primary schools had commenced, and a priority order for the progressive installation in other schools was being arranged. In addition, we are able to report that a feasibility study has commenced to determine the most efficient and economical burglar alarm system for use in existing and proposed education buildings.

Another matter which the Committee examined was the fraudulent issue and negotiation of cheques at a regional office of the Department of Social Services, now the Department of Social Security. Following this fraud, internal audit practice was strengthened by the use of statistical oriented sampling procedures for all regional office audits. In addition, the internal audit establishment was reorganised to provide for officers with greater training and qualifications to be engaged in this work.

The 134th report arose from the Committee’s annual examination of expenditure from the Consolidated Revenue Fund in 1970-71. The Committee found it necessary to refer to cases of unsatisfactory or inadequate administrative performances that resulted in shortfalls in expenditure and attention was drawn by the Committee to these inadequacies where they arose. In this particular report, we also suggested that departments engaged in the administration of legislation, ought to maintain a thorough knowledge of the provisions of the legislation concerned. We are pleased to note that the conclusions of the Committee were brought to the attention of the appropriate officers.

Before concluding, I would like to inform honourable members, particularly new members, of the procedures involved in this rather unique form of document called the Treasury minute. The practice of presenting Treasury minutes is the result of an arrangement made between the public accounts Committee and the Treasurer before the presentation of the Committee’s first report on 10 March 1953. The arrangement is that the Committee will forward a copy of each report to the Treasurer for consideration immediately that report is tabled. His reply, to take the form of a Treasury minute on the report, is to be included by the Committee in a later report to the Parliament. This 143rd report is one of those later reports to Parliament. Before preparing its minute, the Treasury consults the departments concerned and obtains their views on the points raised by the Committee. Essentially the Treasury minute system ensures that Committee recommendations are acted upon and informs members of the steps taken to meet their proposals. I commend the report to honourable members.

page 2589

SPECIAL ADJOURNMENT

Mr DALY:
Minister for Services and Property · Grayndler · ALP

– I move:

In explanation of this motion I might say that honourable members already will be aware of the need to sit tomorrow in order to ensure that the House can complete some of its business. For the guidance of honourable members I point out that the proposed hours of sitting will be 10 a.m. to 1 p.m. and 2.15 p.m. to 4.15 p.m. The House will then adjourn and resume next Tuesday at 10 a.m. when it will sit for the normal hours.

Mr LYNCH:
Flinders

– I would like to ask the Minister for Services and Property (Mr Daly) to consider a proposal for a later commencement time next Tuesday of next week. The honourable gentleman will be very well aware of the tremendous pressures which have been placed on the Opposition because of the procedures which have been introduced and which have made it extraordinarily difficult for the Opposition parties to formulate considered policy. It would be of great assistance to the Opposition parties if we had a later commencement time on Tuesday because this would enable-

Mr Keogh:

– The honourable member would be better advised-

Mr LYNCH:

– If the honourable gentleman would curb his intolerable impatience for one moment. . . I point out to the House that if this were done we could arrange an executive meeting and a Party meeting on Tuesday morning. Otherwise certain inconvenience will be caused to honourable members on this side of the House as a consequence of what has been proposed. 1 hope the honourable gentleman will consider and accept the proposition I have put forward.

Mr DALY:
Minister for Services and Property and Leader of the House · Grayndler · ALP

– I can consider the matter now for the honourable member. The hours of sitting as arranged stand until the end of this session. This arrangement has been decided by the House. I appreciate the honourable member’s concern, but the Government faces the same inconveniences. I ‘thought that the Government was adhering to a request from the Opposition in deciding that the Parliament should sit next week so that honourable members opposite could take up more time. I thought, because they seemed so anxious, that it would not have mattered to them if the Parliament commenced sitting at, say, 7 o’clock in the morning. However, I thought that would have been a little unreasonable. I thought 10 o’clock was not an unreasonable compromise in view of the anxiety of honourable members opposite to be here. Therefore, whilst I appreciate their problems, I point out that the Government faces much greater problems because it has the responsibility of introducing legislation. Consequently, although we would like to meet the Opposition’s wishes, I feel that any change might upset some of its members who are so anxious to sit next week. After due consideration I regret that we will have to continue sitting for the hours laid down.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 2590

YOUNG COUPLES’ HOME ASSISTANCE BILL 1973

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

Second Reading

Mr WENTWORTH:
Mackellar

– I move:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

The past Liberal Government concentrated its social service policy on relieving pockets of greatest need and hardship, and as that was progressively done obviously the next steps would have related to other groups where perhaps more people were involved, although the hardship might not have been so intense as that experienced by the aged and sick who had received relief through past policy.

I believe that now we have come to one of these greater and more important groups. I refer particularly to the young married couples and especially to the position of young married couples on the birth of the first child. At this stage, as honourable members will know, it very often happens that the 2 incomes which have been coming into the household are reduced to one at the very time when household expenses tend to increase and at a time probably when the fixed commitments that these young people have on their homes and for other capital goods still continue to press upon them. I will not go into the details of this at present because I do not have time to do so. But honourable members will realise that because of many causes - and I do not want to say that these are good or bad, but simply to record what has happened - over recent decades the position of the young married couple with a child has deteriorated in the community. This has not been a deterioration perhaps in absolute terms but it certainly is the case in the comparative terms which are important to so many people.

I, as a Minister in the past Government, commissioned Professor Henderson to undertake an inquiry into the various forms of poverty in Australia. I would not be surprised if when that report is issued it is found that among the people who are suffering most there are many of these young couples whom we would consider to be almost in a normal situation but who have family responsibilities which they find difficult to maintain. These people are not in an extraordinary situation. Many of them would be generally considered to be among the normal run of people. As I said, I do not intend to go into the details of why this is happening. I simply say that if honourable members look around their own electorates, friends, acquaintances and families they will know from their own experience many examples of the kind of situation to which I am referring.

I do not want to suggest for one moment that we should tolerate economic circumstances in which a wife with a young child is compelled against her will to take paid employment away from the home. I think this is socially bad. 1 believe it is one of the real problems to which we should be directing our attention. I am sure that we on this side of the House - and I hope I will be supported by honourable members on the other side in this regard - will be looking to raise the standards of living of these people whom one would almost regard-

Mr Martin:

– 1 rise on a point of order and to seek some guidance. My point of order is that there does not appear to be any definition in the Bill of a young couple.

Mr WENTWORTH:

– Oh!

Mr Martin:

– No, I am quite serious. This is the first time that I have seen the Bill and I cannot find in it any definition of a young couple.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Drury:
RYAN, QUEENSLAND

– Order! This is not a point of order; it is a matter to be considered in the course of the debate.

Mr WENTWORTH:

– I would have thought that even honourable members on the other side of the House would know what is meant by the term ‘a young couple’. Perhaps I am wrong. In referring to the difficulties of these people I do not want to be facetious or take up facetious points which are being made on the other side because I believe that this is a real and human problem. We on this side of the House are concerned with it. I hope that honourable members on the other side will be equally concerned.

I am not suggesting for one moment that all the difficulties that these people face are connected with housing. But I think that honourable members will agree with me that many of their difficulties come from housing and from the amount of money they have to pay by instalments for the ownership of their houses. This is not the whole of the financial difficulties with which they are faced but it is a very considerable sector of them. The past Government, by the Home Savings Grant for example, took measures to alleviate these difficulties. The proposal I am now bringing forward is not meant as a substitute for the Home Savings Grant; it is meant as a supplement and addition to it. I believe that in some respects my proposal carries the principle further forward and in a better way.

Let me come to the proposals in the Bill itself which most honourable members are now seeing for the first time. The Bill provides that there be put on sale what 1 call housing certificates which would be of a nominal amount - they would have a small face value of $10. I suggest that they be put on sale in such places as post offices and banks so that they can be readily bought and acquired from time to time as funds become available. These housing certificates would be a normal and not terribly attractive investment. They would carry a cumulative rate of interest of 5 per cent and they would have a certain tax deductibility attached to them. They would be a reasonable method of saving. But they would have a novel feature: If they were cashed in for the purchase of the first matrimonial home, they would be cashed in not at the normal value but at an increased value. So, they would become, if they were used for this purpose and only if they were used for this purpose, bonanza certificates carrying special privileges.

The bonanza which they would carry would be of 3 types. There are 3 special advantages which I suggest these certificates should carry if cashed in for the purchase of the first matrimonial home.

The first would be that the compound rate of interest on them for the first 15 years would be not 5 per cent but 10 per cent. That is a bonanza rate of interest.

The second advantage would be that the interest which would accrue on them would not be considered taxable income if they were used for the purchase of the home.

The third advantage would be that the value of the certificates would be adjusted for the change in the consumer price index between the date on which they were bought and the date on which they were cashed in. That third advantage is one Which I think is of extreme significance because so many young people save and then find that, by reason of inflation and the change in the price level, their savings are no longer adequate to meet their outgoings on the home they want to have. I am suggesting that where these bonanza certificates are used for the purchase of the first home, and only for that purpose, they should be adjusted for the change in the consumer price index so that they would have an in-built hedge against inflation - a protection against inflation. I believe that this is something that many young couples would really appreciate.

I am not suggesting that these certificates should be available in their bonanza capacity in big quantities. I am suggesting that the certificates which could be used for the purchase of any one house should not attract these bonanza conditions beyond a total cashable value of $25,000. That is the price of a modest house - not the cheapest type of house but a reasonable type of house. I am not suggesting that this measure should be used to help the big man, or the wealthy man. I suggest that it could be used to help the little man or the person of moderate means who is looking for a moderate type of house. Therefore, I would limit the bonanza conditions to a total drawing of $25,000.

The Bill sets out the details of how ibis is to be done. The Bill is entirely self-contained. Honourable members will notice that clause 14 enables the Treasurer to guarantee these certificates. I have had to take this method of drawing the Bill because of the provisions in the Constitution and the Standing Orders which prevent a private member from proposing any appropriation. What I have put in the Bill is something which, when the necessary appropriation was made by the Parliament, would enable the Treasurer to guarantee the repayment of these certificates in the same way as he guarantees the repayment of a Commonwealth bond or a Commonwealth loan. That mechanism is included in the Bill. It is not thought that this will put any unreasonable strain on Commonwealth revenues. It is true that anything that is done to help a deserving section of the community must put some strain on Commonwealth revenues. If money is being paid out it must be paid from somewhere. In this case there are compensations from the point of view of Commonwealth revenues because the Bill will generate additional savings which will go into the antiinflation pool. The certificates which are not cashed in under bonanza conditions and are cashed in under normal conditions will bring some profit to the Commonwealth because the rate of 5 per cent is at present below the normal bond rate.

It is true, of course, that the Commonwealth will be involved in additional expenditure by reason of the anti-inflation provision that the certificates will be escalated in value for future rises in prices. But this should not really strain the revenues because as inflation proceeds, as every Treasurer well knows, Commonwealth revenues also increase. From the Commonwealth’s point of view, this charge on Commonwealth revenues is in a sense self-liquidating. What we are doing by this anti-inflation provision is not just taking Commonwealth revenue and giving it away; we are protecting the people who have invested against an injustice. For that reason I think that the House might well accept this kind of principle. I know that in the Treasury there are people who live on inflation and who will oppose this kind of thing, but I suggest that theirs is an illogical argument because the Commonwealth’s revenues do respond to the rise in prices. The Treasury should take that into account.

Let me go into some further details. It is suggested that the certificates could be bought only by or for people under the age of 30 years. This is meant to confine the bonanza opportunities to those in the younger age group. We have to think of those in the younger age group. But the certificates could be bought by other people for people under the age of 30 years. For example, parents might well buy them for their children. If so, the income tax deduction would not accrue to the parents; it would accrue only to the holder - that is, to the person in whose name they were bought. So there is no possibility of misapplication in that regard. They could be bought by parents. If parents decided to invest on behalf of their child $100 every year from birth, at the age of 22 or 23 years that child would be able to buy a house absolutely, without putting up any other money or having any debt on the house, because the value of the certificates would have thus accumulated. I think that this is not an unreasonable kind of thing. It is true that the parent would not get an income tax deduction in respect of those purchases because the income tax deduction could be taken out only in the child’s name. But by a comparatively modest investment yearly a child’s future could be assured. The increase in prices, in the consumer price index, would not affect the future purchases because the value WOUld be automatically escalated. Certificates could be bought for others, but particularly 1 think of young people buying them for themselves, whether they are married or unmarried, whether they own a house at present or not. With the present equality of wages which is coming in for male and female workers and the very heavy wages which are payable to people in the lower age brackets who are unmarried, there are considerable saving opportunities. The saving can be done either by a man or a woman. They do not necessarily have to be married people at the time they make the savings. They may be people preparing for a marriage with somebody whom they have already selected or it may be that they are just preparing for marriage in general at some future time without any engagement at present. The Bill defines ‘purchase of a house’ to include the outright purchase, the payment of deposit on a house or the reduction of indebtedness on a house already bought. So these bonanza conditions would be available to all people under 30, whether married or unmarried and whether or not they are at present home owners.

Of course, I cannot pretend that the Bill can give the same advantages to everybody in the past that it would promise to those in the future, but it will give some equity to those who are now married or home owners or in the age brackets approaching 30 years. I believe that this is a Bill which puts a premium on self-help and incentive. I believe it fits into our existing system. It is not meant as a substitution for any kind of financial arrangement which at present exists; it is meant as an addition and supplement to it. I believe that it will reward initiative.

Let me say something about the mechanisms of the plan - and the mechanisms are important. Basically they are very simple because the certificates will be appropriated to the financial year in which they are bought. Certificates bought in any financial /ear will have a set value in each succeeding year. So that at the beginning of every financial year, on 1 July, it will be necessary to publish a table with only 2 sets of figures in it, the normal value and the bonanza value of a certificate bought in each of the preceding years during which this scheme has operated. The mechanism is very simple and it is adapted for use by a computer so that the accounting can be made quite negligible. The mechanism will simply mean that a certificate will be obtained and the counterfoil will go into the computer as a record of it so that if the certificate is lost or mislaid .here will be some kind of redress, but there will not be the opportunity to forge or misapply certificates. I have had some experience of this and I can assure the House that the mechanics of this scheme are very simple and can be worked very adequately by the existing computer arrangements. There can be simplicity, convenience and security in the mechanics I put forward.

This mechanism can be used for various purposes. In this Bill I have suggested that this mechanism be used to help young people acquire the ownership of their own homes. I believe that this is a constructive way of doing it. But by an easy adaptation the same kind of mechanism could be used for a system of national superannuation. I am quite certain that if we had remained in government and I has remained Minister for Social Services this is the system which we would have been putting forward for examination by the committee inquiring into national superannuation. A mechanism of this character, which has now been put forward, I believe, for the first time in the world, is something which can be adapted to these various purposes. What I am suggesting now as a mechanism to help young couples could also, by a separate Bill, be used as the basic mechanism for our scheme of national superannuation. As somebody who was the Minister who would have been responsible for this kind of thing had we remained in office, I am quite certain that this is a practicable way of going about it.

Finally, let me say something about the procedure in regard to this Bill. The Bill was put on the notice paper and it was thought that it would come up today only for mention because on the notice paper in front of it was the notice for a resolution on the siting of Parliament House. Under the Standing Orders, what would have happened, is that the major time would have been taken up on that resolution and it would have been possible for me to have introduced this Bill and made it available for circulation and study by honourable members so that we could have an informed vote on it. As it happened, the day before yesterday the members of the Opposition who were to bring forward the motion on the siting of Parliament House decided suddenly to withdraw, postpone or defer their motion. That having been done my motion suddenly and unexpectedly came on for debate.

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– But you knew several days ago because I told you.

Mr WENTWORTH:

– I knew the day before yesterday. That is what I said. Suddenly and unexpectedly this motion came on for debate. It had been thought that I would be able to take the first reading only without debate and simply circulate this Bill, which is a far-reaching and somewhat complicated Bill but which I believe is constructive and of great national importance, so that honourable members could have an opportunity to study it. Because of the press of business this Bill has not yet been considered by my Party. I am told and I believe it to be true that the Minister for Housing (Mr Les Johnson) put the matter up to the Labor Caucus without the Bill and simply told the Caucus: ‘We propose to vote against this Bill. Help me to kill it.’ And Caucus decided to kill it and to vote against it without having seen it and without having read it. This is the kind of way in which the Government intends to treat this House and to treat private members. I am not going to stand for this and I am not going to stand for this kind of double dealing.

Mr Martin:

– I rise to a point of order. The honourable member is making imputations against me as a member of the Caucus. This matter was not discussed in the Caucus. It is an imputation against me.

Mr WENTWORTH:

– I said that it was not discussed. I do not think I would be breaking a confidence by saying that the Minister told me that the Government proposes to kill this Bill and get it out of the way today. It proposes to do just that. I do not think that the Minister could say that to me without the authorisation of Caucus. This illustrates the scandalous way in which things are being done under the pretence of giving private members a go and doing what is best for the people. That is the kind of party discipline that has been brought into this House on something which should be a national matter. What I am trying to do is not a party operation. I am trying to do this because I believe that there are so many young couples in our community who, on the birth of their first child, suffer this kind of financial hardship and that something should be done to help them. I introduced this Bill for that reason. It has been intimated to me that the Government intends to kill this Bill by pushing it to a vote now when nobody has read it and nobody knows anything about it. The Government intends to abuse the House by doing this today.

Well,I am not going to stand for this. In this regard I am going to invoke the protection of standing order 218 which says that after a Bill has been read a first time the second reading may be moved and the debate shall then be adjourned to a future date. Standing order 218 is for the protection of members. It was designed for the very good reason that when a Bill is introduced honourable members should have a chance of reading it and studying it before they are called upon to vote on it. A constructive Bill like this should commend itself to everybody concerned with these young couples and the social questions of the day. It is an absolute scandal that a Bill like this should be brought in and killed without honourable member’s having any knowledge of it or any real chance to debate it. Honourable members who have not read it - they received it only a few minutes ago - are being asked and commanded to vote against it and kill it. Well, I am not going to tolerate such a thing. I am going to invoke the protection available to me under standing order 218 which is designed specifically for this purpose. I have moved:

That this Bill be now read a second time.

My seconder is the honourable member for Sturt (Mr Wilson).

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Drury:

– Is the motion seconded?

Mr Wilson:

– Yes. I rise-

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– Order! Does the honourable member for Sturt wish to speak straight away?

Mr WILSON:
Sturt

– Yes. I rise, having seconded the motion for the second reading of this Bill, to support it and to urge that the House give it a second reading after honourable members have had an opportunity of giving it due and considered examination. Because of the time available today, and as was pointed out in the comments made by the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Wentworth), it has not been possible for honourable members to study carefully the full details of this Bill and its implications. In supporting it and in urging the House to give it further consideration, both in a second reading debate and during the Committee stage, I wish to draw the attention of the House to the principal purpose for which the Bill was proposed. It is urgent that active measures be introduced to help young families.

Yesterday, in a debate on a Bill relating to the introduction of a mothers allowance or a supporting mothers allowance, I drew the attention of the House to some of the serious side effects that could arise from the piecemeal introduction of benefits aimed at helping those who are seen to be in special need. In its efforts to help such groups, the Labor Government’s social welfare program, as revealed to us so far, is getting to a stage where it is placing impossible burdens on the traditional base of society, the single income family unit. The working wife is no longer a rarity. A growing proportion of married women almost certainly will be employed outside their homes during their working lives. There is an increasing tendency for married women to return to work when their domestic responsibilities permit. Many mothers consider this time to be when their children start school; others consider it to be later. But there are many young mothers who are forced by economic pressures to re-engage prematurely in paid employment when, according to their better judgment, they would be serving the interests of their children to greater advantage if they remained at home to provide their children with the mother care that they need.

A definite work cycle is seen by some to be emerging. It is suggested that women work from the time they complete their formal education until the commencement of the family formation period. They then withdraw from the work force for a period of up to 10 years before returning to some form of employment. There is, however, a danger in making such an apparently simple summary. It can so easily create the impression that the position today for the average family is entirely satisfactory. It can also blind us to the significant trends of change and the likely impact of those trends. There is increasing evidence to suggest that a significant proportion of poverty arises from our failure to effectively relate family income to family size. For a time the wage differential between rates of pay for men and women doing the same job was justified on the ground that the wage system was thus made sensitive to family size. But such differentials were grossly inefficient in achieving their argued purpose, as well as being inequitable for many other sound reasons. If the wage system is insensitive to family size, how then do we equalise the burden of child rearing? Let me put that another way and put the emphasis where I think it should be.

How do we equalise the opportunity of the children being reared? Clearly there is an overwhelming case against tackling the problem by efforts to make the wage system sensitive to family size. The task is to resolve how best to enable men and women to spread their income over their lives so as to give them the means of keeping the family when they need it. Young families must be assisted to maintain and, where possible, to raise their standards of living. It is important that we take steps to ensure that the standard of living of a man with children compares favourably, or at least not intolerably badly, with that of a single man or a single woman. It is important also that we take steps to ensure that the standard of a living of a 2 parent family where, the mother, iu the interests of her children, stays at home to care for them, compares favourably with such a family where the mother, due to the age of her children, feels that she can go out to work without prejudice to their welfare. If we fail to do this we will attain a situation which puts pressure on the young mother who wishes in the interests of her child to remain at home, forcing her out to work for economic reasons and economic reasons alone. This significant change that has taken place in our modern society is a change that has been brought about for a variety of reasons. As more and more women work and have higher and better standards of education they wish in many instances to continue te be involved in the community outside the home.

For the young mother of today the question is no longer whether to go to work or raise children but how to make the necessary arrangements to do both. In doing both young mothers neither want to deprive their children of the mother care they need nor do they wish to depress their children’s standard of living and opportunities in future life. In facing this problem the young mothers of today are very often given very difficult choices to make. The difficult choices are placed before them because of our failure and the community’s failure to identify the changed circumstances and to meet the challenge of those circumstances. In endeavouring to make the arrangements of continuing to work and providing their children with the mother care that they need young mothers are put under immense pressures because of the difficulty of choosing between the limited range of alternatives that are available to them.

Let me highlight the pressures in this way. By talking to 2 young mothers recently the point that I wish to make was dramatically drawn to my notice. Both were worried about their future. Each of them had continued to work after she was married. Each had left work when her first child was about to be born. For each of them her child now was past the baby stage yet still under school age. The one had decided to go back to work. She felt guilty as to whether she was doing the right thing by her child. Her former job was available, but it was a full time job and the alternative was a full time job or no job at all. Yet to take that job would enable her to ease the economic pressure on the family to meet the commitments on the first and second mortgage on the house and other loans in respect of a refrigerator, a television set and a secondhand car that she and her husband had. She also justified her decision to take full time employment on the ground that when the child was going to school the child would have greater opportunities available to it because of the economic resources then available to the family. Yet she was worried.

A friend of hers with whom I was also speaking had a child of the same age. That young mother had decided in the interests of her child to stay at home and not take employment until the child was at least of school age. Yet she was worried. She and her husband prior to the birth of the child had both been working. The incomes coming into the family were the incomes that both of them brought in. They had adjusted their expenditure patterns to the receipt of 2 incomes. They had undertaken commitments on a house and on goods in the house. She felt that the best interests of her child would be served by her staying at home and she had decided to do this. Her worry was how to maintain on the one income the commitments that she and her husband had undertaken. They thought they could do it but they were not quite sure how.

Continuously the difficulties of these choices were placed before these 2 young families. One mother was continuously concerned about whether, in the light of her own maternal instinct and in the light of expert information about the importance of a mother’s providing mother care for her child at home, she was doing the right thing in providing substitute mothering in child care centres and leaving her child for the long periods that were necessary if she were to retain her full time employment. Whilst her friend staying at home was constantly under pressure in meeting the family commitments, she saw her friend relieved of those pressures. She saw her friend and her husband have an opportunity on occasions to have a holiday, and a holiday away from home. But she, having decided to stay at home to look after her child, did not have that opportunity because the financial resources were not available. As more and more young mothers feel that the economic pressures upon them are such that against their better judgment they must go out to work even when their young children need them at home, more and more young mothers will do so because the contrasts between the 2 alternatives of being a 2 income family and a single income one will be so marked.

As I said yesterday in this House. I think the time has come when we need to examine urgently the resources made available to young families. We need to tackle the question afresh and not to assume that child endowment over the period from birth to the age of 16 or throughout dependency is necessarily the right answer whereby we can achieve equal opportunities for the children of the nation. We need to ask ourselves whether extended family allowances by way of substantially increased benefits should be made available at certain periods in a family’s growth. We need also to look at important measures such as that introduced this morning by the honourable member for Mackellar, for this Bill is a measure to provide some alleviation of the financial burden that is imposed upon the young normal family and to relieve the young mother of some of the financial pressures that would otherwise be on that family. By all means the young mother should have the opportunity to fulfil her work force role to maintain the skills that she developed prior to leaving the work force, for many of the jobs - and one would hope most of the jobs, and one day all the jobs - that are undertaken should provide interest and stimulation in their performance. Many young women want to continue such involvement within the community, working and using the skills for which they have been trained. At the same time they want to do the best for their children, and they cannot do the best for their children if one of the heaviest burdens upon them is the burden of maintaining the home within which they wish to bring up their young families.

This measure before the House today will give young people an opportunity to save whilst they alone are the only dependants upon their income. It will give them a real incentive to provide for the future, lt will enable them to level out the peaks of affluence against the troughs of poverty which are experienced during the life span of any individual because the demands upon the resources of our earnings vary according to our family commitments. By encouraging young people to save, by giving them an incentive to do so through the issue of these housing certificates, they will be enabled to ease some of the burden of the commitments in paying off their houses. This measure will go some distance in recognising the need to help in a big way a normal, young 2-parent single income family.

I touch on one aspect of the Bill which is important in this regard. My colleague the honourable member for Mackellar has outlined many of the details. These certificates will be cashable at their higher value if the money is used in the purchase of the first matrimonial home of a young couple. But the certificates will not need to be cashed all at once. A young family can, say, cash sufficient to provide for a deposit on a house and, get long term finance for the balance of the purchase price. They can then continue to save by buying housing certificates recognising the increasing value of the certificates year by year as inflation goes on. Then a young family can work out for itself a planned program whereby it can cash a sufficient number each year in order to meet the mortgage payments on the house. By enabling a young couple to draw on their savings without the loss of value due to inflation the young couple will be better enabled to provide for themselves in the situation where the mother wishes to be at home in the interests of her children. I believe the community as a whole accepts that it is in the best interests of the community, the children and the families who make up the community that the mother should be at home to care for her young family.

This legislation recognises that we must reappraise many of our social welfare measures to ensure that inherent in them are no side effects which will put impossible burdens upon the normal families in the community. That we should direct attention to their welfare is urgent. That we should do it now is important. I therefore urge this House to enable this Bill to be studied in detail, in the total context of the need for us to make it easier for the normal young family to bring up Australian children.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member’s time has expired. The question is that the Bill be now read a second time. Is it the wish of the House to continue with the second reading debate forthwith?

Mr Wentworth:

– No.

Mr Daly:

Mr Speaker-

Mr Chipp:

Mr Speaker, may I ask whom you are calling?

Mr SPEAKER:

– I will call someone from the Government side. The previous speaker was from the Opposition side. I call the Leader of the House.

Mr DALY:
Leader of the House · Grayndler · ALP

– I ask for leave of the House to move that so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the debate on the second reading of the Bill ensuing forthwith.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Is leave granted?

Mr Wentworth:

– Leave is not granted.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Leave is not granted.

Suspension of Standing Orders

Mr DALY:
Leader of the House · Grayndler · ALP

– I move:

This is an important Bill. The Bill seeks to introduce an Act to enable young couples to make better provision for the purchase of their homes. Notice of intention to present the Bill was given on 1 May by the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Wentworth). He evidently does not treat it as a serious matter. The Government treats this as a very serious piece of legislation. Evidently the honourable member seeks to make General Business day a joke. Do not forget that the House will be sitting next week in order to provide time for this debate, among others, to take place. This is the second occasion on which the honourable member has endeavoured to make a joke of very important motions. Once having instigated them he seeks to get all the notoriety and refuses to allow the government case to be put or the matter to be debated. The honourable member wishes to clutter up the business paper with unlimited matters like the previous Government did, without any opportunity being given to debate them.

This Government has stated that it will always bring to a conclusion motions of this kind. Consequently, today we seek to debate this issue. The honourable member was told this yesterday and he distributed to the Minister for Housing (Mr Les Johnson) and to Government supporters who were interested copies of the Bill. We arranged with him that the mover and the seconder would speak, we would be given an opportunity to reply and a vote would be taken today. These arrangements have now been repudiated. What can we expect from the Opposition? This is making a farce of the time which has been set aside for matters to be introduced by private members. It is a subterfuge. Yet honourable members opposite say that we do not give them time for debate.

This is a matter of policy for both sides of the Parliament. Surely as it is a policy matter the honourable member would have discussed it with his own Party, as a matter of courtesy, before introducing it. I think this is a misuse of the time set aside for General Business and we as a Government do not intend to tolerate it. We will not enter into arrangements with the honourable member again on matters of this nature. As a matter of fact, we thought that this was so important that we waited and gave preference to the honourable member because young couples do need homes and we wanted to discuss this as a matter of importance. There is no purpose in putting it at the end of the notice paper and leaving it there for years as the previous Government did in respect of similar matters. This Government will not follow that infamous policy. We will bring this on for a vote today. Having said that I formally move:

That the question be now put.

Mr SPEAKER:

– The question is that the motion for the suspension of standing orders be now put.

Mr Wentworth:

– No - that the question be now put.

Mr Lynch:

Mr Speaker, do I understand that the Government will not allow-

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The motion now before the chair is that the question be now put.

Mr Lynch:

Mr Speaker, I protest at the procedures which the Leader of the House is injecting into this House. It is totally intolerable that the Opposition should not have an opportunity to put a point of view on a procedural motion which the Leader of the House has moved. I ask the Leader of the House whether he is not prepared to provide the Opposition with even a few moments to deal effectively with the procedural motion he has brought down.

Dr Jenkins:

– I raise a point of order. Is a debate allowed on the motion that the question be put?

Mr Lynch:

-I protest at the gross misrepresentations which have been made concerning the honourable member for Mackellar.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The Standing Orders were not properly carried out by the Leader of the House. The Leader of the House should have waited until I announced the motion before the Chair before he moved that the question be now put.

Mr Lynch:

– I have the call, Mr Speaker.

Mr DALY:
Leader of the House · Grayndler · ALP

– I move:

That the question be now put.

Mr Lynch:

– I received the call, Mr Speaker, from you before the Leader of the House rose to his feet for a second time.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! I remind the Deputy Leader of the Opposition and all honourable members that irrespective of who has the call, on a motion that the question be now put there can be no debate.

Mr Lynch:

– They are making an absolute and complete farce of the proceedings of this House and I protest. The Minister has not got a clue in the world what this is all about. He will not even speak.

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I will speak. I want to speak next.

Mr SPEAKER:

– The question is that the question be now put. Those of that opinion say aye. To the contrary no. I think the ayes have it.

Mr Lynch:

– The noes have it. We require a division.

Question put.

The House divided. (Mr Speaker - Hon. J. F. Cope)

AYES: 63

NOES: 52

Majority . . ..11

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Question put:

That the Standing Orders be suspended (Mr Daly’s motion).

The House divided. (Mr Speaker- Hon. J. F. Cope)

AYES: 63

NOES: 51

Majority . . . . 12

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Mr DALY:
Leader of the House · Grayndler · ALP

– I move:

That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the consideration of General Business continuing beyond 12.45 p.m.

Mr LYNCH:
Flinders

- Mr Speaker-

Mr Daly:

– I move:

That the question be now put.

Mr Lynch:

Mr Speaker, I protest, as I must-

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! There can be no debate on the motion that the question be now put. The motion before the chair is that the question be put.

Question put:

That the question be now put.

The House divided. (Mr Speaker- Hon. J. F. Cope)

AYES: 62

NOES: 52

Majority .. ..10

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Question put:

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

The House divided. (Mr Speaker- Hon. J. F. Cope)

AYES: 63

NOES: 53

Majority . . . . 10

AYES

NOES

In Division:

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! There is no substance in the point of order.

Mr Chipp:

Mr Speaker, in fairness to the Leader of the Opposition I think I should point out that he-

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! I ruled that there was no substance in the point of order raised by the honourable member for Prospect. It was frivolous. The result of the division - Ayes 63, Noes 53. The question is therefore resolved in the affirmative, and carried by an absolute majority. 1 call the Minister for Housing.

Mr Lynch:

– I move that the debate be now adjourned.

Mr Wentworth:

Mr Speaker, I rise to a point of order. Having been misrepresented by the Minister, I think 1 am entitled-

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for Mackellar has not been given the call. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition has moved-

Mr Lynch:

– 1 acknowledge that, Mr Speaker, and move that the debate be now adjourned.

Mr SPEAKER:

-I call the Minister for Housing.

Mr Les Johnson:
Minister for Housing · HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

Mr Speaker-

Mr Wentworth:

Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

Mr SPEAKER:

– What is the point of order?

Mr Wentworth:

– Earlier in the day you said that you would call me on a matter of misrepresentation. I ask to be called; 1 am entitled to be called.

Mr SPEAKER:

– All right. 1 said that when the debate on this matter concluded i would call the honourable member so that he could raise a matter of misrepresentation.

Mr Wentworth:

– The debate was concluded.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member will resume his seat. I call the Minister for Housing.

Mr Lynch:

– 1 thought that I had the call to move that the debate be now adjourned.

Mr Les Johnson:
Minister for Housing · HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– lt is very difficult for the House to know-

Mr Lynch:

– I rise on a point of order. There is a motion before the Chair.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The Minister for Housing has the call.

Mr Sinclair:

Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Prior to the last division you gave the call to the Leader of the House (Mr Daly), pointing out to the honourable member for Hotham (Mr Chipp) that the Leader of the House had the call because the preceding speaker had been from the Opposition side. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr

Lynch) therefore has priority over the Minister for Housing and it was to him that you gave the call.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The Minister for Housing has the call because the debate has not concluded. Two speakers from the Opposition side have spoken on the Bill before the House. The call therefore is to go the Government side.

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– The Government is endeavouring to facilitate a debate on the housing needs of the young people of Australia. It is extremely difficult for members of the House, let alone for the public at large, to know the reasons why the Opposition is seeking to frustrate such a debate when the Bill before us has emanated from one of its own members. It is an amazing situation that when a Minister sets out with all the good intent in the world to come to an arrangement with the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Wentworth), there is the inevitable likelihood that this arrangement will be repudiated. One wonders why the honourable member wants to engage in this hit and run tactic of standing up and putting his point of view and then doing everything possible to ensure that the Government cannot comment on the points that he has made. This seems to display all the tendencies of notorious publicity seeking rather than a genuine intention to have the matter properly ventilated.

I think the disgust in this situation does not rest just with this side of the House; it is apparent that some honourable gentlemen on the Opposition side have found the proceedings so undesirable and unsavoury that they have left the precincts and refrained from voting. I know of several cases. The fact is that in respect of this Bill I am speaking on behalf of the Opposition. The Opposition, which might have formulated an attitude on this legislation, could have helped the proceedings of the House, if we had before us a Bill which was indicative of the attitude of the Opposition. The fact of the matter is that this Bill was introduced by the honourable member for Mackellar. One is entitled to ask why is it that the honourable member has not sought the support of his own Party and why he has not sought a party attitude on this matter in the same way as I, as Minister for Housing, have sought a party attitude. The fact is that if an Opposition attitude had been taken the Government would have been able to negotiate on this matter in respect of

Opposition spokesmen. It is a fact, however, that at my request the honourable member made a copy of the Bill available to me, I think last Wednesday or Tuesday evening. At least I received the copy in time for all the Party meetings which take place concurrently in this House. I ask the honourable member for Mackellar the following question: Since it was printed and available for presentation for the Government Party, why was it not presented for the consideration of the Opposition? I discussed the matter with the honourable gentleman and I told him that consistent with the philosophy of this Government we would facilitate a debate on this Bill. It should be remembered that this is a private members Bill and not a Bill endorsed by the Opposition. I negotiated with the honourable member for Mackellar and I said that the Government would agree to hearing his second reading speech and the speech of the seconder, who in this case was the honourable member for Sturt (Mr Wilson), after which I would reply and that we would be doing everything possible to get a vote on this matter. Surely a member who initiated a private members Bill - and the same position should apply if the legislation was initiated by the Opposition - would desire a vote to be taken on his proposal. One wonders what the motivation is for this delaying tactic.

So the fact is that I made commitments to the honourable member for Mackellar. Last night I had a phone call from the honourable member for Herbert (Mr Bonnett) who in the usual course of events leads for the Opposition on housing matters. He asked me what the arrangements were and he concurred with the explanation I gave. I do not know how the Government is supposed to function in this situation. Surely it is a virtuous attitude that we should do what we can to facilitate discussion on private members’ urgency motions and Bills.

Mr MacKellar:

– Did you discuss it in Caucus?

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Of course we discussed it in Caucus.

Mr MacKellar:

– Why did one of your own members say you did not?

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I said we did.

Mr MacKellar:

– And he said you did not.

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Everybody sitting on this side of the House will be able to reaffirm what I am putting to honourable members opposite, that this matter was naturally listed. I do not know how honourable members opposite run their business in their Party meetings, but so far as the Government was concerned this matter was listed on the parliamentary notice paper and as such it was a matter which was to receive the consideration of the Party. We are a Party. We formulate Party attitudes on these matters. I suggest that if the Opposition had done the same thing we would not have had this disgraceful performance today at the expense of the legislative time table which is of great importance to the people of Australia. It is one thing to be facilitating private members urgency motions and private members’ Bills but is is another to ensure that they are dealt with in proper perspective. These matters cannot go on needlessly and recklessly. This Government has a mandate from the people and we intend to implement that mandate despite all of the disruptive endeavours that are made by honourable members opposite.

Mr Lynch:

– You can say goodbye to your housing Bills.

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– The honourable member said: ‘You can say goodbye to your housing bills’. I think it is a bit pathetic if, because some honourable members opposite are being found out in regard to their repudiation of an agreement, they now intend to follow a course of action presumably taken officially on behalf of the Opposition, which would have the effect of preventing the 95,000 families who are waiting for housing commission homes around Australia from getting the assistance they urgently need. (Honourable members interjecting).

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

- Mr Speaker, do I have to speak over this continuous barrage of interjections?

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! I think that the Minister, too, is getting a little wide of the Bill.

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I take the point and I hope that there will be less provocation so that I can talk about this Bill. As I said, I have an attitude which I will express on behalf of the Government. Firstly, let me say that we are not prepared to accept the provisions of the Young Couples’ Home Assistance Bill.

Sir John Cramer:

– Why?

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– The honourable member asks why. Let me start giving him several of the. reasons. First of all we take the view that the Bill offers unjustifiable tax concessions. It favours the affluent at the expense of the deprived. It is uncosted and, in my view, financially irresponsible. It is at variance with the homes savings grant scheme and is capable of undermining that scheme.

Sifting suspended from 1 to 2.15 p.m.

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Before the suspension of the sitting for lunch I was summarising the Government’s attitude to this Bill - the Young Couples’ Home Assistance Bill. It is necessary for me to repeat it, although in a slightly different way. The Bill proposes a system of unjustifiable tax concessions. It favours the affluent at the expense of the less affluent. The proposal is uncosted and, in that sense, is financially irresponsible. It is also apparent that the Bill runs at variance with the Homes Savings Grant Act. It could have deleterious effects on building societies in Australia. It certainly could undermine the banking system. The Government criticises the fact that the Bill also contains a proposal, the effect of which would be to restrain the beneficiary from exercising the right to sell his house for 3 years. The Government believes that that would be an undesirable byproduct of the legislation. Lastly, the Government disregards this way of solving the housing problems of the nation because it is at variance with the attitude of the Government.

We cannot accept the proposition that the Bill is an effective answer to the housing problem. After all, the proponent of the Bill is one of those who have to accept responsibility for the present situation, lt is a bad situation. Home ownership in Australia is beyond the reach of large numbers of young people. This gives the Government concern. It is sad and pathetic to see this belated concern on the part of the Opposition in the face of 23 years of relative inaction. The country is reeling under the impact of 23 years of inaction and the honourable member for Mackellar, as a former Minister, must accept his part of the responsibility. After all, that was the era in Australia’s history when land prices took their meteoric rise to such prohibitive levels, when our overcrowded cities were allowed to grow to such massive proportions, when the fierce competition for developed land occurred, when no new cities at all were planned, when there were long waiting lists for housing commission homes throughout Australia, when interest rates spiralled and when deposit gaps became the order of the day.

The legacy of inadequate housing that the Government has inherited will now be resolved in accordance with the mandate given to this Government so generously by the Australian people. We are going to do it our way. It certainly is not intended to compound privilege with a bonanza - that was the word used by the honourable member - represented by wads of Wentworth’s housing certificates. More purchasing power and massive tax remissions for the privileged minority are not the antidote for the chronic sociological ailment which is our nation-wide housing crisis. Th:s Bill will do nothing to alleviate the distressing spectacle of 100,000 families, or thereabouts, comprising the waiting lists - the increasing waiting lists - for State housing authority homes.

The r;ch already have access to lucrative avenues of investment through the hire purchase and land speculation corporations and the mining companies. There is no need to embellish those arrangements. No housing certificate scheme is needed to assist the person who, under this Bill, could acquire housing certificates to such an extent as to increase his tax deductibility by $1,000 a year. Under this proposal the higher the income, the bigger the deduction or remission that is made in respect of the Bill. Not only do these people crack the tax jackpot in the year of purchasing the housing certificate but they also win a super jackpot at the time of redemption. The amount received on redemption of housing certificates is not deemed to be assessable income under the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936-1972. No wonder the Opposition would not officially endorse this Bill. No wonder the Bill has never seen the light of day, even in 23 years of LiberalCountry Party administration.

How can this scheme be reconciled with the homes savings grant scheme which was introduced by the previous Government and which is designed to attract savings by young people into prescribed savings institutions? There is not even a reference to the way in which these 2 matters can be reconciled. It is obvious that the 2 schemes cannot possibly live together. Either young people save through the traditional institutions and attract a $750 grant on $2,250 savings under the Homes Savings Grant Act, or they buy housing certificates. Is the proponent of this Bill intending to destroy the homes savings grant scheme which, despite its apparent anomalies - anomalies which the Government is committed to rectifying - at least provides benefits to a universal maximum for all participants? It is apparent that the honourable member is proposing a course of action which represents a collision course and which would throw all the young couples who are saving under the Homes Savings Grant Act into a state of utmost dilemma.

Under this Bill there is no limit to the extent of the investment and, accordingly, no reasonable limit on the benefits that could accrue. The Bill actually includes a table showing the redemption value of a $10 housing certificate each year for 50 years. One would have thought that 50 years would be regarded as too long a period for which to save for a first home. The table shows that $10 is worth $286.02 after 50 years. For an investment of $1,000 the yield is $28,602. By then, I should imagine, the young couple concerned, who have been saving for 50 years and are still without a home, could get accommodation under the Aged Persons Homes Act and possibly go for a holiday on the Riviera. There is some sort of benefit in that, but it is not the stated intention of the legislation. Surely it is not a reasonable proposition that the Parliament should take this seriously. I am encouraged to note that the Opposition has not taken it seriously.

If this scheme were to be approved, it would have devastating consequences for the building society movement. Savings at present directed to the building societies would be diverted into a new housing certificates trust account. The lending capacity of building societies would be seriously impaired. I wonder whether the honourable member has given consideration to this fact and whether he has gone to the trouble of having any discussions with the building societies. In the light of current events and the recent expressions of consternation, it is easy to anticipate the response he would have received if he had proposed to the building societies that there be some new scheme designed to attract savings into yet another area. Meanwhile, presumably the trust account would assume swollen proportions, yet would be put to no real use in assisting the home-seeking community. I think I am right in saying that nowhere in the Bill or in the honourable member’s second reading speech was any explanation given as to the manner by which the funds held in the trust account would be utilised for housing purposes.

The Government firmly rejects this Bill. We reject it because it would be economically and socially unjust in principle and in practice. At a time when hundreds of thousands of our less privileged citizens are struggling to obtain adequate housing, it would divert government funds not to the needy but to those people who already are moving in a determined way along the path to home ownership. The Government upholds home ownership and stresses the need for more rental housing as well. But while we have a crisis in housing it would be financially irresponsible to use a large part of the funds available for housing on a scheme such as this. It is significant that no attempt has been made to give any estimate of cost. No costing has been given because the scheme represents virtually an open-ended commitment. To agree to it would commit the Government to an economic decision of great magnitude. For instance, it would intrude quite powerfully into the taxation structure, adding to the regressive nature of much of that system. If such a scheme were to be seriously considered by any government it would need much more research than is evident from the Bill before the House.

The scheme described in this Bill is an extremely generous one. No one argues about that. Its costs would be high. No doubt the young people able to take advantage of the scheme would benefit in a number of ways. Firstly, money used for the purchase of housing certificates would be deducted from taxable income in the year of purchase. The value of this benefit may be considered by taking the case of the person of moderate affluence who, if his income increases by $10 will pay, roughly, an additional $5 in tax. For such a person the value of this first concession is such that for every $10 housing certificate purchased the Government would, in effect, pay half. Secondly, and provided that the certificates when they are cashed are used for the purchase of the first matrimonial home, they would attract interest at 10 per cent per annum. This is a healthy rate even in present conditions of high interest. It would be an even better rate if, as the Government is determined to bring about, there is a fall in the general rate of interest. We must also bear in mind that this interest is paid on money of which a portion has, in effect, been provided by the Government.

Thirdly, and on condition that the certificates when cashed are used to purchase a home, the interest credited during the life of the certificates would also be exempt from taxation. Thus, there are two quite separate taxation benefits which in the average case would add up to a considerable value. Finally, there is the extremely important concession that the value of certificates when cashed for home purchase would be increased in proportion to the price level as measured by the consumer price index. In other words, the holders of these certificates are to be singled out as the only members of the community who are to be fully protected against the effects of price inflation. Even if the proceeds of cashing the certificates are not used for the purchase of the first matrimonial home, the amount invested in the certificates could still be deducted from taxable income. Although people who use the money in this way do not receive further benefits, this indicates it would be an attractive means of saving, especially for people of high income.

A further comment on the nature of these benefits is that they represent blank cheques. The value of the interest to be credited by the Government would depend on how the rate of 10 per cent compares with the rate which could have been obtained in alternative investments. The value of the suggested adjustment for price inflation contained in the Bill will depend on the extent to which inflation actually occurs. To provide to any section of the community a benefit which cannot, with any precision whatever, be evaluated, would be quite contrary to the proper principles of public finance. However, as I said before, the main objection to the scheme is that it would be enormously expensive. It is a firm policy of the Government that the major aspects of expenditure in its social welfare program must benefit people of relatively low income. That is our sense of priorities. In other words, in selecting the people who will be assisted by the Government, the main criterion is their degree of need.

Under the homes savings grant scheme everyone who has saved the maximum amount receives the same payment from the Government. Under the provisions of this

Bill people of high income receive a much bigger benefit than people of low income. It is inherently inequitable. If the Government were to adopt this scheme it would be at the expense of other and more urgent social objectives. There are many people in greater need than the relatively well-to-do home purchasers. Unlike our predecessors, the Government does not pursue the principle that to those who have shall be given.

During the course of my contribution to this debate I contended that the Government chooses to face up to this problem, the legacy of the previous government, in its own /ay. This afternoon, it is scheduled for the House to consider some Bills which represent a facet of the way in which we intend to approach this problem. We do not need any intimidation from the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Lynch) who by way of interjection threatened to make the going tough for the Housing Assistance Bill if we dared to reply to the measure before us. We have taken the view today that, since the Government made an arrangement which would enable the proponent of this Bill to give a second reading speech to the full limit of time provided for under the Standing Orders and since we also allowed the seconder to speak, thus ensuring that a period of 50 minutes was used by the advocates of this Bill, it would be reasonable for the Government to have one speaker in reply. After that, in keeping with our declared obligation to give private members the opportunity to bring down Bills, we felt that we should proceed to a vote.

We have assumed that any private member bringing down a Bill would have the desire to see it go to a vote. I suppose there is a reaction in respect of the treatment that this Bill has received and that a certain slate of affairs is prevailing. ] can understand that because it has not been the nature of this Parliament for many years for the Government to permit any private member’s Bill to be debated, let alone to bring it right to the culmination point of a vote. We have made a commitment to the honourable member for Mackellar. We are firmly obligated to uphold our part of it. Subsequently it is our intention to go along and do things our way so that we can effectively assail this problem - the problem which young people are experiencing in regard to their access to finance for a home.

We intend to do a number of things We have already done a number of things. We increased bank loans by amending the Commonwealth Banks Act. We have lifted the lending capacity of the Commonwealth Bank so that loans can now be made available at a $12,500 limit instead of the $9,000 limit which prevailed previously. Honourable members know what has been done under the Defence Service Homes Act - very generous embellishments. It is also understood that the Government proposes to make much larger allocations of finance available for State housing authority purposes at lower rates of interest. There are a number of other things we intend to do. It is known that my colleague, the Minister for Urban and Regional Development (Mr Uren) currently is engaged in negotiations with the States to assail the basic problem, the question of land prices which has been ignored for 23 years. 1 am pleased to hear that he is making good progress in that regard. We want to see low cost land. We want to see low cost money.

The Opposition knows of our commitment to provide tax deductibility on home loan interest rates. It knows of our commitment to bring about a system of uniform building codes in Australia, which eminent builders have contended for many years could effect cost savings in respect of the purchase of a house of between $800 and $1,000. We are actually in the business of doing something about that. I am not flying kites; I am talking about a matter which has been the subject of consideration by our Cabinet committees and which will soon be given effect to in a most practical way. I am talking about the concern we have about getting conveyancing costs down and indemnifying the States so that we can prevent the delays which occur and the excessive costs which result from the stamp duty system.

The Opposition has some regard, I think, for our intention to remove the anomalies from the Homes Savings Grant Act. Of course, the Government is intent on reviewing the whole question of building technology. Towards that end we will be setting up proper processes - innovations the like of which have not been seen for 23 years. We will continue to regard the housing problems of the Australian people as being paramount and of high priority and sociological importance. We do not accept this unjust proposition as the way to set about it. Accordingly, the Government opposes the Bill.

But one thing which is inherently characteristic of the Government is that it wants to tidy up the situation. We want to have a vote on this Bill. Accordingly, I move:

That the question be now put.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I did say that after the Minister concluded his remarks I would give the honourable member for Mackellar the opportunity of making a personal explanation. Accordingly I call the honourable member for Mackellar.

Mr WENTWORTH:
Mackellar

– Thank you, Mr Speaker. I know that under the Standing Orders I cannot reply to the mishmash of nonsense we have just heard.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! Does the honourable member for Mackellar claim to have been misrepresented?

Mr WENTWORTH:

– Yes, Sir. The Minister for Housing (Mr Les Johnson) said, among other things, that I had made no reference to how this scheme would fit in with the homes savings grant scheme and that it was incompatible with it. Evidently he has not read clause 19 of the Bill. I now read it to him in order to show where he was wrong in making that statement. Clause 19 states:

Amounts paid for the purchase of Housing Certificates shall be deemed to be acceptable savings for the purposes of the Homes Savings Grant Act 1964-1972 . .

Before the Minister says things like he said he might as well read the Bill. I do not blame him because although he said wrongly that I had given him the Bill last week, in fact I gave it to him last Tuesday.

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– And you made an agreement about it.

Mr WENTWORTH:

– 1 gave it to the Minister last Tuesday, not last week. I know that he has not had a chance to read it, but I am rather surprised at the kind of things he said, rather ill-advisedly. I wish to refer to another matter. The Leader of the House (Mr Daly) said that I had repudiated an agreement. That is utterly, completely, and unreservedly false. I was told by the Minister for Housing of what the Government intended to do. I was told; I was not asked. I made no agreement. I was told simply what the Government intended to do in this regard. To say that I had repudiated an agreement is utterly and unreservedly false. There is no reason for it whatsoever. Also it was said by the honourable member for Banks (Mr Martin) that this matter had not been discussed in Caucus. The

Minister for Housing said that he was speaking for the Party. I cannot reconcile the 2 statements.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order!

Mr WENTWORTH:

– One of those statements is false. Perhaps one of them is a lie.

Mr Daly:

Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! Does the Minister claim to have been misrepresented?

Mr DALY:
Leader of the House · Grayndler · ALP

– Yes. The honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Wentworth) said that he was told what to do. He came to me and asked what would be done about the Bill and 1 said that in accordance with Government practice we intended to give private members, even him, the opportunity to put things forward in this place, to have them debated and also to have a vote taken. 1 suggested to him that we might be able to bring about a debate. It was mentioned that he would be moving the motion - naturally his seconder would have to support it - and we would reply to the debate and a vote would be taken after that. He entered into that arrangement unreservedly. This is the second occasion on which he has broken an agreement with me-

Mr Wentworth:

– That is untrue.

Mr DALY:

– I do not blame the honourable member for Mackellar, Mr Speaker. I blame myself because anybody who is caught twice is in a certain category. But let me advise the honourable member that never again while I am Leader of the House will I enter into an agreement with him, and I will have grave reservations about entering into an agreement with the Opposition if the honourable member is supported by the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr Wentworth:

-I ask leave-

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! This could go on indefinitely. I trust both honourable members and accept the words of both so I shall call it a dead heat. The question is:

That the question be now put.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Original question put:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

The House divided. (Mr Speaker - Hon. J. F. Cope)

AYES: 50

NOES: 58

Majority . . . . 8

AYES

NOES

In Division:

Bill. Is it in order for them now to vote for a Bill about which they know nothing?

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! There is no substance to the point of order.

Question so resolved in the negative.

page 2608

GRANTS COMMISSION BILL 1973

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 23 May (vide page 2558), on motion by Mr Whitlam:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Upon which Mr Anthony had moved by way of amendment:

That all words after ‘That’ be omitted with a view to inserting the following words in place thereof: - while not refusing to give the Bill a second reading, this House deplores the establishment of a complex new bureaucratic Commonwealth mechanism and is of opinion that the Bill should have provided that (a) immediate consultations be held with the States to determine the financial requirements of local Government taking into account their loan commitments, their overall financial responsibilities and the burden of rates on ratepayers, .Jb) funds provided to meet these requirements should be allocated to State Governments for distribution to local Government in accordance with priorities determined by the States after consultation with local Government, and (c) payments should commence in 1973-74’.

Mr KERIN:
Macarthur

– Prior to the interrupting of this debate last night I had been saying that I could see some problems in this Bill but that we are all agreed that local government desperately needs financial assistance. I had spoken on the regions in my electorate that could be proposed for a regional approach to the Grants Commission. Transport links are one of the main problems of the Shoalhaven Shire which are regional in nature. The 4 tablelands councils in Macarthur could also be regarded in a regional context as they have special problems with respect to the pressures of the nearby urban areas and the need for better roads, particularly to the coast. One of the objections some people have had about central funding, that is, from the State or Commonwealth, is the ‘he who pays the piper calls the tune’. But this cannot apply, particularly in New South Wales, where councils are used to making approaches to the Local Government Assistance Fund. The council on which I served and those that I know very closely have no objections to making applications for supplementary funds, and in many ways I see the funding of local government assistance funds as an alternative solution to this Bill. 1 also see problems of regional definition, and I would like to make a case for the employment of geographers. Geography is a synthetic discipline well used to handling the various elements of the multi-disciplinary social sciences. If nothing else, geography is concerned with the spatial context of the range of social sciences. There are many geographic techniques that allow definition of regions to be made in terms of functional integration. For example, Riley’s law of retail gravitation can define the break points between the spheres of influence of central towns. Analysis of nodes and networks allows the tracing of the patterns of movements of people, goods and information. Studies carried out in Tasmania defined 3 clear regions with respect to most functions of human habitation. Matters taken into consideration included retail gravitation, transport links and even matters such as newspaper circulation and football playing. It is these things that give a regional impression to the areas in which we live. I support the Bill.

Mr THORBURN:
Cook

- Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?

Mr THORBURN:

– I do. In the debate last night, when I said that the former Government had made grants to local government bodies direct I made a statement concerning moneys paid to a welfare officer in a local government area, a statement to which the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Wentworth) took objection and for which I appologised then. I said that the whole matter was kept quiet, and the honourable member took it that my implication was that he had kept it quiet. That was not the case at all. The fact of the matter is that it was not published very much at all. I have ascertained today from the Minister for Social Security (Mr Hayden) that 2 payments were made under the States Grants (Home Care) Act to the Warringah Shire Council. For the period from 18 September 1971 to 13 May 1972 a payment of $2,158 was made, and for the period from 1 June 1972 to 30 September 1972 a payment of $1,080 was made. They were made in the form of a subsidy. I rise to make this explan-nation because I do not want it to be interpreted from the honourable member’s objection to the statement last night that subsidies were not paid. They were paid.

Mr WENTWORTH:
Mackellar

- Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?

Mr WENTWORTH:

– Yes. What the honourable member for Cook (Mr Thorburn) says is true but it is not relevant. The payments to which he referred were ordinary payments which were made to the Warringah Shire Council and to other councils. The only point 1 make is that no ministerial preference was given by me to a council in my own area. The payments were made but other councils received them also.

Mr GARLAND:
Curtin

– This debate is the continuation of the debate on the Grants Commission Bill. I take a much stronger view of the effect of this Bill than some of my colleagues do. I believe that the state of the federal system itself is involved. I think this matter is of such importance that it has been my desire to move an amendment to the motion that the Bill be now read a second time. The amendment is known to my Party. I am not aware of any seconder and I have not actively solicited for a seconder. But such are the Standing Orders of this House that, because there is another amendment before the House, 1 am unable now to move my amendment because the motion before the House is that the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the question. However I will continue to seek an opportunity to make an appropriate amendment. The Clerk has copies of it, and as far as I am concerned he may circulate them. The terms of the amendment that I foreshadow are:

That all words after ‘That’ be omitted with a view to inserting the following words in place thereof: whilst recognising the need for additional funds for local government bodies in Australia, the House is of opinion that the Bill should be withdrawn and redrafted to provide that the grants scheme is compatible with the Australian Federal system and safeguards the constitutional relationship between the Commonwealth, States and local government and also ensures (i) no opportunity for circumvention of the States and (ii) the grant of additional funds to local authorities throughout Australia to the extent of not less than five per cent of Commonwealth income tax revenue within 3 years, with lesser sums available each year before then, commencing during the year 1973-74. The House further agrees that the re-drafted Bill be given adequate time for detailed examination by the Australian people and consultation by the Government with the bodies concerned, as the period of six days allowed for consideration of the present

Bill is too short a period to examine such farreaching financial proposals greatly affecting the Australian constitutional structure’.

That is my foreshadowed amendment. Today I emphasise the position of the States and the jeopardy in which this Bill puts them. The provisions in this Bill are so wide as to permit circumventing the States. Indeed, they can lead to draining the substance from the States and leaving them as shells. Step by step a government that wishes to do so can carry on and lead the States into that position. This Bill opens the possibilities of transferring administrative and practical powers from the States to chosen groups of local government authorities. That is why I say that the Federal system is at stake.

The Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) on behalf of his Government has made very clear his blueprint in this field. I believe he has been most straightforward about it in the last year or two. He is for a unitary government system for this country. He has not mentioned in his speeches a belief in centralism and he has not used phrases like Canberra control of what happens in every corner of Australia’, but that is what unitary government means. This Government has shown a considerable tendency towards implementing unitary government in Australia. I instance what we have seen to be Government policy in a few weeks of sitting in this House. I instance the provisions of the Pipeline Authority Bill when it was introduced. It concerns more than just the building of a pipeline in Australia. It is an instrument for Federal Government control of natural gas and oil in Australia. The Senate amendments which the Prime Minister tried to wipe off and to denigrate at question time today have the full support of every member of the Liberal Party. Let that be clear. It is not support from just the senators, lt has the full support of all members of the Liberal Party. The amendments are aimed at removing the danger that that Bill presents to the States.

The Australian National Airlines Bill, as it was introduced, is an attempt at achieving more control by this Government. Look at the provisions of the Seas and Submerged Lands Bill, the provisions of the Housing legislation, the action by the Government in respect of the Privy Council and of attempts to create a viceroy instead of a GovernorGeneral in Australia. I do not quarrel with every detail in the proposals any more than I quarrel with every detail and provision in this Bill, but taken as a whole they show the clear direction of the Prime Minister and the Government. I say that the speeches of the Prime Minister are the clearest statement of what he wishes to do, of how he wishes to circumvent and to undercut the States.

Other countries have seen increasing value in having power diversified. There are illustrations of this in the United States and France. In the United Kingdom the Government in the last few weeks has announced a proposal to give seme control to the Scots. The ramifications of that have not been made fully clear but that legislation is an effort in a highly sophisticated country and it is comparable, I believe, with this one for the diversification of control - not just finance, but control. I believe that the Australian people have always wanted and will continue to want some balance of control against the exercise of power in Canberra. We know that administration away from the centre is very often - not always, but very often - more efficient, more economic, more socially effective and even wiser. A federal system, such as Australia has, does not mean that all power resides with the States. It does not mean that all power lies with the centre, in our case the Commonwealth. It means preserving a balance of power. Yet this Government has an open desire to upset that balance and to break the States. This proposed legislation is the most striking method of taking away the powers of the States without direct constitutional change and to that extent it is dishonest.

I listened yesterday afternoon with great care to the speeches. I will speak first of the speech made by the Minister for Urban and Regional Development (Mr Uren), who is seated at the table. He spoke in very broad terms. He said that this Bill is historic and far-reaching. In that observation I could not agree with him more, but he went on to talk very broadly. He used the phrase ‘better use of resources’, whatever that means. His whole speech, as I said to him in another debate on a similar subject, was just a lot of word spinning to cover up, I believe, the deep purposes involved. It sought to cover them up with a lot of vague propaganda. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr Snedden) spoke on this Bill before the Minister or Urban and Regional Affairs. 1 listened to him most attentively and I agree strongly with what he had to say in his arguments about the States. There was one very important incident in his speech. He said:

The fact is that in this Bill there is a bypassing of the States, and in passing the money down this Parliament becomes watchdog for it.

I quite agree. He made a few more comments and he drew the Minister for Urban and Regional Development into saying by way of interjection:

It is not bypassing the Stales.

The Leader of the Opposition went on to challenge the Minister to say in his reply exactly what he meant by that interjection. He did not do so. The important point is that it does not matter what the Minister says in this House. It does not matter what assurances he gives. What matters is the provisions in this Bill. That is what guides the courts. That is what will confine the conduct of this Government and future governments. That is the clear law. There is no legal authority who will say that what is said in speeches or what is someone’s intention has any weight whatever, and the Minister should know that.

I referred in my foreshadowed amendment to the grant of additional funds for local authorities. I want to say as clearly as I can that I recognise the great financial difficulties and needs which local government bodies have. That is the reason why I have included this provision which is based on a request by the local authorities themselves, lt is often said by the Prime Minister that State boundaries are outdated. The Prime Minister has said many times that he would see the formation of new boundaries and new regions. If boundaries are outdated - and he is yet to prove his case that he can get a better sei - clearly any new boundaries will become cut of date at some future time. One can always point out some anomaly by a line drawn or a regulation which finishes at a point. I take that argument as cheap.

We are dealing with deep matters. I will not say that the terms that I have drawn in this amendment, necessarily with some haste, are in fact as accurate and deeply researched as I would like them to be. I have drawn the amendment up and I put it to this House because I regard this matter so seriously and because I want to indicate how strongly I feel about the position of local government authorities which are entitled, I believe, to an obligation to receive specific and well defined funds in exchange for the realisation that the existing States have rights which must be preserved. In such far-reaching proposals it is just not possible to anticipate every aspect. I think it is important for local government authorities to realise, too, that they will not get any more autonomy under these proposals. This Government and the Labor Party have no generosity when it comes to other bodies having power and influence. I make the prediction that if this legislation is passed local government authorities will build up a reliance on the Federal finance they will receive from this source and then, in practice, come under the full influence of Canberra in every detail of their administration. Anyone who has seen help given by the Federal Parliament previously in that direction will know just in what detail the Canberra Ministers, on the recommendation of their departments, will involve themselves. The Labor Party welcomes all that. It is in accord with its principles and it has said it openly; so I do not criticise its behaviour in that way.

I conclude, having spoken deliberately, by saying that I view this as a matter of the utmost importance to the nation. I believe that the consequences are not fully realised across the nation or in the councils of the States. This great matter has been given hardly any treatment in the media. But I believe that when the consequences are realised, however long that takes, a deep and angry reaction rightly will be the result.

Mr MATHEWS:
Casey

– The honourable member for Curtin (Mr Garland) would be a more plausible champion of the rights of local government if he had shown some regard for those rights in the 3 years during which he was a member of this House and his Party was in government.

Mr Garland:

– You would not know.

Mr MATHEWS:

– I have listened attentively to the honourable gentleman over the years, in debates on this matter in which honourable members who are now on this side of the House regularly urged upon the government of the day the pitiful condition to which local government finance had been reduced by the actions of State and Commonwealth governments. As far back as I can remember - even in 1950 - it has been the practice of the Australian government - firstly, under Sir Robert Menzies, then under Mr Harold Holt, then under the right honourable member for Higgins (Mr Gorton) and finally under the right honourable member for Lowe (Mr McMahon) - to offload on to the States all those matters on which it was unwilling to see public money spent; and the States have not been slow to learn from that example and have offloaded on to local government all those matters upon which they were determined to be parsimonious.

The honourable member for Curtin said that his foreshadowed amendment incorporated less research than he would have chosen to put into it. I think that, in saying that, he was exploiting a sentiment expressed earlier in this debate by the honourable member for Isaacs (Mr Hamer) who said: . . the reason for this administrative monstrosity seems to be purely to redeem a rash but vote catching electoral promise by the Prime Minister to allow local government direct access to Commonwealth funds.

The honourable member for Parramatta (Mr N. H. Bowen) was both more charitable and more accurate in his contribution to the debate. At least he acknowledged and quoted from speeches that the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) had made on this matter on 8 November 1971 and 25 October 1972. Yet even he did not go back far enough, because I hold in my hand a copy of a speech given by the Prime Minister on 1 September 1969 to local government clerks in Sydney in which he said, in part:

The Commonwealth Grants Commission was set up to advise the Commonwealth on the fairest way to help the smaller States to provide services and opportunities equivalent to those of the largest States. The commission now has the needs of Tasmania alone to assess; it is very nearly at a loose end. A Labor government will use the commission’s experience and skill in assessing and recommending the amount of Commonwealth grants required to avoid the unequal burdens of local authorities in servicing developing areas.

The proposals which are embodied in this Bill have been before the nation and before this Parliament now for a period approaching 4 years. They have been put forward at innumerable assemblies of local government associations in all States, not only by the Prime Minister but also by other spokesmen in my Party. They have been debated in mis House on numerous occasions when my Party has proposed for discussion as a matter of public importance ‘the need for additional finance to be made available to local government’. If the honourable member for Curtin has had insufficient chance to research his objection to these proposals he has no one but himself to blame.

The honourable member for Parramatta, to whom 1 paid a tribute a few moments ago, misunderstood some sections of the Bill, because he said in his contribution:

If the councils want to establish a child care centre, a senior citizens centre, a swimming pool or a park … the Commonwealth Minister, on the advice of the Grants Commission, will now decide it.

This is a common misapprehension about the purpose of the Bill and one to which I believe 1 should devote some attention. There is abroad, I think, a picture of local government authorities, grouped on a regional basis, waiting on the doorstep of the Grants Commission with proposals for not only those facilities which were mentioned by the honourable member for Parramatta but also a variety of other things ranging from roads to the construction of new town halls. Yet it has been made very clear by the Prime Minister in his second reading speech, by the Minister for Urban and Regional Development (Mr Uren) who is now at the table, and also by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Snedden), whose speech set out very accurately the substance of the Bill, that the grants which are to be disbursed by the Grants Commission under this legislation are concerned purely with the revenues of councils and not with special projects.

In 1933 the Commonwealth government of the day paid recognition to the discrepancies which then existed between the 4 smaller States - South Australia, Western Australia, Tasmania and Queensland - on the one hand and New South Wales and Victoria on the other. That government recognised very properly that the economics of this country were such that those 4 smaller States could not hope to provide for their populations services and facilities of the standards available in the 2 larger States without imposing upon those populations a truly crushing burden of taxation. The Commonwealth Grants Commission was established to advise the national government of the day on the amounts which should bc made available from national revenue to equalise finances between the States. It was recognised that we are one nation and that Australians should be able to move freely from State to State and from place to place without imposing upon themselves penalties in the form of either deficient services and facilities or exorbitant taxation.

The differences with which the Commonwealth Grants Commission was originally established to deal are very largely things of the past. Whilst it is true that all 4 claimant States have put cases to the Grants Commission again in recent years, the disabilities set out in those claims and recognised by the Commission have been of a relatively minor nature. There are now much more gross differences between regions within States and particularly between municipalities in developing areas and municipalities in areas where development is complete. This Bill is particularly welcome to those of us who established homes in developing areas in the post-war period, who have brought up families in those developing areas and who in many instances have served on the local councils of those areas. We recognise the crushing burdens which local government has been required to shoulder in areas such as my own electorate of Casey and the electorates that adjoin it - La Trobe, Diamond Valley and Holt - in the western suburbs of Sydney and in comparable areas around every one of our State capitals and regional centres.

In the period of life of the last Government the debts of the States increased 4i times over, which in anybody’s language is a very considerable increase indeed. Over the same 23 years of Liberal rule the debts of local government - I remind the House that it is local government of all the levels of government in our federation which is required to finance virtually all its capital works from borrowed money - increased no less than 10i times. At the same time, while local government was being required to shoulder this enormous burden of debt, it was being required to accept a whole new range of responsibilities not previously associated with it. My children would not have been taken to infant welfare centres, they would not have been able to find places in pre-school centres, there would have been no open space in which they could roam, no playing fields on which they could participate in team games, no libraries from which they could borrow books, no social workers to advise them and no youth clubs to enrich their recreation, if it had not been for local government. Before the war, local councils were little more than road and drainage boards.

I believe it is recognised throughout Australia - I was glad that the amendment proposed by the honourable member for Curtin also recognised this fact - that rates levied on property are no longer an adequate taxation basis for local government. It is to the challenge of granting local government access to national taxation revenue that this legislation is addressed. We know how short resources are in this country and how many conflicting calls are made upon those resources which are available. We know that there are very great deficiencies to be made good in the period of life of this Government in undertakings such as schools, hospitals and public transport. We know that the needs of local government for national finance must necessarily compete in the financial market place with these other areas. I was disturbed that the amendment proposed by the honourable member for Curtin seemed to take no account of this call upon scarce resources, for it would seem that section (ii) of the honourable member’s amendment envisages that the 5 per cent of national finance which he wants appropriated for local government use would be distributed across the board, no doubt on the per capita basis favoured by his Party for other purposes when in government.

The Grants Commission proposal before the House is one based upon a concept of need. It is one geared to see that the developing areas in which need is greatest get the greatest recognition. This is not a difficult proposition. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr Snedden) attempted in his speech to suggest that there was some administrative reason why the Grants Commission should not endeavour to deal simultaneously with the claims of 900 separate municipalities. The fact is that the Grants Commission has accumulated a very great body of expertise in its 40 years of work with the claimant States. It is simply necessary for the Grants Commission to prepare a set of criteria and ascertain a bench mark which might well be, as the Leader of the Opposition suggested, a municipality such as Kew which at this stage of its development has large revenues and relatively few problems. Measuring the criteria of particular municipalities against that bench mark will establish how much those municipalities have available for services and facilities such as libraries, road construction, pre-school education and infant welfare, and what advantage those municipalities are taking of the revenue sources available to them.

This is a process exactly analogous to that gone through every year by the Grants Commission in assessing the needs of claimant

States. We believe that it is an equitable formula to apply in assessing the needs of developing municipalities. It is also one which will enable the best possible use to be made available of whatever money it turns out to be possible for this Government to appropriate for local government purposes. Like the Leader of the Opposition and the honourable member for Curtin, I would hope to see an appropriation made for this process in the current financial year. This Bill is the second major item of legislation in a continuing series geared to the establishment of a new federalism in Australia. I found it very strange to hear the honourable member for Curtin accusing this Government of centralism when the legislation to which he was directing his attention in fact provided for a long overdue transfusion to that level of government which is closest to the people of this country. It was under Liberal government that local government became so anaemic and so discredited in the eyes of people who look to it for services which it has been unable to finance. I hope that, on reflection, there will be support for this legislation from all honourable members opposite and especially from honourable members opposite who come from areas like my own on the developing perimeters of our great State capitals and regional centres.

Mr HUNT:
Gwydir

– In reply to the honourable member for Casey (Mr Mathews I must say that his remarks about the honourable member for Curtin (Mr Garland) were not very generous because although he may not have made a lot of speeches - and I could not say whether he did or did not - on the question of local government, I do know that he has served in local government for 8 years and as a deputy mayor of his council. Indeed, a good many of those in this chamber have. I served in local government for 12i years, and so there are a number of people in this chamber who speak with a great deal of sincerity about the needs of local government and the way in which it should be helped to serve the community in this very important sphere.

However, I find myself in broad agreement with most of the comments that the honourable member for Curtin made in this debate. The Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) stated that the Grants Commission is designed to place local government within the framework of the federal system. I vigorously contest this contention. The Prime Minister believes not in the Federal system but in a unitary system of government; that is, one central government with absolute power, residing in Canberra. I therefore find it strange that the Prime Minister should give such emphasis to this point in his second reading speech when he said:

This Bill is designed to place local government firmly within the framework of the federal system. The Government is determined to make the third tier of government a genuine partner in the system and to give local government adequate access to the nation’s finances.

Mr Uren:

– Do you oppose that?

Mr HUNT:

– ‘I do not oppose that contention at all but I question whether the Prime Minister was sincere in opening his second reading speech with that statement. He gave prominence to this sentiment because he opened his second reading speech with those words, but why did he do so? Did he intend to draw a smokescreen across the real motive and intention of the Government in this matter? I find it paradoxical that the Prime Minister should give such emphasis to the need to put local government within the Federal framework as such when only this week in answer to a question from the honourable member for Sturt (Mr Wilson) he said that he favoured the unitary system of government in Australia. I question whether he sincerely wants to see the strengthening of the federal system as such in Australia.

Mr Wentworth:

– That is a very good point.

Mr HUNT:

– I think it is. T think it is the gut issue in this particular Bill. One wonders, therefore, wherein lies the catch. Perhaps the purpose of the Bill is twofold. Firstly, to assist local government, preferably on a regional basis, to establish the regional concept of government and not the federal system - not to build the federal concept or to strengthen it. Secondly, to bypass the State governments thus eroding their functions and, more importantly, their constitutional responsibility for local government. Local government is the third but an essential limb of executive administration in our federal system. The Australian Labor Party and, indeed, the Prime Minister, often have implied that Australia has too few States and too many local governments, thus this Bill could be the vehicle for whittling away the sovereign powers of the States and achieving the regional council concept in lieu of the present federal system of government. Under such a system the central government would rule supreme without sovereign States but with regional councils subservient to the central government. This, of course, would provide the great Garden of Eden for the achievement of the total socialist objective in this country. I refer now to an essay by the late Professor Ross Anderson entitled The States and Relations with the Commonwealth’ wherein he wrote:

In any case, whether that distinction is accepted or not, the truth is that, on the authority of the Uniform Tax Cases, the independence of the States can be destroyed in a perfectly legal manner by a combination of the Commonwealth’s taxing power and grants power. To say, then, that the Constitution contemplates the continued existence of the States as independent entities is to ignore this vital fact.

In that essay Professor Anderson also wrote:

In spite of this constant cricitism from State sources, Commonwealth governments have shown no inclination to refrain from exercising their power to attach conditions to State grants. On the contrary, it is evident that Commonwealth governments of all political persuasions, in the security of their control of the financial resources of the country, are coming more and more to recognise section 96 as the means of enabling them to overcome the constitutional limitations on Commonwealth power, and as a strong stick with which to beat the States into accepting the role of executive agents for Commonwealth-conceived policies.

I see this Bill as really the final attack upon the federal system and the sovereignty of the States in this Commonwealth. Constitutionally local government in Australia is a creature of State governments and legally subordinate to them. This is not to say that the Commonwealth Government should not assist local government through the States to help local government discharge its community responsibilities. At present the Commonwealth assists the States through section 96 grants, such as the Commonwealth aid roads grants. The needs of local and semi-government authorities are considered at Australian Loan Council meetings but the allocation of borrowing rights among local bodies is a responsibility of the appropriate State government. No local government has a legal existence independent of its State government. This applies with respect to its boundaries and to the internal administration of local government, especially the financial administration which, of course, is closely supervised by the various State local government departments. However the role of local government progressively has increased. Not so many years ago we thought of local government as having a responsibility principally in the fields of road construction, kerbing and guttering and perhaps developing and caring for parks. Today the responsibilities of local government are much broader and are well known. Local government undertakes an impressive range of activities in the fields of social welfare and cultural activity. The pattern of local government expenditure is illustrated by a table which I seek leave to have incorporated in Hansard. The table, which relates to local authority expenditure during 1970-71, shows a total expenditure of $765.5m.

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

– Order! Is leave granted for the incorporation of the table? There being no objection, leave is granted. (The document read as follows) -

Translated into percentages, these figures provide a useful summary of the direction of local government activities: {: .speaker-GH4} ##### Mr HUNT: -- 1 thank the House. I have a further table, which shows the actual receipts of local government throughout Australia during 1970-71. It indicates total receipts of $748. 5m. I seek leave to have that table also incorporated in Hansard. {: #subdebate-27-0-s8 .speaker-10000} ##### Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: -Order! Is leave granted? {: .speaker-K9M} ##### Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP -- **Mr Deputy Speaker,** the honourable member would be aware that it is the custom in this House for honourable members to consult with respect to the incorporation of material in Hansard. If the honourable member seeks to incorporate other documents I suggest there should be some consultation. {: .speaker-GH4} ##### Mr HUNT: -- I did consult with your colleague, the Minister for Urban and Regional Development. {: .speaker-K9M} ##### Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP -- In that event there is no problem. {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: -- Leave is granted. (The document read as follows) - {: .page-start } page 2616 {:#debate-28} ### QUESTION {:#subdebate-28-0} #### LOCAL GOVERNMENT REVENUE SOURCES Local authorities throughout Australia had receipts of $748.5 million in 1970-71. (The balance of expenditure was financed by a net depletion of cash balances and government securities). Of this $606.5 million, or 81 per cent was in the form of current receipts, while the remainder was derived from net borrowing (that is, the excess of new borrowings, over debt redemption). The sources of local authority finance in 1970-71 were: {: #subdebate-28-0-s0 .speaker-GH4} ##### Mr HUNT: -- I thank the House. Overall, local government bodies raise 86.7 per cent of the current revenue from their own resources, principally from the ratepayers. An important consideration is that the proportion of local government revenue raised by local bodies in Australia is considerably higher than in many other countries. This is the nub of our problem - the problem of the heavy burden that is being experienced by ratepayers throughout Australia. For instance, the proportion of the total receipts that are collected by local government in Australia is 56.4 per cent; in Canada, 54 per cent; in New Zealand, 27.5 per cent; in the United States of America, 43 per cent; in Sweden, 50 per cent and in India 31.6 per cent. Government grants as a percentage of ordinary revenue - that is from the common revenue pool - in Australia are 14.7 per cent; in New Zealand, 20 per cent; in Canada, 32 per cent; in the United States of America, 28 per cent and in Sweden, 22.4 per cent. These figures serve to justify a substantial move by the Commonwealth to assist local government through the States. However, I sincerely believe that this Bill falls far short of the mark. Indeed it does not go anywhere near the proposition that the local government authorities put to the now Prime Minister in April of last year. I should like to quote the 3 propositions that were put to him. They are incorporated in the annual report of the Local Associations of New South Wales. The relevant passage reads: > **Mr Whitlam** paid the Association the courtesy of inviting your President and also the President of the Shires Association along to the meeting and we took the opportunity of submitting a joint statement of policy to him. > >As immediate and major objectives of local government, three fundamental propositions were listed: > >That local government should be included as an active participant in the review of the Australian Constitution and that this review should include recognition in the constitution of local government. This, of course, has been accommodated. The quotation continues: {: type="1" start="2"} 0. A financial formula should be agreed on between the Commonwealth and the States to provide for a Commonwealth allocation to the States of a fixed percentage of total income tax, this sum to be earmarked for local government services and to bs distributed to local government by the representative State government through the State Local Government Assistance Funds. 1. That local government should have representation on the Loan Council. So what do we have as a result of that meeting? A Grants Commission will be established which of course will enable local government bodies on a regional basis to bypass their State governments. So I believe this proposal will undermine the federal structure of this country. How does this Bill satisfy the needs of individual municipal councils and shire councils? I have received and conveyed to the Minister for Urban and Regional Development **(Mr Uren)** a representation from the Coonamble Shire Council. The Council is seeking $250,000 to establish a sewerage system at a place called Gulargambone in western New South Wales. I know that I will be receiving a request from the Dubbo City Council for a grant of $lm to develop a drainage system in that city. Are we to expect that all these individual requests which have been made as a result of the pressing problems of specific shire councils will be dealt with satisfactorily and favourably by the Grants Commission? I await with great interest to see whether the Minister does in fact refer to the Grants Commission the request from the Coonamble Shire Council for a sewerage system at Gulargambone. I will be very interested to see whether in fact he does refer to the Grants Commission the request for funds for a drainage system for the city of Dubbo which will cost $lm. I hope that he does. If he does, however, this will not really meet the spirit of the second reading speech of the Prime Minister. I believe that the Bill will cause friction between the 3 tiers of government. I demonstrate this by quoting what the Prime Minister said in his second reading speech. The honourable gentleman stated: >The Act will require a regional organisation making an application to the Minister to send a copy of its application to the appropriate Minister in the State Government so the Minister may be aware of the details of the application and be in a position to make submissions to the Commission on any matter related to the application. I see great problems in this. A regional organisation will not be easy to define. The other very real problem that I see in this Bill is expressed in that part of the second reading speech where the Prime Minister emphasised that applications for assistance for single purpose or specific development projects will not be the concern of the Grants Commission. So we come back to the sample request that came from the Coonamble Shire Council. Will the Coonamble Shire Council be eligible to receive $250,000 for its sewerage system at Gulargambone? Of course, if it does not receive assistance for this project the whole proposition is a sham as it affects individual shire councils in this country. I do not really believe that this legislation gets to the heart of the problem. Not only will we see the spectacle of the States going cap in hand to the Commonwealth as a result of this Bill if it is carried but also we will also see local governments come running, knocking their 1JJ70 73- «- 4100J hips down like brumbies racing to water. The procedures are bad and I believe they are designed to break down the federal system. Whilst I accept the urgent need for the Commonwealth to channel preferably a percentage of income tax to local government through the States, I do not like this Bill. There is a great need to relieve taxpayers of the increasing burden of rates and to transfer the cost of local government more equitably across the whole community rather than leave the weight as it now rests upon the shoulders of a minority section of the community in many instances - the ratepayers. The system of financing local government is archaic and inadequate. If local government has to service the community needs on a broad front, the community as a whole should share more appropriately the cost of those services. This surely is what the local government finance demands are all about. This is why there have been deputations from local government associations to former governments and to this Government pleading and crying out for assistance. This Bill surely must disappoint them because it will not get to the heart of the problem that faces local government in this country. I believe that this Bill is a cunning device which gives the appearance of meeting the local government finance problem but which in fact will be used to break down the federal system of government in Australia. Therefore I support the amendment moved by the Leader of the Australian Country Party **(Mr Anthony)** which states: >That all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to inserting the following words in place thereof: while not refusing to give the Bill a second reading, this House deplores the establishment of a complex new bureaucratic Commonwealth mechanism and is of opinion that the Bill should have provided that: > >immediate consultations be held with the States to determine the financial requirements of local Government taking into account their loan commitments, their overall financial responsibilities and the burden of rates on ratepayers; > >funds provided to meet these requirements should be allocated to State Governments for distribution to local Government in accordance with priorities determined by the States after consultation with local Government; and > >payments should commence in 1973-74.'. No, this Bill is a great disappointment to local government and it is a great threat to the federal system in Australia. {: #subdebate-28-0-s1 .speaker-JM9} ##### Mr ARMITAGE:
Chifley -- I support the Bill and oppose the amendment moved by the Leader of the Australian Country Party **(Mr Anthony)** and supported by the honourable member for Gwydir **(Mr Hunt)** as well as the amendment moved by the honourable member for Curtin **(Mr Garland).** I do so because without doubt this Government has a complete mandate to introduce this legislation. Regular publicity has been given to this proposal over the last 3 to 4 years. Earlier this year the Leader of the Opposition **(Mr Snedden)** said that the Opposition would not oppose legislation for which the Government had a mandate from the people. Therefore I find quite incomprehensible the 2 amendments that we now have before us. I would like to deal with them because the honourable member for Gwydir just stated that he was sure that this legislation did not have the support of local government. I do not know where he gets that idea from. I move around pretty extensively and I know that wherever I have met aldermen and councillors of municipalities and shires I have been asked when the new reconstitution of the Grants Commission will be implemented. They have told me that they are looking forward to this move because they realise that this will be one of the great and most important reforms in local government finance to be introduced this century. So it is absolutely ridiculous for the honourable member for Gwydir to suggest that this proposal does not have the support of local government. It has very strong support indeed. Furthermore, this Government has a complete mandate to introduce this legislation The statement by the Leader of the Opposition that the Opposition would not oppose legislation in respect of which we have a mandate is being abrogated. {: .speaker-GH4} ##### Mr Hunt: -- Will I get the sewerage scheme for Gulargambone? {: .speaker-JM9} ##### Mr ARMITAGE: -- The honourable member for Gwydir was pessimistic about the legislation. He said that it cannot work and that he could not see how it would be any good. The fact is that this is the type of pessimism and lack of initiative which was within the ranks of the former Government over a period of 23 years and which led to the very serious position in which local government finds itself today. Nobody is trying to destroy any federal systems or anything of that nature. We are trying to take the initiative to overcome the serious plight of local government today. We are endeavouring to take the initiative to help it in its serious fianacial plight. Surely the burden of rates on the ratepayer has reached saturation point. Nearly all councils have a debt burden which they simply cannot meet. Unless some new action is taken, unless some new initiative is taken, the position will become absolutely untenable. The Bill is being introduced to meet a position of urgency brought about by the inaction of the previous Commonwealth Government and of the State governments in refusing to assist local government in its plight. The Government has an undoubted mandate to introduce this Bill. Yet as late as yesterday the Prime Minister accepted 4 quite important amendments proposed by the Leader of the Opposition. This action indicates that the Government intends to work in full consultation with the States. That repudiates completely the attitude taken by the Country Party. I think that the acceptance of the amendments showed that the Government is acting in good faith by, on the one hand, endeavouring to assist local government with its great financial problems and, on the other hand, making sure that our action is not misinterpreted by ensuring full co-operation and consultation with the States. The whole proposal is a topping up procedure which will provide topping up finance for those local government councils whose needs would be greater than others. In other words, the needs concept must apply. Those councils which, because of their particular development, are experiencing massive development and which, accordingly, are in a more serious financial plight than others, should receive considerable benefit from this Bill. There is to be a grouping of councils. Because this concept of the grouping of councils is only in its infancy, and to ensure flexibility, a special clause has been introduced. Clause 17 (2) (b) states: >The Minister for Urban and Regional Development may, by instrument in writing - > >in special circumstances, approve any other local governing body as a body that shall be deemed to be an approved regional organisation for the purposes of this Act. In special circumstances an individual local government body may apply for financial assistance under this Act. I think this gives flexibility and allows for the exceptions which, may occur when a grouping of councils may not be successful. The Government realises that we are entering into a new and important reform which is quite dramatic and radical. when compared with past actions. We realise that some problems which we do not see at this point of time could intrude. For this reason we are deliberately allowing flexibility in our attitude to the problem. We have accepted amendments already. We have introduced the clause to which I referred, which will mean that in special circumstances a local government body may apply, as an individual body, for assistance. I could give some very good examples of this question of need and of the great disparity between the standards applying in some local government areas as compared with others. I represent one such area. 1 represent an area which covers the municipalities of Blacktown and Penrith, areas which have experienced a far greater expansion and increase in population than most other areas of the State in recent times. I submit that this is the type of area which will require assistance. For example, the Housing Commission has developed the Mount Druitt area, but it had done nothing about supplying access roads to that area. It has done nothing about supplying the necessary community facilities such as swimming pools, community centres, playing fields and the like. The whole burden of supplying these community facilities has fallen upon the local councils. It is obvious that some action must be taken to correct this procedure. Unfortunately the New South Wales Government, whether because of inertia, because of an inability to assess the problem or simply because of its financial inability, has refused to take the necessary corrective action. Accordingly, the Commonwealth Government steps in with this proposal. Together with and in parallel with this propping up proposal will be special purpose grants under section 96 of the Constitution. I think these proposals will go a long way towards correcting past inequalities. That is all one could call them. I support the Bill. I oppose the amendment. I find it incomprehensible that both the Libera] Party and the Country Party did not do something about this matter in the past. They now put forward their ideas as to how the Bill should be amended. I find it impossible to equate their conscience in putting up such a proposal with their complete inactivity in the past. The Bill is a sincere attempt to do something about a very serious problem. I know it has the support of the people. I know it has the support of local government. I believe it should have the support of all political parties in the Parliament. {: #subdebate-28-0-s2 .speaker-KZL} ##### Mr Eric Robinson:
MCPHERSON, QUEENSLAND · LP -- The last paragraph of the second reading speech of the Prime Minister **(Mr Whitlam)** referred to the fact that the Bill, in his opinion, represents an historic step forward in advancing and enhancing the role of local government in Australia. One would hope that it means a significant step forward for Australia. Reaction to it is mixed. It should have come as no surprise to any Australian. One's attitude to it would depend upon one's interpretation of the Government's intent. I am prepared to concede certain things. Firstly, I concede that this whole approach was mentioned time and time again in Australian Labor Party speeches by the then Leader of the Opposition and his shadow Ministers. There is no doubt that it had an electoral impact in the last Federal election. I believe that it was one of the most important issues and one through which the Labor Party was able to encourage substantial support. I would concede that the Government does have a mandate for this approach, although I would not concede that it has a mandate for each Bill which it introduces. But this approach was enunciated so clearly and the intent was made so clear that I would concede that the Government has a mandate. The Bill contains much of merit and much which should engender support, but of course there has to be concern about its intent and implementation, particularly from the Liberal Party Opposition which stands so much for the federal system of government. If we had to crystallise our concern it would be because we see the Bill as a possible vehicle to break down the federal system of government. This is why a number of my colleagues in the Liberal and Country Parties have expressed opposition to it and concern about it. One may be able to take some comfort if one reads the first paragraph of the Prime Minister's speech - this has been referred to by the honourable member for Gwydir **(Mr Hunt)** - in which he refers to the local authority becoming a genuine partner in the system. Presumably he means the federal system. But that is in conflict with his comments about a unitary system of government. In the last few days honourable members have seen very clearly the conflict arising out of the Prime Minister's comments. The Grants Commission has had a pretty good history going back to 1933. I am informed that it was a Tasmanian Prime Minister who introduced it. As we all know, the Commission was designed to help the smaller States to achieve an equality of standards with the larger States. I am glad to see that the States' rights have been maintained. I quote from the second reading speech as follows: >The automatic right of claimant States to have their applications referred to the Commission for inquiry and report is in no way diminished. The purpose is to extend the right to local authorities. There is inequality in local authorities, and they need assistance. I do not think that anybody would argue about that. From looking at the differences in the revenues that have been achieved in recent years by the 3 levels of government, it is tremendously clear to each and every one of us that there is need for assistance to local authorities. I believe that, as Australians, we owe a great debt of gratitude to many people who have contributed to local government. It has attracted many successful people from all walks of life. Many of them make their contribution in a completely honorary capacity. They are unpaid. Substantial demands are made on their time. In my own electorate, which takes in the city of the Gold Coast - the second fastest growing city in the nation, after Canberra - I am aware of all the problems of growth and development there, as well as in the northern end of the McPherson electorate, in the top end of the Albert Shire and in the outer suburban areas of Brisbane. I know of the problems of the young communities there. Of course, there are problems in some of the rural areas because of the static or declining populations and increasing costs. The shires have tremendous difficulty in finding the necessary revenue to cover cost. We all accept that in the large capital cities of Australia there is a need for assistance in the outer sur.burbs. In this affluent and successful country Australians are entitled not only to adequate roads, water and drainage and sewerage but also to libraries, recreation facilities, community centres, child care centres and cultural centres. These are the necessities and the requirements of life. They are the facilities and amenities to which each and every one of us is entitled. I believe that the regional arrangements in the Bill are to be commended. Obviously it is impractical if some 900 shires and councils throughout the nation have to be dealt with. The decision as to where there are to be regional arrangements is one for the Minister for Urban and Regional Development. I hope that some of the smaller shires, particularly those in Queensland which I know, will make use of this arrangement. What has concerned me has been that in some of the smaller shires, with their very limited revenue, a sense of rivalry and competition has led to duplication of machinery and unnecessary expenditure. I am certain that there is room for improvement in effectiveness and efficiency in those smaller shires. The Bill makes it necessary for the submissions to go to the Special Minister of State. He has real discretion as to what is sent on to the Commission. I am pleased to see that a copy of each submission will go to the relevant State government for its comment and that, should it see fit, that State government will be able to make a submission to the Commission. This is essential because State governments have a very real knowledge of local authority areas. I believe, however, that a real responsibility rests with those 2 Ministers. The first one has to decide what regional arrangements are to be accepted, and the second one has to decide what submissions are to go to the Commission. I am not suggesting that either Minister would be involved in this, but this sort of system could lend itself to political patronage, which should be avoided, and also to the suggestion that all wisdom resides in Canberra, which I hope none of us would claim. The Bill makes it perfectly clear that it is a topping-up process; it is not a substitute for rates and charges, which provide about 90 per cent of local authority revenue in Australia. I believe that there ought to be revision by local authorities of the manner in which they raise revenue. To my mind, there is a great need to see that we have a more effective and fairer way for local authorities to raise revenue. They should not simply depend upon rates and charges. The Commission will play a very significant role in the national economy. I hope that the Government will be able to attract people with skill and experience to serve the nation. I would like to make two or three general comments. I believe it is fair to say that this is probably one of the most significant Bills to come before the House in this session. There have been others of significance, but this is one of the most significant.' I would have hoped that more time could have been made available between the presentation of the second reading speech and the debate today. This is a matter of national significance and national interesst. It is regrettable that we have not had more time in which to study this Bill very deeply. The concern about it relates to the maintenance of the federal structure. My attitude and, I believe, the attitude of many Australians will depend on this. It is a question of the Government's genuineness. References were made in the Prime Minister's speech to the federal system. We have had assurances from the Minister for Urban and Regional Development **(Mr Uren)** in the House. Many people will be watching with great interest to see that the co-operation with the States and the consultation with the States, about which those 2 honourable gentlemen have spoken, does occur. Australians want to see decentralisation of power. They will be displeased, to say the least, if this Commission is used as a vehicle for the centralisation of power. 1 suggest that there will be a backlash against the Government should it attempt to use the Commission in that manner. Finally, I am concerned about the substantial drift in Federal-State relations. Since the new Federal Government took office increasing strains and stresses have been developing. I will not claim that it has been one-sided. I am on record in my own State as saying that I believe that some extreme statements have come from Queensland. In many areas the new Federal Government has adopted an attitude of heavy-handedness, an attitude of tactlessness, an attitude verging on arrogance, towards the States. This is not in Australia's best interests. It does not develop the sort of national unity we should have in such a strong and important nation. The 3 tiers of government will be represented at the forthcoming constitutional convention. I applaud the decision that local authorities will be represented at the convention. I hope, for the benefit of Australia that it will be successful. I hope that no growing disagreement will create divisions between governments which will make mature and balanced decisions difficult to achieve at the convention. I support the Bill but reiterate my concern, and the watchfulness that many people will be having in this matter, as to the way the Government implements it. {: #subdebate-28-0-s3 .speaker-JG4} ##### Mr LAMB:
La Trobe -- The election of the present Federal Government marked a turning point in the fortunes of local government. Previous governments held the view that local governments are the exclusive constitutional responsibility of the States and that the States should include local requirements in their overall requests for Commonwealth financial assistance. This Government has changed that policy to recognise the needs of local government and its role in a 3-tier system of government. In his policy speech the Prime Minister **(Mr Whitlam)** promised that his Government would 'give local government full access to the Loan Council and the Commonwealth Grants Commission', partly because 'the inequalities between regions must be attacked by the national Governnent*. This approach is logical given that the national Government is already committed to removing inequalities among the States; inequalities within the States are equally worthy of attention. This Act continues the Grant Commission's role in respect of applications by the States for special grants but now the principle of equalising grants will be extended to the local government bodies. This Bill recognises the inadequacy of locally derived revenue in meeting the expanding responsibilities of local government and the need for equalising the burden of individual local government bodies beset by unique problems in raising revenue. The existing Grants Commission is a most suitable quasi-judicial body that can investigate needs and resources and make recommendations on the level of financial grants that should be made by the Commonwealth to local government bodies through the States. Some speakers in this debate have suggested that some form of taxation revenue should be re-imbursed to the States for this purpose and superficially it could be argued that local government bodies should receive Commonwealth assistance on the basis of per capita payments. However this would overlook the varying capacities of local government bodies to raise their own revenue. Certain demographic factors place special burdens on some local government bodies. For example, the inner areas of our larger cities with an almost static population growth do not enjoy a natural increase in rate revenue, from a growing number of rate payers, but have entered a phase characterised by diseconomies of congestion, that is, the costs of providing local services rise more than proportionally to the increase in population. Suburbs on the fringes of the cities, such as Waverley, Knox and Ringwood on the fringe of Melbourne, however, enjoy an expanding population with a corresponding expansion of revenue. This would mean little difficulty except that certain local government areas may face special difficulties as a result of an influx of migrants or young families who place greater demands on community services than do older people because the extra people outnumber the extra ratepayers in any such increase. Rural councils, such as Upper Yarra and Healesville, both about 40 miles from Melbourne, suffer from the drift or population to urban areas so that their revenue is stable or declining. Furthermore, they face the odious task of increasing rates on farming property unless their income can be supplemented from other sources. There is a wide discrepancy in the quality and quantity of services afforded between the western and eastern suburbs of Melbourne. Comparatively, the western suburbs are deprived in that they lack a great number of community services such as roads, libraries, child care centres, recreational centres and social welfare services. These suburbs have suffered because the local councils have been forced to rely largely on revenue from rates which are low for basically 3 reasons. Firstly, large areas of land held by Commonwealth and State governments are nonrateable secondly, most of the residents are in the low income bracket and own correspondingly lower value properties - there is a limit to the amount of rates that can be applied - and thirdly, our regressive system of taxation deductions aids those on higher incomes so that indirectly the Commonwealth Government is providing more assistance to the more affluent communities. The plans of State authorities, such as the Melbourne and Metropolitan Board of Works, have meant rezoning of land that cannot deliver income to local councils. The local government bodies that take in the Dandenong Ranges such as Lilydale, Sherbrooke and Berwick, for instance, suffer because large areas are required for conservation and recreation and cannot be rated. As the responsibilities for welfare work fall more heavily on the shoulders of local government, so the equity of rate collection becomes more distorted. The benefit principle of taxation is more appropriate for most local government services but is most inequitable for social welfare services which should be provided from community revenue. It is for these reasons, among others, that per capita payments would not be suitable as a basis for determining grants from the Commonwealth. But the grants recommended by the Commonwealth Grants Commission would he p to equalise the facilities available in richer and poorer, or highly or sparsely populated, local government areas and would provide a financial topping up for the expanding ro'e of local government into the non-traditional social welfare sphere. There are special qualifications, however, that recognise the difficulties in extending the operation of the Grants Commission to local governments. If the Commonwealth Government had attempted to impose regional groupings it could not expect full cooperation from bodies each separately constituted and with differing financial problems and demographic qualities. Those best qualified to assess the ideal groupings will carry out the task. Approval of regional organisations will be carried out in full consultation with the States and should be initiated by the local government bodies themselves. In some instances, one local government body may constitute a region or possess regional characteristics in itself. The Bill is given flexibility by permitting the relevant Minister to recognise a single local government body as an applicant for assistance. Furthermore, the charge of centralism is lessened as such assistance as is granted will be in the form of section 96 grants paid to the States and the applicants must inform the appropriate State Minister of the details of the application. The system of regions has been adopted to make the system workable and to reduce the 900 or so local government bodies to a manageable number for the Commission to process. The current position was put clearly by **Mr Justice** Else-Mitchell of the New South Wales Land and Valuation Court when he stressed that there are too many local authorities with areas and responsibilities resulting from historical accident rather than conscious planning or economic appropriations. It would be foolish for the Grants Commission to compound the difficulties. It is necessary that the local government bodies recognise the needs of local government in a wider integrated context rather than simple parochial terms. This objective could well be realised as many local councils already co-operate on a regional basis for many services such as regional libraries, social welfare and fire protection. The Government realises that it will have to recognise the existing organisational structure of local government but this must not preclude co-operation between local councils or prevent the Minister for Urban and Regional Development developing regional groupings to facilitate the workings of the Commission. Of course, how the Commission goes about its business is largely up to it and the local councils in such matters as investigations, studies and recommendations for grants to the regions or within a region. The Act attempts to avoid the charge that lazy local governments - those which have not fully used local sources of revenue - will be favoured over those which by dint of hard work and responsibility have obtained the revenue necessary to provide essential community services. Grants will be made only after assessing the effort local government bodies have exerted in meeting their own financial commitments. The Act provides that local government bodies, whether they be regional or individual applicants, must demonstrate a reasonable effort to finance their affairs. This provision has an inbuilt advantage for local government. The rating system, until recently, provided an adequate and appropriate method of finance which has allowed them to preserve their financial autonomy and independence. At the same time as applying for Commonwealth grants, local government bodies should be seeking ways to preserve their existing strengths and maintain their independent function. I believe that local government bodies will be anxious to preserve their autonomy and will welcome the provision that they must demonstrate their reasonable efforts regarding finance. They will also welcome the information that these grants will in no way be a substitute for the assistance normally provided by State governments for single purpose or specific developmental projects such as those for roads, aged pensioner homes, home care services, senior citizens centres or tourism. Local government bodies can probably expect similar treatment by the Grants Com mission in assessing their needs as that now extended by the Commission to the States in assessing their needs. Differentials in the fiscal capacities of local government bodies can be partially or wholly offset by the pattern of distribution of Commonwealth financial assistance to the States for local government purposes and the Commission takes this into account in assessing the need for a special grant by treating the bodies as if they had not received such State allocations. The underlying basic proposition of this Bill is that the Australian Government no longer intends to turn its back on the financial problems of local government. This Government recognises that the taxpayer and the ratepayer are largely one and the same. This Government has taken the initiative and acted to increase the finances of local government which are inadequate for their expanding role in providing a quality of life for our citizens. The Government has already announced its intention of becoming involved in single specific purpose works such as sewerage, land and transport. It is now to become involved in helping local government to overcome the backlog of unmade streets and inadequate social services. It has now accepted the challenge of a truly national government and that is to ensure that no person will be jeopardised regarding his quality of life because of. where he lives. Once it was good enough to consider differences between States; now it is necessary to consider the differences between local government areas. I commend the Bill to this national Parliament. Motion (by **Mr Daly)** agreed to: >That the question be now put. {: #subdebate-28-0-s4 .speaker-JP8} ##### Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Berinson:
PERTH, WESTERN AUSTRALIA -- The question now is that the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the question. {: .speaker-K9L} ##### Mr Garland: -- I wish to move my motion that I foreshadowed in my speech and which has been circulated in my name. {: #subdebate-28-0-s5 .speaker-10000} ##### Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: -- In view of the decision already taken by the House, that is out of order. {: .speaker-K9L} ##### Mr Garland: -- I ask your ruling. **Mr Deputy Speaker.** Is there any way in which I can move that amendment? {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: -- No. Question resolved in the affirmative. Amendment negatived. Original question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time, and committed pro forma; progress reported. {: .page-start } page 2624 {:#debate-29} ### AUSTRALIAN NATIONAL AIRLINES BILL 1973 In Committee Consideration resumed from 22 May (vide page 2423). Clause 6. Section 19a of the Principal Act is amended - (1)...... (1a) Where, after the commencement of section 10 of the Australian National Airlines Act 1959, and whether before or after the commencement of this sub-section, the Parliament of a State has referred to the Parliament of the Commonwealth the matter of air transport, or any other matter that is such that, by reason of the reference, it is within the power of the Parliament of the Commonwealth to make exercisable by the Commission in that State the powers referred to in subsection (Id), the Governor-General may, by Proclamation, declare that this section applies in relation to that State.' {: #debate-29-s0 .speaker-009OD} ##### Mr NIXON:
Gippsland -- I move: >In proposed sub-section (1a) of section 19a omit the words 'and whether before or after', substitute the words 'and before'. This amendment relates back in history for quite a long way. In a debate in this House in 1959 on airlines legislation the then AttorneyGeneral, **Sir Garfield** Barwick, made the statement: >There is power for the States to refer to a Commonwealth Parliament topics which can include intrastate civil aviation, but the power of this Parliament to legislate on that topic does not arise until the reference is effective. In my opinion there is no power in this Parliament to make a law on a subject on which it has not yet any power. I move this amendment to maintain the position that was adopted in 1959 by **Sir Garfield** Barwick. {: #debate-29-s1 .speaker-KDV} ##### Mr CHARLES JONES:
Minister for Civil Aviation · Newcastle · ALP -- The Government accepts the Opposition's amendment in this case. Whilst we would have liked very much to have had this clause as originally drafted in the Bill, in my second reading speech I indicated to honourable members that the object of the Government was to draft a Bill which we considered was in accordance with the intention of the former Government, to honour a promise which had been given to **Sir** Frederick Scherger, the Chairman of the Australian National Airlines Commission and the other commissioners. At the time when the assurance was given this particular clause would not have been effective and was not then part of the thinking nor was it part of the assurances which were given to the Chairman at that time by my predecessor. In endeavouring to honour the promise which was given, the Government is prepared to accept the Opposition's amendment. We do not intend to oppose it. Amendment agreed to. Clause, as amended, agreed to. {: #debate-29-s2 .speaker-KDV} ##### Mr CHARLES JONES:
Minister for Transport and Minister for Civil Aviation · Newcastle · ALP -- I ask for leave to resubmit clause 5. {: #debate-29-s3 .speaker-5J4} ##### The CHAIRMAN (Mr Scholes:
CORIO, VICTORIA -- Is leave granted? There being no objection, leave is granted. Clause 5. Reconsideration. Section 19 of the Principal Act is repealed and the following section substituted: 19.(1) The functions of the Commission are - {: type="a" start="a"} 0. to transport passengers and goods for reward by air between prescribed places; and 1. within the limits of its powers under this Act or any relevant State Act, to transport passengers and goods for reward by air or in association with its powers in this section and, within those limits, to provide land transport accommodation, and other services and facilities associated with the exercise of its powers under paragraph (a), 2. to provide to the Commonwealth and authorities of the Commonwealth, for reward, aviation, land transport and engineering services and such other services as can conveniently be provided by the use of the resources of the Commission. and the Commission shall carry on business for the purpose of performing those functions.' {: #debate-29-s4 .speaker-KDV} ##### Mr CHARLES JONES:
Minister for Civil Aviation · Newcastle · ALP -- I move the following amendment to the clause as previously agreed to: >Omit paragraph (b) of sub-section (1) of proposed section 19, substitute the following paragraph: > >to engage in other activities to the extent that they are within the limits of the powers of the Commission under a provision of this Act other than this section; and'. The position is that when the Bill was dealt with previously, we inserted a compromise amendment which from a drafting point of view was not as good as might have been expected. We have now agreed to this amendment. {: #debate-29-s5 .speaker-009OD} ##### Mr NIXON:
Gippsland -- The Opposition agrees with the amendment and thanks the Minister for obtaining a better wording for the amendment than I was able, in my innocence, to draft as a layman. We agree entirely with the terms of the amendment, and I thank the Minister. Amendment agreed to. Clause, as amended, agreed to. Clause 7. After section 19a of the Principle Act the following sections are inserted: 19b. lt is the intention of the Parliament that the Commission may have and perform functions and powers conferred on it by a State Act that is declared by the Minister, by notice published in the Gazette, to be, in his opinion, complementary to this Act, being functions and powers in relation to the provision of services in the State. 19c. (1) The Commission may, to the extent provided by sub-section (2), transport passengers or goods for reward by air or by land, or partly by air and partly by land, between places in the one State. *(2) The powers of the Commission under subsection (1) may be exercised - {: type="a" start="a"} 0. for the purposes of the efficient, competitive and profitable conduct of the business of the Commission in respect of its function under paragraph (a) of sub-section (1) of section 19 or otherwise as incidental to the carrying on of that business; or 1. in association with the carrying on of that business and to the extent that those powers are capable of being conferred on the Commission in the exercise of the power of the Parliament to make laws under paragraph (xx) of section 51 of the Constitution. *19d. (1) The Commission may, lo the extent provided by sub-section (2), provide, for reward, services that involve the use of aircraft. {: type="1" start="2"} 0. The powers of the Commission under subsection (1) may be exercised - {: type="a" start="a"} 0. for the purposes of the efficient, competitive and profitable conduct of the business of the Commission in respect of its function under paragraph (a) of sub-section (1) of section 19 or otherwise as incidental to the carrying on of that business; or 1. to the extent that those powers are capable of being conferred on the Commission in the exercise of the power of the Parliament to make laws under section 122 or paragraph (!) or (xx) of section 51 of the Constitution. 19e. (1) The Commisssion may, to the extent provided by sub-section (2), establish, maintain and operate, or make arrangements with other persons for or in connexion with the establishment, maintenance and operation of, hotels or other establishments or enterprises providing accommodation, recreation, entertainment or other services or facilities. 1. The powers of the Commission under subsection (1) may be exercised - {: type="a" start="a"} 0. for the purposes of the efficient, competitive and profitable conduct of the business of the Commission in respect of its function under paragraph (a) of sub-section (1) of section 19 or otherwise as incidental to the carrying on of that business; or 1. in association with the carrying on of that business and to the extent that those powers are capable of being conferred on the Commission in the exercise of the powers of the Parliament to make laws under section 122 or paragraph (xx) of section 51 of the Constitution. 19g. If- 2. Papua New Guinea becomes an independent country; and 3. the Commonwealth and the Government of that country enter into arrangements for the transport, for reward, by the Commission of passengers and goods by air between places in that country or between places in that country and places outside Australia and that country, the Commission may transport passengers and goods in accordance with those arrangements. {: #debate-29-s6 .speaker-009OD} ##### Mr NIXON:
Gippsland -- I move: This section amounts to parliamentary adoption in advance of a future State law without the legislative support of an existing reference of power. The method of adoption is for the Minister to publish a notice in the Gazette that the State Act is in his opinion, complementary to the Act. Apart from its doubtful validity, it is clearly objectionable as a surrender of parliamentary sovereignty to the Executive. {: #debate-29-s7 .speaker-KDV} ##### Mr CHARLES JONES:
Minister for Civil Aviation · Newcastle · ALP -- The Government accepts the Opposition's amendment and is prepared to support it. Amendment agreed to. {: #debate-29-s8 .speaker-009OD} ##### Mr NIXON:
Gippsland -- I move: The proposed section invokes paragraph (xx) of section 51 of the Constitution - that is, the corporation power - on a basis which clearly intends to give Trans- Australia Airlines wider powers than we believe are necessary for it to have to expand its activities to meet the agreed position between the Government and the Opposition in this matter. Paragraph (xx) of section 51 of the Constitution authorises the Commonwealth to make laws with respect to foreign corporations, and trading or financial corporations formed within the limits of the Commonwealth. The extent of the Commonwealth's power under this paragraph is extremely uncertain and awaits further clarification by the High Court when a suitable issue arises. In 1909 in Huddart Parker Ltd v Moorehead the members of the High Court expressed quite different views but generally they gave the section a very restricted meaning. As a result it was assumed that the Commonwealth did not have power to enact a uniform Companies Act covering all trading corporations. It could only incorporate or regulate corporations carrying out any enumerated power such as inter-nation or interstate trade and commerce; for example, the National Shipping Line, the Australian National Airlines Commission and the Overseas Telecommunications Commission. In 1971 the High Court in the Concrete Pipes Case - Strickland v Rockla Concrete Pipes Ltd - took a much wider view of the corporation power and a number of judgments suggested, in passing, that the Commonwealth might be able to enact a uniform Companies Act and might also be able to form trading companies engaging in domestic trade and commerce within the confines of a State. Until the corporation power of the Commonwealth is fully defined, it is not acceptable to give the Commission a blank cheque to exercise that power to the full extent that the power is capable of being conferred on the Commission in the exercise of the power of the Parliament. This is especially so since many other provisions of the Bill give the Commission all the powers that are necessary. The Opposition submits that it is rather like using a sledge-hammer to crack a nut. {: #debate-29-s9 .speaker-KDV} ##### Mr CHARLES JONES:
NewcastleMinister for Civil Aviation · ALP -- The Government accepts the amendment moved by the Opposition. This proposed section relies on the corporation powers to permit Trans-Australia Airlines to operate intrastate. It is quite recent thinking to rely on this head of power. This proposed section has undoubtedly raised considerable opposition to the Bill and in practical terms it may well be that the Government may not wish TAA to operate intrastate unless it has a reference by the relevant State parliaments. As I said in my remarks on a similar clause, we are setting out to honour a promise that was given by my predecessor to TAA as part of the amendments to the 2-airline agreement which went through last year. As this is recent thinking and an innovation as far as the powers of the Commonwealth are concerned, and so that the Bill can be proceeded with - through both Houses, I hope - the Government is prepared to accept this amendment. It is new thinking; it was not the considered position when the promises were given late last year. For that reason we propose to accept the Opposition's amendment. Amendment agreed to. **Mr NIXON** (Gippsland) - by leave - I move: >Omit paragraph (b) of sub-section (2) of proposed section 19d. Our purpose in moving this amendment is similar to that for the amendments which have been accepted. It was this paragraph that really frightened in particular the people in the road transport, hotel and motel industries who were unaware of the complete power of it until a High Court challenge ensued. Therefore we seek acceptance of this amendment. {: #debate-29-s10 .speaker-KDV} ##### Mr CHARLES JONES:
Minister for Civil Aviation · Newcastle · ALP -- For reasons similar to those given when accepting the amendments moved earlier, the Government accepts this amendment moved by the Opposition. People stirred up a lot of red herrings in an endeavour to create a fear complex about what the Government was proposing to do under this proposed section. For example, it was said that we were going to take over all crop dusting. I think that an airline of the magnitude of TAA would not be interested in crop dusting. The paragraph was intended simply to give us the right to do aerial work within the States without having it referred by the particular State government. Therefore, in order to get a Bill that honours the promises which were given to the Australian National Airlines Commission, we accept the amendment. Amendment agreed to. {: #debate-29-s11 .speaker-009OD} ##### Mr NIXON:
Gippsland -- by leaveI move: >Omit paragraph (b) of sub-section (2) of proposed section 19e. Comments similar to those applied to the earlier amendments apply to this. The Minister for Transport and Minister for Civil Aviation **(Mr Charles Jones)** may well argue his side of the story but the simple truth is that the people engaged in the industries mentioned earlier were, to use an expression, dead scared of the force of this power because the power is unlimited. It has never been tested in the High Court and it is definitely not necessary to have this power to secure for TAA those additions to its operations which we believed when in government and which we believe in Opposition it should have. I say with great respect to the Minister that I think it is a bit unfair of him to suggest that there was a fear or scare campaign worked up over this issue for in simple truth the enormity of this proposition to include paragraph (xx) of section 51 of the Constitution is such that I can understand any crop duster, hotel owner, garage proprietor or any engineering shop proprietor and the proprietors of hundreds of other ancillary industries being nervous about it. {: .speaker-KN9} ##### Mr Martin: -- Crop dusters are always nervous. {: .speaker-009OD} ##### Mr NIXON: -- Crop dusters were mentioned specifically. Indeed, an agreement between the Director-General and the Commission, dated 13 October - that was prior to the last election - included aerial work and charter operations as being a rightful part of TAA's operations. When this power is added to the agreement reached with the Director-General, of course crop duster and many others would be nervous. {: #debate-29-s12 .speaker-KDV} ##### Mr CHARLES JONES:
Minister for Civil Aviation · Newcastle · ALP -- The Government accepts the Opposition's amendment. I reiterate that this is still new thinking so far as the powers of the Corporation are concerned. I shall repeat what I said recently when I appeared on a television program with the honourable member for Gippsland **(Mr Nixon):** I have no desire to become the Minister in charge of the biggest string of hotels - I think I said 'pubs' at the time - in Australia. {: .speaker-009OD} ##### Mr Nixon: -- Do you realise that there has to be agreement by the Attorney-General and the Minister if there is to be a challenge to TAA's powers? You said on television that you did not want to do this and you repeated it. Would you facilitate such an appeal? {: .speaker-KDV} ##### Mr CHARLES JONES: -- That would be a matter for decision by the Government and I believe the. Government would welcome it. We accept the amendment for the simple reason that this was not included in the promises made by my predecessor. Amendment agreed to. {: #debate-29-s13 .speaker-009OD} ##### Mr NIXON:
Gippsland -- I seek leave to withdraw my amendment relating to proposed section 19g. The reason is that over the past weekend I understand that satisfactory arrangements were made between the Australian Government and the Government of Papua New Guinea about the future policy for domestic airline services in Papua New Guinea. Now that there is a government to government agreement the. Opposition wishes to facilitate the arrangements. Amendment - by leave - withdrawn. {: #debate-29-s14 .speaker-KDV} ##### Mr CHARLES JONES:
Minister for Civil Aviation · Newcastle · ALP -- I move: As the honourable member for Gippsland **(Mr Nixon)** just stated, a satisfactory arrangement has been entered into between the Chief Minister for Papua New Guinea, the Minister for Transport in Papua New Guinea, the Minister for External Territories **(Mr Morrison)** and myself. That happened last Friday. There was complete understanding. The wording of the present Bill is not so good as could be expected. I accept the criticism levelled by the Opposition during the second reading debate about the use of the word 'if. lt did give the wrong impression. There is no intention on the part of this Government to delay independence for Papua New Guinea. The word 'if was used at the time, but the amendment I have moved meets the requirements of the Bill, the Opposition and the Government. {: #debate-29-s15 .speaker-009OD} ##### Mr NIXON:
Gippsland -- The Opposition agrees entirely with what has just been said by the Minister. The use of the word 'if was unfortunate. It was picked up by the Leader of the Opposition **(Mr Snedden)** when he spoke during the second reading debate. The word 'upon', which is to be substituted is a much more diplomatic word for a Bill of this nature. Amendment agreed to. Clause, as amended, agreed to. Clauses 8 to 12 - by leave - taken together, and agreed to. Clause 13. Section 31 of the Principal Act is amended: {: type="a" start="a"} 0. by omitting sub-sections (1) and (2) and substituting the following sub-sections: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. The Commission may, with the approval of the Treasurer, borrow moneys from time to time in such amounts as the Minister certifies are, in his opinion, necessary for the exercise of its powers or the performance of its duties or functions under this Act. 1. The Treasurer may, on behalf of the Commonwealth, out of moneys appropriated by the Parliament for the purpose, lend to the Commission, at such rate of interest and on such other terms and conditions as he determines, moneys that the Commission is authorised to borrow under sub-section (1).'; 1. by omitting from sub-section (4) the words with the concurrence of the Minister,'; and 2. by omitting sub-section (6). {: #debate-29-s16 .speaker-009OD} ##### Mr NIXON:
Gippsland -- J move: >In proposed sub-section 2 of section 31, omit the words 'at such such rate of interest', substitute the words 'at a commercial rate of interest then current1. There is concern, now that the Commission has been given an opportunity to enter a widely expanded number of areas of industry, such as road transport, hotels, engineering, garages and the like, that the people who are engaged in these industries will suffer in respect of the interest rate at which the Commission is able to borrow money. I moved this amendment in order to try to obtain from the Minister for Civil Aviation **(Mr Charles Jones)** an assurance that this will be the case and that the Commission will have no financial advantage as against private enterprise in the rate of interest at which it can borrow moneys through this Parliament. I understand that there are legal difficulties about the wording of the amendment. Perhaps the Minister would comment. {: #debate-29-s17 .speaker-KDV} ##### Mr CHARLES JONES:
Minister for Civil Aviation · Newcastle · ALP -- I ask the Opposition to consider seriously letting this clause stand as printed. No doubt there are difficulties about what is a commercial rate of interest. As the Minister concerned, I accept the situation. In fact, after becoming the Minister I issued a directive to the Commission about interest rates. The Government accepts in principle that Trans-Australia Airlines should trade on equal terms with and under similar conditions to its competitor. As I have said time and again in this place and outside, the Government is prepared to accept an even handed 2 airline system in which if it is good enough for Ansett Transport Indus tries to do something. It is good enough for TAA. I do not think that we can be any fairer than that. It is for that reason that in regard to this clause I am prepared to give an assurance that the Government will charge the Commission a rate of interest not less than that which a first class borrower would have to pay on the open market. This undertaking will not apply to borrowings by the Commission from the Commonwealth in cases where borrowings were from the Commonwealth in a formal sense only; that is to say, where the Commonwealth had negotiated a loan in its name on the open market, within Australia or overseas, and had then passed on the proceeds of such loan at the rates at which it had borrowed the money. Bills come into this House periodically relating to arrangements between aircraft manufacturers and their government's exportimport bank. For example, at different times there are negotiations to buy Boeing aircraft. Invariably part of the agreement to purchase provides for the airline to pay, say, 20 per cent of the cost of the aircraft, the Exportimport Bank of the United States to make the remainder available. That money is borrowed by the Commonwealth Government. It is an official loan to the Commonwealth, the Australian Government. In turn, this Government lends the money to TAA or to Qantas Airlines Ltd, as the case may be. In recent years Ansett Transport Industries likewise has been gaining the benefit of these government to government loans. That is what I refer to in the latter part of my earlier statement when I mentioned the Commonwealth borrowing money and then transferring the loan to TAA or to Qantas. I referred to borrowings by a first class borrower. I believe that the Commonwealth of Australia is a first class borrower and that it can obtain loan moneys in circumstances which will result in reasonable rates of interest being obtained. It could be said that we should make the rate 1 per cent in excess of the long term bond rate. For what is termed a first class borrower that is how the interest would work out - at about 1 per cent over the long term bond rate. I give the Opposition an assurance that as TAA is now moving into other fields the Government will place TAA in similar conditions of operation and money raising as its competitor. Under those terms I feel the Bill, as drafted, meets the requirements. {: #debate-29-s18 .speaker-009OD} ##### Mr NIXON:
Gippsland -- I am pleased to hear the assurance given by the Minister for Civil Aviation **(Mr Charles Jones)** in regard to this matter. A great deal of unrest has been expressed by interested bodies outside this Parliament who will become competitors with Trans-Australia Airlines when it moves into its new fields. It is only appropriate in my view and in the Opposition's view that TAA should not now have any financial advantage through Treasury activity. I accept immediately that any outside organisation can borrow at competitive rates overseas, but I was particularly concerned about money being made available to TAA through the Treasury at subsidised interest rates when TAA is operating in competitive fields of industry. Now that the Minister has given his assurance I seek leave to withdraw my amendment. Amendment - by leave - withdrawn. Clause agreed to. Proposed new clause 13a. {: #debate-29-s19 .speaker-009OD} ##### Mr NIXON:
Gippsland -- I move: The previous Government had a longstanding agreement or arrangement - indeed a decision was taken - that the superannuation funds of the Commission should be transferred away from Trans-Australia Airlines so that that organisation may no longer use them for capital purchases. This amendment seeks to put that matter in order. At the present time the Commission has many millions of dollars in its superannuation fund which it can borrow at any time at preferred rates and use for the purchase of capital equipment. We think the matter should be put in order. The Commission should be placed on the same basts as other Commonwealth instrumentalities in this regard. The previous Government had a firm undertaking and decision on this matter and for that reason I move the amendment as circulated. {: #debate-29-s20 .speaker-KDT} ##### Mr FAIRBAIRN:
Farrer -- I have much pleasure in supporting the amendment which has been moved by my colleague the honourable member for Gippsland **(Mr** Nixon). At the outset I thank the Minister for Transport **(Mr Jones)** for the way in which he has been prepared to look at the amendments proposed by my colleague and agreed to them where he felt they were reasonable. I think the Minister has set a very good example to his other ministerial colleagues. I only hope they also will operate along those lines. I am grateful that the Government is prepared to look at reasonable amendments and amend the Bill accordingly. The question that is before us is really the nub of the whole matter: Should Trans-Australia Airlines use its superannuation funds in its business? It is the only commercial enterprise of the Commonwealth which does so. We are told that there are more than 30 Commonwealth instrumentalities which do not use staff superannuation. When my Party was in Government only a short time ago we proposed that these moneys should be paid over to Consolidated Revenue. An amount of $25m was made available in the 1972 Budget. This money was to be paid to TAA so that it would not have to use its superannuation funds. Those funds have built up and have given TAA a definite advantage over any other company, be it in the transport or the hotel field. Most private companies do not use their staff superannuation funds; they invest them in something which is gilt-edged. In fact, I am not certain that a private company is entitled to use superannuation funds in its business. Legally, I do not think it would be able to do so. The superannuation funds do not belong to the company, in actual fact they are owned by the employees. If anything were to happen to a private company which made it bankrupt the superannuation funds would become a first charge because they are owned by the employees. I do not believe that TAA should be allowed to make use of its superannuation funds which are increasing at a rate of between $2m and $3m annually. The funds provide TAA with an unfair advantage. I am glad to learn that the Minister for Civil Aviation **(Mr Charles Jones)** has agreed, and I think correctly, that TAA will increase the interest that it pays for the use of those superannuation funds in future. It has been paying an interest rate of *5i* per cent. I understand it will now rise to 7 per cent. I believe it was true to say that TAA was receiving an advantage estimated at $500,000 per annum at the previous rate. But the main concession is not the interest rate that is paid by TAA; it is simply that these funds are available for capital expansion programs. This does tend to give TAA an unfair advantage. This matter must be viewed in the light of the fact that the whole program that was agreed to last year by TAA and by Ansett and by the Government included a provision that these superannuation funds would be transferred to the Commonwealth. I have recently looked at the records of the proceedings at that time. I am perfectly certain in my mind that that was part of the agreement which was reached. The agreement had some pluses and some minuses. I think the attitude of the then Government was that a spoonful of sugar made the medicine go down. Well, we gave TAA the sugar and it took it, but it has not taken the medicine. Perhaps I could use another metaphor. The trap was baited, the cheese taken, but the trap was not sprung. TAA now has many new advantages but it has not had the disadvantages. It has the advantage of operating in hotels, motels and road transport - that is, activities which are closely related to airline operation. TAA is now able to engage in aviation engineering works for outside organisations, Commonwealth contracts, acquisition of shareholdings, aerial work and charter work and will be able to operate in Papua New Guinea after independence. It seems to me that TAA undertook to accept those advantages in a whole package, and part of that package was the transfer of the superannuation fund. It took the plums and left what it did not want. It was the intention of the previous Government that those superannuation funds be transferred to Commonwealth revenue. In fact that was indicated at the time of the last Budget. Therefore, I support the amendment moved by my colleague. **Mr CHARLES** JONES (Newcastle)- Minister for Civil Aviation) (4.55) - The honeymoon is temporarily suspended. The Government cannot accept the Opposition's amendment. I have in front of me the correspondence between **Sir Frederick** Scherger, **Sir Donald** Anderson and **Senator Cotton.** Nowhere in that correspondence does it appear that the TransAustralia Airlines' superannuation funds are in any way involved. In fact, in the debate that ensued last year on these matters, if I remember rightly, **Sir Reginald** Swartz, who then represented the Minister for Civil Aviation in the House of Representatives, made the statement that the funds were not involved as part of the agreement. It might be argued that this was one of the conditions of the agreement. Ansett Transport Industries Ltd tried for years to get the former Government to force TAA to invest its funds in the Commonwealth employees superannuation fund. I am pleased to say that until October of last year the former Government did nothing about it, left the position as it was and ignored the protestations of **Sir Reginald** Ansett and the other members of the ATI management. So far as 1 am concerned the matter was not and is not part of the deal between TAA, ATI and the former Government. It is a matter about which Ansett Transport Industries Ltd has been protesting for some considerable, time. The honourable member for Farrer **(Mr Fairbairn)** said that he is pleased to learn that I have taken action to force TAA to increase its interest rates on the use of superannuation funds. One of the first things I did after being appointed was to hold meetings with the various commissions and boards for which I am responsible, that is, those of TAA, Qantas Airways Ltd, Commonwealth Railways and the Australian National Line. This was one of the things I discussed with **Sir Frederick** Scherger. I indicated to him then that I thought it was ridiculous that the TAA superannuation fund was being credited with only *5i* per cent interest, that TAA was charging itself only *5i* per cent. I said I thought that that rate should be increased to a more reasonable and more practical interest rate. I understand that that action has been taken. That was my attitude. The former Government's attitude was to let TAA go along on 5± per cent. 1. considered that that was unreasonable, and think ATT had some reason to protest about it. But let us have a look at the practical position. The honourable member for Farrer said that insurance funds should be invested in gilt-edged securities. Who could be more gilt-edged than the Australian Parliament? We are responsible for the debts of the Australian National Airlines Commission. {: .speaker-KDT} ##### Mr Fairbairn: -- I said this in respect of private companies. {: .speaker-KDV} ##### Mr CHARLES JONES: -- Perfectly true, but TAA is not a private company. The Australian taxpayer is the shareholder in TAA, so the position is that there, could not be a better gilt-edged security for investment than one which has the backing of the Australian Government. I see it on that basis. Now that TAA is being levied a reasonable rate of interest which is comparable with outside interest rates, I do not think there is any real complaint. It is perfectly true that TAA has an advantage in that it has that amount of money that is available for investment for use within the business but it is paying just as much for it as if it were invested in some gilt-edged security or placed in the Commonwealth employees superannuation fund. I might interrupt myself to say that it is not the employees' funds that TAA is playing with; it is its own investment. Its employees' funds are adequately taken care of and are invested. This is TAA's own contribution to the funds that it is using. The fact that the employees' superannuation is totally protected by this means of financing, in my opinion, does not mean that there is an advantage to anyone in particular. If the Opposition persists with this amendment it will mean that TAA will be at a very distinct disadvantage compared with its competitor. All through the discussions we have had on this Bill we have endeavoured to give TAA and ATI equal trading rights. This is a case where equal trading rights will not apply, because on my information it will cost TAA about an additional $600,000. Already TAA's contributions to superannuation are more generous and widespread than those of its competitor. I do not want to quote a figure because I cannot give a factual figure, but I can say that it costs TAA about $1.2m more for superannuation than it costs Ansett Transport Industries. So already TAA is carrying that additional burden or cost in excess of that carried by its competitor. We are not complaining about that. The Government is prepared to accept that situation. Personally I would like to see the employees of ATI in an identical position with that of employees of TAA. TAA and ATI are 2 instrumentalities, one private and one Government-operated. In line with the terms that we are trying to work out in this Bill the employees should be in receipt of identical wages and conditions. In most respects they are in receipt of identical wages and conditions, but TAA employees receive an annual superannuation contribution that is about $1.2m in excess of what ATI pays its employees. This is something that ATI can probably have a look at. **Sir Reginald** Ansett can have a look at improving the conditions of his own employees so that they enjoy conditions at least comparable with those afforded by TAA. If **Sir Reginald** or the board of ATI is not prepared to do that, it is a matter which the unions should be having a look at to make sure that these 2 airline operators operate on identical conditions not only from a governmental point of view but from the point of view of wages and conditions. These are important things which should be taken into consideration when the Opposition persists with this amendment. I do not think it is fair and reasonable, and I emphasise the major point that for 27 years the present system has prevailed, and now at this late hour Ansett Transport Industries is pressing the claim that what has been put forward by the Opposition is part of the Agreement. I tabled letters in the House yesterday to show what had transpired and so the true position would be on record. I have been able to show that the present position should be allowed to remain as is, having in mind the very distinct disadvantage that TAA suffers at the present time, which I am not complaining about - and I emphasise that point - in competition with ATT. I ask the Opposition to accept my assurances that the interest rates which are paid into the superannuation funds will be similar to those I mentioned earlier when I said that the Treasurer would charge interest on moneys lent to TAA at rates comparable with the interest rates paid by a first-class borrower. As far as I am concerned the same rates will apply to the superannuation fund. The superannuation fund will be credited with a payment by way of interest from the general funds of TAA, if you can separate the funds, which you cannot. But if it has to be a book entry, that is what we are prepared to do. The operational funds of TAA will be charged a more or less commercial rate of interest and interest will be added to the superannuation funds. I think it is a fair and reasonable proposition that still allows TAA the right to use these funds in the operation of its business. If the funds are tied up in the Commonwealth superannuation fund TAA will have no access to them. I understand that some of the superannuation funds of TAA's competitor are invested in various insurance companies which run superannuation funds. It can borrow against those funds, whereas TAA would have to go through the normal Government borrowing and lending procedures to get money from the Treasury. I come back to the point that its competitor has not only a $1.2m advantage but also the advantage of being able to borrow against the superannuation policies it has with private insurance companies. {: #debate-29-s21 .speaker-009OD} ##### Mr NIXON:
Gippsland -- The Minister for Transport and Minister for Civil Aviation **(Mr Charles Jones)** argues strongly but in my view not correctly on a couple of points. The first point is the equality of the operations between Trans-Australia Airlines and Ansett Transport Industries Ltd. The simple fact is, of course, that TAA has advantages over ATI in respect of this matter. ATI is forced to pay its contributions for superannuation, along with those from its employees, into some secure investment. Then, when it wants to borrow capital, it has to go on to the market so to do. In this case, certainly TAA has to meet its share of the superannuation contributions. But it can then invest those contributions in capital equipment. So it is not a matter of comparing like with like. It may well be that this matter was not covered by the original airlines agreement. I am not arguing that. Nevertheless, the previous Government took a decision on this matter in relation to superannuation. As my colleague, the honourable member for Farrer **(Mr Fairbairn)** rightly says, mention was made of it in the last Budget when $25m was provided for TAA to overcome short term difficulties whilst it made arrangements for the transfer of its superannuation funds. The second point is that there is no reason that I can see why TAA should be treated any differently in relation to this matter from the Australian National Line, the Commonwealth Railways or any of the other 30 Commonwealth authorities that have to pay their superannuation contributions into the Commonwealth Superannuation Board, or invest them in some other way. But they are not able to use the contributions for investment in capital equipment in their industries. ANL is just as competitive both on the coastal trade and on the international trade as private enterprise. Yet it does not receive this advantage. We make sure that its superannuation contributions are treated differently. So there is no reason to give TAA this advantage which it has had. A clear decision was taken by the previous Government that this matter should be corrected. That is why the Opposition has moved this amendment. I regret to say that the honeymoon is now over and we will be - forced to seek a division on this amendment. Question put: >That the new clause 13a **(Mr Nixon's amendment)** be inserted. The Committee divided. (The Chairman- Mr G. G. D. Scholes) AYES: 52 NOES: 59 Majority . . . . 7 AYES NOES Question so resolved in the negative. Clause 14 agreed to. Clause 15. Section 34 of the Principal Act is amended by omitting sub-section (2) and substituting the following sub-section: {: #debate-29-s22 .speaker-009OD} ##### Mr NIXON:
Gippsland -- I move- >Omit paragraph (c) of proposed sub-section (2). Section 34 of the principal Act provides that moneys of the Commission that are not immediately required for the purposes of the Commission may be invested in several ways. Under the provisions of clause 15, paragraph (c) reserves may be invested in any other manner approved by the Treasurer. My nervousness in regard to paragraph (c) stems from the concernI feltthat Trans-Australia Airlines, which may have substantial reserves built up, could use those reserves to the disadvantage of hotel owners, motel owners, road transport operators or public road transport operators who have shares on the market, by buying those shares in large lumps. I have had discussions with the Minister for Transport and I understand that this is not envisaged. If the Minister could make some comment on this aspect I might deal with the amendment in some other way. {: #debate-29-s23 .speaker-KDV} ##### Mr CHARLES JONES:
Minister for Civil Aviation · Newcastle · ALP -- I can give the honourable member for Gippsland **(Mr Nixon)** every assurance that his fears are unfounded. We have no hidden secret reserves that we want want to pull out and invest in loans at 10 per cent, in hire purchase companies or anything else. I would appreciate it if the honourable member would withdraw the amendment. There is nothing to worry about. {: #debate-29-s24 .speaker-009OD} ##### Mr NIXON:
Gippsland -- Now that the Minister has made the position perfectly clear I seek leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment - by leave - withdrawn. Clause agreed to. Clause 16. Sections 35, 36 and 37 of the Principal Act are repealed and the following sections substituted: {: type="1" start="35"} 0. The Commission shall cause to be kept proper accounts and records of the transactions and affairs ofthe Commission in accordance with the accounting principles generally applied in commercial practice and shall do all things necessary to ensure that all payments out of its moneys are correctly made and properly authorised and that adequate control is maintained over the assets of, or in the custody of, the Commission and over the incurring of liabilities by the Commission. 37. (1) The Commission is subject to taxation under the laws of the Commonwealth. {: type="1" start="2"} 0. Subject to sub-section (3), the Commission is not subject to taxation under a law of a State or of a Territory. 1. The regulations may provide that sub-section (2) does not apply in relation to taxation under a specified law of a State or of a Territory. 2. The Commission is not a public authority for the purposes of paragraph (d) of section 23 of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936-1972. 3. The Commission is not a public transport authority for the purposes of item 77 in the First Schedule to the Sales Tax (Exemptions and Classifications) Act 1935-1973.'. {: #debate-29-s25 .speaker-009OD} ##### Mr NIXON:
Gippsland -- I have circulated 2 proposed amendments to clause 16. However, I will proceed only on the second one. I move: >Omit proposed section 37, substitute the following proposed section: 37. (1) The Commission shall pay all rates, taxes and charges under any law of the Commonwealth, a State or a Territory. > >The Commission is not a public authority for the purposes of paragraph (d) of section 23 of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936-1972. > >The Commission is not a public transport authority for the purposes of item 77 in the First Schedule to the Sales Tax (Exemptions and Classifications) Act 1935-1973.'. The Minister for Transport made it perfectly clear the other day that Trans-Australia Airlines will be expected to pay States rates and taxes. In its present form the principal Act is a negative Act whereby this is done by regulation. I want to make this a positive part of the new Act. I seek to have this amendment accepted by the Committee so that the world at large will be able to see that TAA in all its operations will be expected to pay normal rates and taxes which any other private company or organisation has to pay. There was a great fear within the community that under this Bill TAA would be able to avoid paying such things as liquor licences, entertainment taxes - it proposes to run a number of entertainment places - and also road taxes and a number of other State charges and taxes. The Minister has assured me that TAA will not be able to avoid these charges. I thank him for that assurance. I seek the acceptance of my amendment by the Committee. {: #debate-29-s26 .speaker-KDV} ##### Mr CHARLES JONES:
Minister for Civil Aviation · Newcastle · ALP -- The Government accepts the Opposition's amendment. I agree that the Bill as it is worded could give the impression that the Government was seeking to exempt Trans-Australia Airlines from all forms of taxation. That was never our intention and I believe it was never the intention of the former Government. The words in this part of the Bill are in the records of the negotiations and discussions which took place between the former Government and its departmental officers. All that the draftsman did, with my approval, was to incorporate in the Bill what appeared to have been the policy of the Treasury at that time. This is actually a Treasury clause. The Treasury has a great deal of say, as the honourable member for Gippsland **(Mr Nixon)** would know, in the drafting of financial clauses in all Bills whether they relate to TAA, the Australian National Line or to any other authority. It is the Treasury which has the most of the say in these types of provisions. My predecessor would have been advised along the line and in all probability a clause would have been written into the new Bill in line with the clause that is now in the Bill. I am prepared to accept the amendment because it does clearly state the position. It will allay the fears of people who are in competition with TAA, and who have to pay taxes, that TAA will not be subject to these charges. I want to cite a few figures to show that TAA does pay taxes. The following is a list of some of the taxes paid by TAA for the financial year 1971-72: Municipal rates $103,292; water rates $72,177; garbage $2,064 and land tax $5,973. The Department of Civil Aviation paid a total amount of $25,697 for its water, municipal and sewerage rates. The total amount paid by both TAA and DCA was $209,203. If honourable members were to examine the annual reports of TAA they would find, for example, in the report for 1971-72 that TAA paid income tax amounting to $4,562,000, payroll tax of $1,311,000 and sales tax amounting to $420,000. That shows that even in the Federal field TAA pays taxes. I believe that it does not meet about $12,000 in stamp duty by reason of some State arrangements. So in actual fact this is the only tax from which TAA is excluded or exempted. If the proposed amendment to the Bill meets the position and explains the position in more detail, I am quite happy to accept it. It does not destroy the functions we intend TAA to carry out. The complaint of road transport operators was that TAA would be in competition with them; that they would be paying State registration fees, State maintenance tax and whatever other taxes a State government was likely to impose on them, and TAA would not. This is not true. TAA will be paying, and does pay at the present time, all of those taxes. TAA pays the normal registration fees that are required to be paid on all of its vehicles in the State in which they operate. We do not propose to change that situation; we never intended to change that situation. If TAA moves into the hotel field as part of its operations, it will pay the same taxes as do its competitors. It will be paying the licensing fees that are levied by the State licensing courts. In reality the amendment docs not change anything but we agree with the Opposition that it states the position much more clearly than it is stated in the Bill. If the Government had not changed at the end of last year and we were still in Opposition I might have moved the same amendment to clarify the position, although I doubt that I would have because I realise and accept the situation that TAA does pay taxes. However, it is obvious that people outside who do not know the operations of TAA as well as we do feel that they will be at a distinct disadvantage. The amendment allays those fears and I accept it. Amendment agreed to. Clause, as amended, agreed to. Clause 17 agreed to. Clause 18. Section 40 of the Principal Act is amended - {: type="a" start="a"} 0. by adding at the end of paragraph (c) of subsection (2) the word 'and'; and 1. by omitting paragraph (d) of sub-section (2). {: #debate-29-s27 .speaker-009OD} ##### Mr NIXON:
Gippsland -- I move: >Before paragraph (a), insert the following paragraph: (aa) by inserting after sub-section (1) the following sub-section: "(1a) The report by the Commission shall include details of: > >any change in accounting principles adopted since the last report of the Commission, including any change in the rate or method of charging depreciation in the accounts of the Commission; > >any material change in the method of valuation of the whole or any part of the stock of the Commission; > >any material item appearing in the accounts of the Commission for the first time or not usually included in the accounts of the Commission; > >any absence from the accounts of the Commission of any material item usually included in the accounts of the Commission; and > >the adequacy of provisions in the nature of reserves made in the accounts of the Commission.".'. By way of explanation, may I say that subparagraphs (a), (b), (c) and (d) that I have just read are taken from the Uniform Companies Accounts of Victoria and, I think, of other States which are similar, and sub-paragraph (e) is taken from the principal Act which subparagraph it was proposed to omit. My reason for seeking to include it in this way is to demonstrate to the public at large that Trans-Australia Airlines does in fact meet all the requirements that a private company is required to meet. Whilst it is a public authority, it is operating in the private enterprise world outside. Now that it is extending its operations into so many new fields I think it only fair that the accounts should be presented in a form similar to that required of any public authority outside. This is not a reflection on the bookkeeping methods or presentation of reports by TAA in the past. I know for a fact that TAA has won a number of awards for the manner in which it has presented its annual reports. Its purpose is simply to inform the companies with which it is competing outside - whether they be small or large - that TAA is operating under conditions similar to those under which they operate. Accordingly I commend the amendment. {: #debate-29-s28 .speaker-5J4} ##### The CHAIRMAN (Mr Scholes: -- Order! The amendment is out of its proper sequence. {: .speaker-009OD} ##### Mr NIXON: -- I retract the whole of the speech until after the Minister has moved his amendment when I will insert it in its proper place. {: #debate-29-s29 .speaker-10000} ##### The CHAIRMAN: -- The amendment will be withdrawn temporarily. {: #debate-29-s30 .speaker-KDV} ##### Mr CHARLES JONES:
Minister for Civil Aviation · Newcastle · ALP -- I move: >Before paragraph (a), insert the following paragraph: (aa) by inserting after sub-section (1) the following sub-section: "(1 a) The report shall disclose separately the results of activities of the Commission other than the operation of air services.";'. The intention of this amendment is to divide the operations of Trans-Australia Airlines into its airline activities and its associated or nonairline activities. This is in line with what Ansett Transport Industries Ltd is required to do. {: #debate-29-s31 .speaker-009OD} ##### Mr NIXON:
Gippsland -- I had circulated an amendment previously in similar terms to that moved by the Minister for Civil Aviation **(Mr Charles Jones).** I thank the Minister for redrafting it. The Opposition accepts the amendment in its present form. Amendment agreed to. {: #debate-29-s32 .speaker-009OD} ##### Mr NIXON:
Gippsland -- Having regard to your ruling earlier, **Mr Chairman,** I resubmit my amendment to clause 18 in the terms already stated and ask that it be accepted. {: #debate-29-s33 .speaker-KDV} ##### Mr CHARLES JONES:
Minister for Civil Aviation · Newcastle · ALP -- The Government accepts the Opposition's amendment. Amendment agreed to. Clause, as amended, agreed to. Proposed new clause 18a. {: #debate-29-s34 .speaker-009OD} ##### Mr NIXON:
Gippsland -- I move: >That the following new clause be inserted in the Bill: 18a. After section 41 of the principal Act the following sections are inserted: "42. The Minister will not exercise any powers under or by virtue of this or any other Act, or Regulations, so as to discriminate unfairly in favour of the Commission or any other person engaged in the provision of services for the transport of passengers or goods by air or by land or in the establishment, maintenance or operation of hotels or other establishments or enterprises providing accommodation, recreation, entertainment or other services or facilities. > >Nothing in this Act will affect or authorise action inconsistent with the obligations of the Commission under, or the provisions or purposes of, the agreement referred to in sub-section (3) of section 3 of the Airlines Agreements Act 1952-1972 and the agreement referred to in sub-section (2) of that section as affected by the foregoing agreement and the agreement referred to in sub-section (1) of that section as affected by each of the foregoing agreements.".'. This proposed new clause 18a can be described as a fair play clause to ensure that Trans-Australia Airlines, throughout the whole breadth of its new operations, will be seen by the public and the world at large to be operating in a fair and equal manner with its competitors. I seek the acceptance of this new clause by the Parliament. {: #debate-29-s35 .speaker-KDV} ##### Mr CHARLES JONES:
Minister for Civil Aviation · ALP -- The Government accepts the Opposition's amendment. At no time has the Government had in mind that Trans-Australia Airlines, the Minister or the regulations would act in any discriminatory manner or unfairly to any of its competitors. This amendment is completely in line with our policy of having an evenhanded 2-airline agreement under which the 2 airlines will be operating on identical terms. At present Ansett Transport Industries Ltd has a very decided advantage over TAA in intrastate operations. 1 am hopeful that in the very near future, as was promised by my predecessor, TAA will be operating on the PerthPort Hedland-Darwin run. This will be an improvement. I hope also that other facilities will be provided to TAA in respect of intrastate operations. This will help to bring the 2 airlines into balance so that they can operate on equal terms. Whilst I want to ensure that the 2 airlines have equal access to intrastate traffic, I am not silly enough to suggest for one second that in cases where there is not sufficient work for both airlines they should both operate and do so at a loss. The industry should be rationalised so that in cases where there is sufficient work and need for only one airline the management of both - that is, the directors of ATI and the commissioners of the Australian National Airlines Commission - can sit down and work out a fair and reasonable distribution of the business available. In this way there will be an even-handed 2-airline agreement. The Government has no intention of acting in a discriminatory manner or unfairly against ATI or any similar competitor. {: #debate-29-s36 .speaker-KET} ##### Mr KING:
Wimmera -- I rise to query the latest statement made by the Minister - if he is listening. {: .speaker-KDV} ##### Mr Charles Jones: -- I am listening to you. {: .speaker-KET} ##### Mr KING: -- -I challenge that part of his statement in which he said that he would see that equal rights were given to TransAustralia Airlines and Ansett Transport Industries Ltd in operating on an intrastate basis. Am I to take it from that statement that it is the intention of the Commonwealth to override State rights on this matter? I am thinking of Victoria, where at present TAA does not operate on an intrastate basis. I ask the Minister to explain that to me. {: #debate-29-s37 .speaker-KDV} ##### Mr CHARLES JONES:
Minister for Civil Aviation · Newcastle · ALP -- The provision of the Bill dealing with Trans-Australia Airlines operating irrespective of what a State government is prepared to refer to it was deleted in the earlier consideration of the Bill. That has already been disposed of. I repeat, for the information of the honourable member for Wimmera **(Mr King),** my belief that if we are to have a genuine 2-airline system the 2 airlines should have equal access to all traffic. Where the business that is available is not sufficient to provide an economic operation by both airlines there should be a rationalisation of air services throughout the Commonwealth; that is, off the main trunk routes. On the main trunk routes there is sufficient traffic for both airlines, but off the main trunk routes there should be rationalisation so that the 2 airlines have equal access to the business available. The spokesman for the Opposition in this debate, the honourable member for Gippsland **(Mr Nixon),** said after moving this amendment that it dealt with fair play. He said that there should be no unfair treatment. I have given him that assurance and have said further that I believe that under the Government's policy of an even-handed 2-airline system the 2 airlines should have equal access to all the business that is available throughout the Commonwealth. {: #debate-29-s38 .speaker-009OD} ##### Mr NIXON:
Gippsland -- I thank the Minister for the assurance he has given in respect of these fair play clauses. Of course, the clauses go much further than the operation of Ansett Transport Industries Ltd and Trans-Australia Airlines. They cover the new operations in which TAA will be investing in the months ahead. As far as the operation of the 2-airline system is concerned, I was interested to hear the Minister say that he believes that the airlines should have equal access to all routes. I was interested also to hear him confirm that it would be a stupid policy which forced a double routing on routes which are quite uneconomic. I hope that when the Minister comes to deal with this matter he will deal with it through the rationalisation committee which handles these matters, so that neither TAA nor ATI is forced, because of some arbitrary arrangement, to enter into more uneconomic routes than is necessary. I agree with the Minister that the proper approach on a matter of this nature is to seek rationalisation of the routes involved. If that can be done in a sensible manner, not only will the airlines benefit but also the travelling public of Australia will benefit. Proposed new clause agreed to. Remainder of Bill - by leave - taken as a whole. {: #debate-29-s39 .speaker-009OD} ##### Mr NIXON:
Gippsland -- I thank the Minister for the co-operation he has extended to me in working through this Bill. A great number of serious difficulties have confronted us in working through the Bill. He has co-operated very well with me. I also extend my thanks to his officers, who were very patient in a clause by clause discussion of the Bill. I thank them also for the assistance they gave me in redrafting some of the amendments. We have reached a position where those who are involved in the road transport industry, the hotel-motel industry and the civil aviation industry can see from the remarks of the Minister and from the Bill itself that there is nothing in the Bill which can cause them any untoward fear or harm. What they can look forward to is some proper and just competition from TransAustralia Airlines. I thank the Minister for the co-operation 1 have received. {: #debate-29-s40 .speaker-KDV} ##### Mr CHARLES JONES:
Minister for Civil Aviation · Newcastle · ALP -- I place on record my appreciation of the efforts of the honourable member for Gippsland **(Mr Nixon)** and the honourable member for Farrer **(Mr Fairbairn),** but particularly the honourable member for Gippsland who did the spade work in drafting these amendments. I know that the honourable member for Farrer was in the background and in constant consultation with him. I extend my appreciation also to the 2 officers from my Department - **Mr Long** and **Mr Smith** - for the work they have put into this matter. We have spent a pretty solid couple of days working out what should and should not go into the Bill and working out a basis for a Bill which could be passed through this House and accepted by the Senate tomorrow or whenever it is debated in that place. 1 believe that the Bill represents the wishes of the former Government and contains what it would have been prepared to write into the Bill. Frankly, there were a few parts of the Bill on which I thought we could not agree, but we worked them out to everyone's satisfaction. I thank the honourable members concerned. Remainder of Bill agreed to. Bill, as amended, agreed to. Bill reported with amendments; report - by leave - adopted. {:#subdebate-29-0} #### Third Reading Bill (on motion by **Mr Charles** Jones) - by leave - read a third time. {: .page-start } page 2637 {:#debate-30} ### MATERNITY LEAVE (AUSTRALIAN GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES) BILL 1973 Bill presented by **Mr Clyde** Cameron, and read a first time. {:#subdebate-30-0} #### Second Reading {: #subdebate-30-0-s0 .speaker-2V4} ##### Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP -- I move: The purpose of the Maternity Leave (Australian Government Employees) Bill is to extend the maternity leave entitlement presently available to Australian Government employees. The proposed legislation will entitle female officers and employees to at least 12 weeks' maternity leave on full pay. This will apply irrespective of whether they were pregnant or not when first employed by the Government. The Bill provides that maternity leave shall commence at least 6 weeks before the expected date of confinement and shall continue for at least 6 weeks after the actual date of confinement. If the mother wishes, leave may be granted up to a total of 52 weeks. A minimum of 12 weeks is available on full pay. For the balance of her leave the mother will be on leave without pay, although if she wishes, she may use accrued sick leave, recreation leave and furlough credits. It also provides that each permanent officer proceeding on leave of absence for maternity purposes must be re-employed if she wishes at the end of her period of leave in her former position or in a position at a level as near as possible to the position held by her at the commencement of her maternity leave. Temporary employees returning from maternity leave will resume their former employment. If the work is no longer available they will be given preference for employment over any other person seeking temporary employment. The Bill also makes provision for an officer or employee who is the father or a person accepting responsibility for the care and maintenance of the child to take up to 1 week's leave, with pay, around the time of the birth of a child where he requires the leave to take care of the mother of a child or of a child. These benefits will apply retrospectively from 1 January 1973. This Bill extends considerably the existing maternity benefits available to government employees. Existing benefits are provided by section 54b of the Public Service Act in the case of Commonwealth public servants, section 33 of the Commonwealth Teaching Service Act in the case of the Commonwealth Teaching Service and in the terms and conditions of employment of staff of other Australian Government instrumentalities. The Bill provides directly for maternity leave benefits to officers and employees of the Commonwealth Public Service and the Commonwealth Teaching Service. The associated Public Service Bill No. 3 repeals section 54b of the Public Service Act and the Commonwealth Teaching Service Bill No. 2, which has already been introduced, repeals section 33 of the Commonwealth Teaching Service Act. The Bill also provides for the extension of maternity leave benefits to other Australian Government employees by regulation. The regulations will be made following consultation with appropriate bodies and consistent with the Bill the initial regulations will apply the benefits retrospectively from 1 January 1973. Section 54b of the Public Service Act presently provides for an absence from duty of up to 26 weeks, with a compulsory absence of 6 weeks before the expected date of confinement and 6 weeks after the date of birth. Section 54b applies only to permanent officers. There are at present no maternity leave provisions for temporary employees employed under the Public Service Act. Leave under section 54b is without pay, although an officer does have the option of utilising her accrued sick leave, recreation leave and furlough credits to cover part or all of this period of leave. Where there are existing provisions applicable to other government employees, those provisions are similar. The Bill under consideration increases the period of permitted leave, provides for full pay during at least the period of compulsory leave, and extends maternity benefits to temporary employees. This Bill should have the approval of the House. It takes account of representations on the matter put forward by the Council of Commonwealth Public Service Organisations, and will be. applauded by those women in government employment wishing to reconcile domestic responsibilities with a career in the Commonwealth Service or other government instrumentalities. {: .speaker-KIM} ##### Mr Lynch: -- Approximately how many women are affected? {: .speaker-2V4} ##### Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP -- All women are likely to be affected. It depends on who is about. But any woman could be affected. Does the honourable member want to know how many women are affected right now? {: .speaker-KIM} ##### Mr Lynch: -- In other words, on how many would the cost estimate be based? {: .speaker-2V4} ##### Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP -- I cannot give the honourable member the precise number. I do not suppose anybody could. My information is that it would be in the region of 3,200, give or take one or two confinements including the instrumentalities. {: .speaker-KIM} ##### Mr Lynch: -- What would be the cost figure? {: .speaker-2V4} ##### Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP -- If one. takes into account all the ancillary costs it would be about $3.3m. But if one deducts from that amount $800,000 which will not apply until the regulations are extended to instrumentalities the figure would be about $2,500,000. The Bill implements the undertaking in the Prime Minister's policy speech that: >For our own employees we will apply the International Labour Organisation Protection Conventions going back to 1919 which guarantee full pay and benefits for 6 weeks before and 6 weeks after confinement. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition **(Mr Lynch)** will be interested to know that in granting this maternity leave we are catching up with the eastern European countries such as Bulgaria, Yugoslavia, Romania, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, East Germany, West Germany and in fact some of the western European countries. It is good to know that we are now picking up the backlag und that we are approaching the same kind of conditions which have applied for so many years in those other countries. {: .speaker-KIM} ##### Mr Lynch: -- What is the position in the United States of America and Great Britain? {: .speaker-2V4} ##### Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP -- The position in the United States is not as good as it is in the eastern European bloc countries. In this regard it is tragic that the position has not picked up to the standards in these other countries. The plain fact is that it is not as good. In Great Britain the United Kingdom Civil Service has arrangements for paid leave, but of course this does not apply to privately employed women, as the honourable member probably knows. {: .speaker-KIM} ##### Mr Lynch: -- Are the Government concessions as generous as they are in this Bill? {: .speaker-2V4} ##### Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP -- They are not quite as generous in the United Kingdom but they are more generous in some of the other European countries than this Bill provides for. {: .speaker-KIM} ##### Mr Lynch: -- This Government is behind the situation in those countries, is it? {: .speaker-2V4} ##### Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP -- We are behind some of the eastern European countries. We are ahead of the United Kingdom Civil Service. It is clear that the present Government was elected to office with a commitment to introduce legislation incorporating the principles included in this Bill. The adoption of the Bill will ensure full compliance with the principles set down in Convention No. 103 of the International Labour Organisation - Maternity Protection 1952; in respect of Commonwealth Government employment. The International Labour Organisation Convention is concerned that the existence of maternity benefits should not result in discrimination against women in employment. It therefore provides that the individual employer shall not be individually liable for the cost of such benefits due to women employed by him. The International Labour Office has advised that it is consistent with these requirements for the Government itself to assume reponsibility for the cost of these benefits in respect of its own employees. I have mentioned already the United Kingdom Civil Service. {: .speaker-KIM} ##### Mr Lynch: -- Does this mean that you would consider there to be no flow-on into the private sector? **Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Berinson)Order!** I hate to intervene in the friendly chat that has been proceeding between the Minister and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition but could we proceed with the presentation of the second reading? {: .speaker-2V4} ##### Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP -- Certainly. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition asked whether there would be any flow-on. The answer is no, there cannot be a flow-on to private employers. It is impossible to have a flow-on. Indeed, if any attempt were made to bring about a flow-on to private employers as a consequence of this, the Government would oppose it. If the matter came before the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission the Government would be prepared to intervene and officially to oppose it. It would be contrary to the ILO Convention. It would be something which would be detrimental, I would think, in the long run, to employees themselves if it did flow-on. The short answer to the interjection which, in a way, I am glad the Deputy Leader of the Opposition made, is that there will be no flow-on to private employers. The Government recognises that it has a role and responsibility, as Australia's largest employer, in promoting the status of women. The Government, therefore, is introducing the new benefits and leave entitlements in respect of its own female officers and employees - I suppose it is not necessary to say 'female' officers - to enable each person concerned to fulfil the role of mother and, if she wishes, to continue her career after the birth of her child. The effect of this Bill will be to maintain the income of the female employees concerned during the period when they are on leave prior to and following confinement. The Bill will also help women endeavouring to pursue their careers on the same terms as men. The provision in this Bill for up to one week's leave for the father or other person responsible should help that person meet the increased domestic responsibilities that arise at the time of the birth of a child. It is in recognition of this fact that the provision has been included. There might be some bewilderment about the meaning of 'or other person responsible'. One can imagine the situation of a man marrying a woman who was already pregnant to some other man. It has happened. This would mean that that man who became the legal father or custodian or one responsible for the care of the unborn child at the time of marriage would be entitled, upon the confinement of the wife, to have a week's parental leave, notwithstanding the fact that the child Was not his own child. I conclude by reminding the House that this Bill not only provides improved conditions of employment for Australian government employees but also facilitates the retention of women in the work force. Many of these women are. experienced and expensively trained. This will be of benefit to the Australian people as a whole. I commend this Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by **Mr Lynch)** adjourned. {: .page-start } page 2640 {:#debate-31} ### PUBLIC SERVICE BILL (No. 3) 1973 Bill presented by **Mr Clyde** Cameron, and read a first time. {:#subdebate-31-0} #### Second Reading {: #subdebate-31-0-s0 .speaker-2V4} ##### Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP -- I move: >That the Bill be now read a second time. The purpose of this Bill is to repeal section 54b of the Public Service Act consequent upon the Maternity Leave (Australian Government Employees) Bill. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by **Mr Lynch)** adjourned. {: .page-start } page 2640 {:#debate-32} ### SNOWY MOUNTAINS ENGINEERING CORPORATION BILL 1973 Bill presented by **Mr Les** Johnson, and read a first time. {:#subdebate-32-0} #### Second Reading {: #subdebate-32-0-s0 .speaker-K9M} ##### Mr Les Johnson:
Minister for Housing · HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP -- I move: This Bill in essence seeks to enlarge the scope of activities of the Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation by removing a number of restrictions and restraints imposed on the Corporation at the time of its formation. When the original Bill was debated, the Labor members, while in Opposition, strongly opposed those provisions which would limit the capacity of the Corporation to operate as a viable organisation in the long term over the full range of engineering activities. A number of amendments were moved by the then Opposition members which, with one exception, were not accepted by the former Government. Whilst we strongly endorsed the setting up of the Corporation we opposed the restricted role it was given. We now intend to widen the role to conform with the view of the Government as to the important engineering role the Corporation is to exercise in the future development of Australia. In general the only work in Australia that the Corporation can at present undertake is that related to the development of water resources, to the generation and transmission of electricity, and to underground works. Even in these fields further restrictions are imposed by the present Act in that, except for work for the Commonwealth and State authorities, the Corporation must operate through a private consulting engineer; it is also unable to engage in any construction work in Australia. The proposed amendments remove these restraints. As honourable members are aware, the purpose of establishing the Corporation was to retain for the benefit of Australia the skills and know-how accumulated during a quarter century's work in large-scale civil engineering on the Snowy Mountains Scheme. The application of the Snowy's engineering, technical, administrative expertise should therefore not be limited but given the freedom to assist in all areas where its specialised knowledge and experience is required. For some time now organisations and industries in fields, other than those defined in the original Act, have expressed concern that these skills are unavailable to them. One major avenue of engineering endeavour in which it is barred by its present Act is the mining industry with particular reference to advice on open cut mining, railways, bridges, etc. and of course we are not unmindful of the role the Corporation could play in the engineering works associated with the development of the national pipeline system. The major amendments to the Act are therefore designed to permit the Corporation to engage in engineering work in Australia as well as overseas. On a number of occasions the Corporation has acted in joint ventures with private consultations either as leaders or participants. Doubt as to the legality of such association is removed by the proposed amendment which allows the Corporation to act independently or in association with others. At present all works undertaken by the Corporation, however minor, must receive the prior approval of the Minister. This again, we believe, to be unnecessarily restrictive. One of the proposed amendments to the Act, while retaining the Minister's control over the Corporation will give him the power to allow certain works as prescribed by the Minister to be undertaken without specific submissions for approval. The principal Act is also to be amended to give effect to a change in the composition of the consultative committee which advises the Minister on the undertaking of work by the Corporation. Representatives of the Departments of Foreign Affairs and Overseas Trade are specifically nominated for membership in respect of overseas work. The participation of these 2 important departments in any deliberations on the work to be performed overseas by the Corporation will ensure that overseas undertakings will comply with Government policy. Opportunity has also been taken to replace the clause concerning the borrowing powers of the Corporation by a new clause conforming with the latest government policies in this area and identical with the standard provisions in other similar Acts such as the Overseas Telecommunications Act 1971. The final amendment clarifies the fact that the Corporation must not only seek the approval of the Minister before it can acquire or dispose of property with a value in excess of $100,000, but also seek the approval of the Minister to enter into an agreement for the provision of services if their value is in excess of $100,000. I should like to reiterate to honourable members that this Bill does no more than put into practice long-standing and publicly stated policies of the Government with regard to the Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation. All the major changes were previously suggested by the present Government at the time of the debate on the original Bill in 1970. With the removal of restrictions on the scope of the work it can undertake the Corporation will be able to take on work which could facilitate the absorption of more personnel from the Snowy Mountains Authority as construction of the Snowy Mountains scheme draws nearer to finality. As many displacements of personnel from the Authority will occur this year unemployment must eventuate in an area where job opportunities are few. This gives a degree of urgency to the passing of the Bill. In conclusion, may I say that the private consultant engineering sector in Australia need have nothing to fear from the enlarged scope of the Corporation. In the past, the Corporation as a matter of policy has often worked in association with private consultants through joint ventures and other similar arrangements. These consultants have thereby been given the opportunity to participate in overseas and other work in which they might otherwise have found their entrance unattainable. Indeed, it can be said that many of these assignments would have been won by foreign consultants had the Corporation not participated in this matter. The Government sees a continuation and a widening of these opportunities for the private consulting sector with the Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation on a broader basis. In accordance with the requirements of the Act the Corporation must return a profit on undertakings and during its 3 years of existence it has succeeded in this respect. I commend this Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by **Mr Fairbairn)** adjourned. {: .page-start } page 2641 {:#debate-33} ### ROYAL STYLE AND TITLES BILL 1973 Bill presented by **Mr Whitlarn,** and read a first time. {:#subdebate-33-0} #### Second Reading {: #subdebate-33-0-s0 .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr WHITLAM:
.Prime Minister and Minister for Foreign Affairs · Werriwa · ALP -- I move: >That the Bill be now read a second time. The purpose of this Bill is to give effect to a change - with Her Majesty's concurrence - in the Queen's royal style and titles in Australia. Honourable members will recall that I made a statement to the House on 1 May in which I foreshadowed this Bill. It proposes that the Queen's style and titles in Australia be 'Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God Queen of Australia and Her other Realms and Territories, Head of the Commonwealth'. It is appropriate that such a change be made with the consent and approval of both of the Houses of the Parliament. It is they which, with Her Majesty, are able to express in form of law the appropriate description of the constitutional position of the Queen. I add that the royal style and titles as laid down in our legislation apply also in the States. There are two changes in the proposed new style and titles from the present formulation. In the first place, the specific reference to the United Kingdom has been omitted. In the second, the reference 'Defender of the Faith' has been omitted. These changes have the Queen's full concurrence. The Queen's present Australian style and titles were approved by the Australian Parliament in 19S3 following a meeting in December 1952 in London between representatives of the Commonwealth countries of that time. It was agreed then that each member country would have, as a standard element in its own style and titles, reference to the Queen's 'Other Realms and Territories' and to her title as 'Head of the Commonwealth' and that beyond that each country would use a form of title to suit its own particular circumstances. At that time, the Australian Parliament approved the following formulation: >Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom, Australia and Her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith. The Bill now before the House retains, as honourable members will see, the agreed standard phrases. But also it gives primary place to Her Majesty's designation as Queen of Australia. This distinctive Australian form of style and title Her Majesty positively welcomes. It does not, since it is not necessary, make an individual reference to Her Majesty's title as Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. The omission of 'Defender of the Faith', as I said on an earlier occasion, has the purpose of removing a reference which has no historical or constitutional relevance for Australia. In accordance with agreement reached among the Prime Minister and other representatives of Commonwealth countries in 1952, we have taken steps to acquaint the governments of all countries which are members of the Commonwealth of our intention to change the Queen's style and titles for Australia. We have done this not only for the countries which continue to recognise the Queen as head of State but also for the countries which are republics or have monarchies of their own. Her Majesty has indicated that, subject to the Bill giving effect to the proposed amendments being passed by both Houses, it would give her pleasure to approve the legislation personally and to sign the necessary proclamation. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by **Mr Fairbairn)** adjourned. {: .page-start } page 2642 {:#debate-34} ### ACTS INTERPRETATION BILL 1973 Bill presented by **Mr Enderby,** and read a first time. {:#subdebate-34-0} #### Second Reading {: #subdebate-34-0-s0 .speaker-8H7} ##### Mr ENDERBY:
Minister for the Capital Territory and Minister for the Northern Territory · Australian Capital Territory · ALP -- I move: >That the Bill be now read a second time. The introduction of this Bill has become necessary because of legislation enacted by the Tasmanian Parliament which has the effect of changing the title of magistrates in that State from 'Stipendiary Magistrate' to 'Magistrate', and because of the decision of the Australian Government to change the name of the Gazette. Opportunity is taken in the Bill to clarify also some other expressions used in federal legislation. The part of the Bill dealing with references to magistrates in federal legislation will ensure that Tasmanian magistrates may continue to exercise federal jurisdiction and to perform other functions conferred on State magistrates under federal law. The Tasmanian Attorney-General, by arrangement with **Senator Greenwood,** the then Attorney-General, in November 1972 agreed to defer the bringing of the legislation into operation pending the enactment of necessary changes in federal law. A number of federal Acts confer jurisdiction or functions on persons who hold office as 'chief, stipendiary, police, resident or special magistrate' in a State. The Bill provides that, where in an Act reference is made to a stipendiary magistrate, the reference is to be read as including a reference to any magistrate in respect of whose office an annual salary is payable. The latter words will exclude justices of the peace who in some States may act as magistrates. This provision will apply not only to the Tasmanian situation but also to any future changes in a State in the designation of stipendiary magistrates. The Bill also contains a provision the purpose of which is to avoid the necessity, in future Acts, of referring to magistrates by the lengthy description to which I have referred. The Bill also contains provisions to give effect to the Government's intention to use, wherever possible, the term 'Australia' to signify the Australian nation. This involves adopting the name 'Australian Government Gazette' in place of the 'Commonwealth of Australia Gazette', the use of the imprint 'Government Printer of Australia' instead of 'Commonwealth Government Printer' on official documents, and the use of the term 'Australia' instead of 'Commonwealth' in legislation. Sitting suspended from 6.15 to 8 p.m. {: .speaker-8H7} ##### Mr ENDERBY: -- The Bill will also ensure that references in legislation to 'Australia' or to 'The Commonwealth', used in a geographical sense, do not include the external Territories. Existing legislation has consistently been drafted on the basis that the external Territories are not part of the Commonwealth* of Australia, but some judicial pronouncements in the High Court have thrown doubt on the correctness of that assumption. The provisions to give effect to these changes are contained in clauses 4 and 5 of the Bill. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by **Mr Bonnett)** adjourned. {: .page-start } page 2643 {:#debate-35} ### EVIDENCE BILL 1973 Bill presented by **Mr Enderby,** and read a first time. {:#subdebate-35-0} #### Second Reading {: #subdebate-35-0-s0 .speaker-8H7} ##### Mr ENDERBY:
Minister for the Capital Territory and Minister for the Northern Territory · Australian Capital Territory · ALP -- I move: This short Bill is complementary to that part of the Acts Interpretation Bill that is concerned with the change of the name of the Commonwealth of Australia Gazette' to Australian Government Gazette'. It applies the present provision of the Acts Interpretation Act, that the mere production of a paper purporting to be the 'Commonwealth of Australian Gazette' shall in all courts be evidence that the paper is the 'Commonwealth of Australia Gazette' and was published on the day on which it bears date, also to the 'Gazette' when published under its new name 'The Australian Government Gazette'. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by **Mr Bonnett)** adjourned. {: .page-start } page 2643 {:#debate-36} ### INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS {:#subdebate-36-0} #### Ministerial Statement {: #subdebate-36-0-s0 .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr WHITLAM:
Prime Minister and Minister for Foreign Affairs · Werriwa · ALP -- by leave - Upon taking office in December the Australian Government began a complete reassessment of Australia's foreign policy. On 5 December, the day I was sworn in as Prime Minister and Foreign Minister, I stated: >The change of Government provides a new opportunity for us to reassess the whole range of Australian foreign policies and attitudes. I shall be reassessing these policies with the general intention of developing more constructive, flexible and progressive approaches to a number of issues. Our thinking is towards a more independent Australian stance in international affairs and towards an Australia which will be less militarily oriented and not open to suggestions of racism; an Australia which will enjoy a growing standing as a distinctive, tolerant, cooperative and well regarded nation not only in the Asian and Pacific region but in the world at large. These are the very broad considerations which have guided our reassessment and which have inspired the specific policy decisions and actions already taken. In making the reassessment I have been vastly aided by the work of my Department. The advice available to me is the same which was available to the previous Government. The continuity of that advice provides a valuable element in the continuity of Australia's foreign policy. Our work in the last 5 months has lain not in forcing new directions upon Australia's foreign policy but in making new definitions of the role of foreign policy. Australia's international relations, like those of any other country, must always be directed to maintaining the nation's security and integrity. An approach to foreign policy, however, which is solely an extension of defence policy, a foreign policy aimed only at securing the defence perimeters wherever they are set or however defined, will, in the long run, distort both foreign and defence policies. We accept, for instance, the assessment of our predecessors that there is no foreseeable international conflict of major proportions directly involving Australia. Our predecessors made this 'assessment in terms of the next 10 years. We may rest on such assumptions but not relax upon them. The positive constructive role of foreign policy - and equally of defence policy - is to strive to ensure that the assumption proves correct. We are not just passively to assume that there will be no conflict; it is our positive task to see that there is not, by helping it remove the causes of tension and conflict. The Government's foreign policy rests upon the belief that Australia, given her resources, her geographical position, her historical and cultural background and the character and aspirations of her people, is well placed to make a serious contribution to the preservation of peace and the promotion of the welfare of our neighbours, while at the same time and by the same path, promoting her own interests and security. The change in the Australian Government came at a time of very great changes in international relations, particularly affecting our region. When in Opposition the Australian Labor Party worked for those changes insofar as it was in our slight power to do so. There was one man whose position gave him unique power to achieve these changes and I here gratefully acknowledge the pivotal role played by President Nixon in ushering in a new and saner phase in our relations with China; in clearing the way for more intensive commercial, scientific, technical and cultural exchanges between the United States of America and the Soviet Union, and thereby achieving a successful first round of the Strategic Arms Limitation Talks and ending foreign intervention in Vietnam. These were great achievements. None of these great objectives - sensible relations with China, the limitation of nuclear weapons and the end of foreign intervention in Indo-China - have yet been brought to ultimate fruition. The major decisions my Government has taken in foreign policy have all been directed towards their achievement. This is the context in which some of our most notable decisions should be seen. Our immediate efforts to secure normal relations with China were part of an international endeavour. Our ending of the last vestiges of Australia's military commitment in Vietnam and Cambodia signalled our determination to do all in our power to end foreign intervention in Indo-China. Decisions like these naturally have attracted the most attention. It should not be overlocked, however, that equally important parts of our foreign policy have required not specific actions but continuing activity directed towards strengthening relations with Japan, India and the Association of South East Asian Nations, with the United States and Canada, with Britain, and the other members of the European Economic Community. The centra] aim of my Government's foreign policy will be to do all we can as a medium-sized power to help all nations including the great powers and not least our great ally, to make the most of the new opportunities now presenting themselves. We are determined that nothing Australia does by action or inaction will contribute in 1973 to a further loss of opportunity for settlement and sanity, in the way that great opportunities were lost in 1954. The day is long since past when government actions with implications for our overseas relations could be taken independently of the objectives we have been pursuing at the essentially political or diplomatic level. We must now view the conduct of external relations as a task which involves a total evaluation of our interests abroad and at home. The effective management of these various elements in our overseas relation will require a major effort of co-ordination at many levels within the Australian Government. Foreign policy must now be fully integrated with domestic policy. The two are inseparable. Despite the relaxation of tension which I have mentioned, suspicion and conflict of interests between the nuclear weapons states persist. So does the existence of inequality, injustice and underdevelopment in many parts of the globe. Through the United Nations and other international machinery we have the opportunity to press for the removal of barriers and constraints against a less hostile and more fruitful development of relations between the major nuclear states. At the same time we should not spare our efforts to assist the developing countries of the world achieve material and spiritual progress in keeping with the legitimate aspirations and dignity of mankind. We believe that in the Third World change is not only inevitable but desirable, and that no peoples can fulfil their ultimate destiny if they are not allowed to arrive at genuinely national solutions to their own internal problems. By this we mean that the movements towards political, economic and social betterment in these countries should proceed along their own course with as little outside interference or intervention as possible and in a climate of security. In order to help prevent existing differences in political, ideological and social systems from disrupting peace and progress in the area of Asia and the Pacific, we have begun to deal with all the countries which satisfy the criteria of statehood. In this we have broken with the policies of our predecessors. The most glaring distortion in our pattern of overseas representation was China, which ignorance, prejudice and Cold War hostility had excluded for a generation from her rightful place as a member of the international community of nations. As soon as we took office, we initiated the process towards recognising the People's Republic of China - in essence, towards removing our China Embassy from Taipei to Peking, the capital of China of which Taiwan is a province. On 22 December 1972 I was able to announce that the negotiations had been successfully concluded, that Australia had recognised the Government of the People's Republic of China as the sole legal government of China and that diplomatic relations would be established at an early date. By this Act we came to terms with one of the central and inescapable facts of the region and redressed a serious imbalance and distortion in Australia's foreign policy. Australia's Ambassador has already arrived in Peking to assume charge of our mission and on the 17th of this month China's Ambassador to Australia, **Mr Wang** Kuo Ch'uan, presented his credentials to the Governor-General. We plan to develop a substantial relationship with China based on friendship, cooperation and mutual trust, comparable with that which we have, or seek, with other major powers. To this end, we have already begun actively to explore the practical means of giving substance to this recently established relationship. We aim at developing policies which will promote understanding, mutual benefit and a growing degree of co-operation between Australia and China. Personal visits, expansion of trade and scientific, technical and cultural exchanges will help put our relationship on a solid footing. China's policies, particularly in areas of direct interest for Australia, will be of great importance to us. But China will by no means be the central preoccupation of our foreign policy. Our relationship with China will not develop at the expense of our relations with other countries. Honourable members will be pleased to know from the Press reports this morning that we have now concluded a most satisfactory deal in sugar sales to China. I am expecting at any moment to receive a cable of congratulations from the Premier of Queensland. In the same spirit, the Government has decided to establish diplomatic relations with the Democratic Republic of Vietnam, the German Democratic Republic, Cyprus, Poland and the Vatican and to make informal contacts with the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. Similarly, we have decided that on commercial trade with the Soviet Union, Eastern Europe, Cuba, North Korea, North Vietnam and China, Australia will no longer maintain restraints different from those applied to any other country. These changes in our policy in no way affect the restrictions placed by Australia on the export of arms, warlike stores and atomic energy materials. The foundations have already been laid for an expansion of our commercial relations. In March this year we welcomed to Australia the Minister for Foreign Trade of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, **Mr Patolichev,** and a high-level Australian trade delegation led by the Minister for Overseas Trade **(Dr J. F. Cairns)** has just completed a successful visit to China. We expect a North Korean trade delegation to visit Australia in the middle of this year. It is self-evident that the extension of Australia's diplomatic representation overseas, the opening up of new trade opportunities and the development of our international relations on a more global and general basis are the very reverse of isolationist or inward-looking policies. They commit Australia more than ever before to playing a significant and enlightened role in world affairs. Isolationism is not an option for Australia. It should also be clear from our actions that we have not forsaken established relationships in our efforts to break down old ideological barriers against understanding and co-operation. We shall, for example, be giving even more economic aid to South Vietnam in the coming year than the previous Government did in the last. In pursuit of our even-handed policy towards all the states of the region we invited the Foreign Minister of South Korea, **Mr Yong** Shik Kim, to visit Australia for discussions on political and commercial matters. We shall maintain this policy in our future dealings with all countries, irrespective of their political or ideological systems, and will not be deterred or diverted from this course by unthinking accusations that we are favouring one nation or group of nations over another. We are not moving into anybody's orbit. By the same token we do not seek membership of the non-aligned movement. There has been some misunderstanding on this point. We would be prepared to accept observer status at the next non-aligned meeting in Algiers if Australia were invited. There is nothing incompatible between our policy of alignment and our attendance in an observer capacity at a non-aligned meeting. No one has suggested that Australia was seeking to become a Latin American country because it welcomed the opportunity to attend the last meeting of the Organisation of American States in Washington as an observer. It was therefore only logical that we should from an early stage have examined the possibilities of bringing into existence the kind of regional community which, as I said in my speech to the Summer School of the Australian Institute of Political Science on Australia Day, would be 'an organisation genuinely representative of the region, without ideological overtones, conceived as an initiative to help free the region of Great Power rivalries that have bedevilled its progress for decades and designed to insulate the region against ideological interference from the Great powers'. The only purely regional political organisation of which we are currently a member, the Asian and Pacific Council, quite obviously fails to meet our requirements, since its membership is both limited and selective and includes an entity which we and some other members no longer recognise. Australia does not belong to the Association of South East Asian Nations, which brings together Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore and Thailand, nor do we seek membership of it. ASEAN has demonstrated its strength and viability as a subregional grouping and it is not in our interests nor is it our intention willingly or unwittingly to disturb the unity, progress and harmony of that association. It is clear that the new regional arrangements we have in mind will be a slow and delicate growth. We are content at present to let the concept take seed in the thinking of our neighbours in the belief that our approach holds the best long-term promise for bringing about a greater and more lasting measure of regional co-operation and understanding. We remain completely flexible on the timing, structure and membership of any future arrangements. Meanwhile, we shall devote our efforts towards strengthening bilateral relations and continuing careful discussion of future regional co-operation until such time as the countries of the area are ready to participate in a wider regional grouping. One way in which we shall seek to develop these bilateral relations is through our association and consultation with our regional fellow members of the Security Council, notably, India and Indonesia. An important element of our co-operation with our neighbours is defence co-operation. The form that it takes, however, is vital for the furtherance of our purposes, if it is not to serve contrary ends by aggravating the very tendencies and developments which it is designed to head off. Australia believes that the tactics of containment, forward defence and ideological confrontation are not only no longer relevant but are counter-productive. Australia is involved in regional defence arrangements, some of long standing, whose continued functioning and value were accepted without question by previous governments. We have not assumed and endorsed these commitments uncritically but are submitting them all to close scrutiny to determine their usefulness and appropriateness in an age which bears witness to growing ideological co-existence and strategic interdependence between the great and small powers alike. We believe for instance that the South East Asia Treaty Organisation - conceived as an instrument for the containment of China in the cold war era - must be modified if it is not to become completely moribund. We believe that our pledge to uphold the FivePower Arrangements does not require the stationing of forces abroad on permanent garrison duty for its redemption. We believe that there should be full co-operation between Australia and the other participants in the Five-Power Arrangements and that one way in which this co-operation can be effective is through the holding of joint military exercises. We propose initially to have these held on a bilateral basis before investigating the possibility of carrying them out multilaterally. We shall also continue to make facilities available for training personnel in Australia. Our program of defence co-operation with Indonesia is very much in accord with the Australian Labor Government's philosophy and will serve as a model for future arrangements of this kind. Its guiding aim is to promote self-reliance and the capability to resist external threats. It does not favour the permanent stationing of Australian .military forces abroad, but looks to the development of relations in the defence field through cooperation in such areas as technical aid, training assistance, joint exercises and continuing consultation. The Government will seek cooperation of this kind with our regional neighbours on an informal basis without the need for fixed and formal military pacts. It is on this basis that Australia and Indonesia have together worked out a program of defence co-operation which will continue to be further developed. Our civil aid however - *2i* times the value of our defence aid - is an even more important element in our relations with Indonesia. Our policy on civil aid to Indonesia should serve as an indicator of the approach we shall increasingly adopt in future to Australian activity of this kind overseas. The economic problems faced by Indonesia are common to most of the developing countries in the region. Their efforts are principally directed towards generating more rapid economic growth, creating wider employment activities, maintaining and accelerating expansion of the agricultural sector, achieving more balanced regional development and greater diversification of the economic structure, and providing improved social welfare. These are important goals for all our neighbours. Australia will seek an expanding role in helping our neighbours reach those goals. Our civil aid and defence policies will have a particular bearing on Australia's future relationship with Papua New Guinea, whose independence will be achieved, I confidently expect, in the closest consultation with the Government and House of Assembly of Papua New Guinea by 1975. Though the constitutional link has not yet been severed, we shall increasingly consider our policies towards Papua New Guinea not in any nostalgic colonial sense, but as though we were already dealing with a fully independent state. In the period before independence the Government will do everything possible to meet Australia's obligations under the Trusteeship Agreement and to ensure the smooth and amicable transfer of power to the government of a United Papua New Guinea. We very well know how important this period is for the foundation of Australia's future relationship with the independent nation of Papua New Guinea. I look forward to this relationship developing fraternally and on a broad front that goes well beyond normal diplomatic ties. Papua New Guinea will occupy a special position on Australia's network of relationships, but we do not seek an exclusive relationship with Papua New Guinea which will want to find her own place in the international community. As Papua New Guinea's foreign service develops and as her range of international interests grow, we shall be ready to help where we can and as we are asked. Papua New Guinea will have the first call on our foreign aid program and we shall work closely with the central government of Papua New Guinea through a specific and guaranteed economic program. We shall, however, place no inhibitions whatsoever on the Government of Papua New Guinea >n seeking aid or investment from any country she may choose to invite to take part in her development. We are also anxious that outstanding questions relating to Papua New Guinea's borders should be settled at an early date so that, when independence is attained, Papua New Guinea's relations with her near neighbours will not be plagued by the kind of territorial disputes which in other parts of the world have done so much to hinder the development of fruitful and mutually beneficial relations between close neighbours. We welcome the successful delineation of the Papua New Guinea - Indonesia border. We attach considerable importance to the early negotiation of administrative arrangements between Australia - Papua New Guinea on one hand and Indonesia on the other to avoid potential sources of friction on the Papua New Guinea-Indonesia border. I regret that despite my Government's best endeavours early progress towards agreement on the border between Australia and Papua New Guinea seems unlikely and final agreement may have to await Papua New Guinea's independence. As well as the close personal, official and political links that have grown between Australia and Papua New Guinea, there are several strong common interests which we share. Perhaps the most important of these is our shared interest in further consolidating our friendly ties with our closest neighbour, Indonesia. Not only must our 3 countries cooperate in the interests of our own peoples and of the region in which we are situated, but we must in our mutual relations seek to set an example of harmonious regional cooperation. Similarly, in the other area of close interest to both of us, the South Pacific, we should, in the future, seek with Papua New Guinea and our other friends in the Pacific to build on progress so far achieved in developing regional co-operation, friendship and partnership. The recent meeting of the Pacific Forum attended by both Papua New Guinea and Australia was a useful step in this direction. One of the forms which the quest for longer-term security measures has taken is in proposals relating to zones of peace and neutrality in South-East Asia and the Indian Ocean. We consider that these proposals have essentially the same objectives as our conception of a new regional community, namely, to allow peaceful development and the adjustment of relations among the countries to our west and north, free, so far as is possible, from outside interference. On this understanding we have pledged our support for the ASEAN Declaration on South East Asia as a zone of peace, freedom and neutrality, and we shall work towards its eventual implementation; and, in a spirit of co-operation with other countries in the area, we have agreed to serve on a United Nations committee to examine the implications of a Sri Lankan proposal to have the Indian Ocean declared a zone of peace. The maintenance of our alliance with the United States under ANZUS remains most important for our security, since by its very nature it has created and guarantees in the Pacific a zone of peace in which the peoples of the region have for the last 20 years been free to pursue their political, economic and social goals without fear of hostile intervention or attack. The ANZUS Treaty reflects a natural relationship between these countries of the Pacific. Its continuation is not questioned by any of its partners. The most disturbing matter presently troubling the South Pacific is the continuation of French nuclear testing. This is the more distressing as in all other respects we have the friendliest and most honourable associations with France. Australia is party to the Partial Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, the NonProliferation Treaty and the Sea Bed Arms Control Treaty, and supports the conclusion of an effective and comprehensive nuclear weapons test ban treaty. We are opposed to all forms of nuclear weapons testing by whatever nation and our objective is the suspension of all such testing. There should be no doubts or misunderstandings about the strength of our resolve on this issue. We have registered with the Chinese Government Australia's opposition to its nuclear weapons testing in the atmosphere and are pursuing with the utmost vigour an international legal and political campaign to induce France to abandon her testing program in the Pacific. The World Health Assembly in Geneva has just adopted by a vote of 87-4 with 10 abstentions, a resolution deploring all nuclear test ing which results in an increase in the level of ionising radiation in the atmosphere and urging its immediate cessation. Given the feelings of public outrage throughout the Pacific region and bipartisan parliamentary condemnation in Australia of French plans to proceed with her nuclear weapons tests, the Government has acted dispassionately and with considerable restraint, because of the great value it attaches to its wider relations with France, by exploring all possible avenues in seeking a solution to this disagreement. We have used the normal diplomatic channels as well as ministerial meetings and technical exchanges to find a way out of this major problem, but so far without success. It is in the context of our attitudes to nuclear testing that the presence of two of the United States installations in Australia should be seen. The United States Air Force detachment at Amberley and the Joint Geological and Geophysical Research Station at Alice Springs collectively possess technical facilities to monitor the testing of nuclear devices in the atmosphere, on the surface and underground. The Australian Government has access not only to the products of these 2 installations but also to the other wider assessments to which they contribute. It is therefore a positive asset to have established in Australia the means of contributing towards the achievement and monitoring of disarmament. Prompt, reliable and comprehensive information is vital to the maintenance of global peace and security. We have previously informed the public that the Joint Defence Space Research Facility at Pine Gap near Alice Springs and the Joint Defence Space Communications station at Nurrungar are related to satellites and that they analyse and test data. We. have also stated that neither installation is part of a weapons system and neither can be used to attack any country, and we have been convinced that they contribute specifically to the improvement and development of Australia's defence system. The Government still has certain reservations about the United States Naval Communication Station at North West Cape and it is our intention to seek a renegotiation of the original terms of the agreement establishing this station in Australia. I want to emphasise, however, that in our relations with the United States as with all other nations we should not allow any single aspect of our relations to dominate our whole approach. The importance of ANZUS has tended to overshadow the variety and strength of our relations in other fields, such as trade, finance, investment, technology, aviation and culture, which, no less than our defence links, have brought us substantial rewards and benefits. Similarly, under previous governments, Australia has been remiss in devoting her principal efforts and attention to fostering commercial and economic collaboration with Japan without at the same time adequately exploring and exploiting the social and cultural resources which each has to offer the other. We shall seek to remedy these shortcomings. We intend to base our relations with Japan on our desire for wholehearted co-operation in promoting the common interests of our 2 countries and of the region in which we are two of the wealthiest powers. Just as we plan to address ourselves in future to all the various possibilities of our relationships with other countries, so shall we take increasing account of the global extent of our interests. It is only natural that we should have concentrated our initial efforts on establishing the bases for understanding and co-operation in our own geographical region, but it has no way been our wish or intention to underestimate or neglect the importance of our ties with the rest of the world. One of the crucial ways in which we must improve our global reputation is to apply our aspirations for equality at home to our relations with the peoples of the world as a whole. Just as we have embarked on a determined campaign to restore the Australian Aborigines to their rightful place in Australian society, so we have an obligation to remove methodically from Australia's laws and practices all racially discriminatory provisions and from international activities any hint or suggestion that we favour policies, decrees or resolutions that seek to differentiate between peoples on the basis of the colour of their skin. As an island nation of predominantly European inhabitants situated on the edge of Asia, we cannot afford the stigma of racialism. Since taking office, the Government has set about systematically fulfilling this policy goal. On 20 March, on the occasion of the inter- national day for the elimination of racial discrimination, I reaffirmed our intention to ratify the 1965 International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination as soon as the necessary legislative and other measures could be completed. Our decision to deny racially selected sports teams the right to visit or transit Australia should also be seen in this light. We have demonstrated our active concern for the rights of peoples oppressed in Rhodesia and South Africa by voting in favour of the last 2 United Nations General Assembly resolutions on Rhodesia, which we had not previously supported, terminating all trade to and from Rhodesia, and by seeking the closure of the Rhodesia Information Centre in Sydney. Australia has also contributed for the first time to the United Nations funds established to assist the educational development and other aspirations of the people of southern Africa. We were represented at an international conference of experts for the support of victims of colonialism and apartheid in southern Africa held in Oslo last month. The purpose of this conference was to formulate a constructive program of peaceful action to facilitate and hasten the process of decolonisation and the elimination of apartheid. Further, we have signed, as a first step towards ratification, the 1966 International Covenants on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and on Civil and Political Rights. The Government has ratified 2 International Labor Organisation Conventions dealing with freedom of association - drawn up in 194S - and protection of the right to organise and with the right to organise and bargain collectively - drawn up in 1949. As the Minister for Labour **(Mr Clyde Cameron)** stated in the House on Tuesday, we are ratifying a number of other International Labour Organisation conventions as soon as possible, in particular those dealing with equal remuneration - drawn up in 1951 - and with discrimination in the fields of employment and occupation - drawn up in 1958. The Government has made financial contributions to the United Nations Fund for Population Activities and the International Planned Parenthood Federation. In formulating our foreign policies we are particularly conscious of the needs of the developing countries. Since 1945 Australia has spent more than SA1.8 billion on official economic aid. The Government intends not only to expand present programs in Asia, the Pacific and Africa, but will be working towards an official aid target of 0.7 per cent of the gross national product by the end of the decade. Furthermore the Government has already taken steps to liberalise commercial access by developing countries to the Australian market through additional concessions under Australia's preference scheme for developing countries. Consideration is also being given to further changes in Australia's preferential trade with these countries. Finally there is one area of importance, if not vital domestic concern, which has profound implications for our foreign policy in the future, 'lt is an area in which each step we take within Australia will have repercussions overseas and in which demands overseas will affect each and every one of us in Australia. It is the area of natural resources. Under the policy of benign neglect tolerated by our predecessors, Australia's national resources, their exploration, exploitation, processing and export fell increasingly into the hands of foreign concerns. This was an intolerable situation in itself. But it has a more significant international dimension. Australia possesses a wide range of mineral resources. We rank among the world's 5 main producers of bauxite, iron ore, tin, nickel, silver, lead, zinc, manganese and uranium. In many cases, our importance in the world as a producer is increasing. At the same time, the western industrialised world is becoming steadily less self-sufficient in mineral and energy resources. This is particularly true of the United States, which has in the space of 20 years become dependent on foreign sources for more than 20 important industrial minerals in which it was previously self-sufficient. Mineral and energy imports currently cost the United States some $US10 billion a year, and the trend towards growing dependence on imported supplies of oil was one of the key aspects of President Nixon's recent statement on United States energy policies. Similar trends are evident in Western Europe, while Japan has long been a heavy importer as she lacks natural resources of her own. In response to these trends, and as they become increasingly preoccupied with ensuring access to continuing supplies of the fuel and mineral resources on which their economies depend, these countries may be expected to evolve comprehensive resource policies like those already adopted by Japan. Because of our political and economic strength and stability, we are likely to become a significant element in the resource strategies of the importing countries. This will have a substantial effect on our bilateral and even multilateral relations, as we build up a mutually beneficial system of economic interdependence. In short, we are moving into a situation where our commercial and strategic importance to the Western world is giving us a growing political voice. Now that the procurement of resources is becoming a vital national interest for industrialised countries increasingly short of mineral resources, any domestic resource legislation we make is bound to affect our relations with these countries. It is becoming apparent that we can no longer regard resources legislation in purely domestic terms, but that implications for our foreign relations need increasingly to be taken into account in the planning of government action. We consider that the stage has now been reached where Australia needs to develop policies of her own that take account of the fact that we are becoming the object of others' resource strategies. We must develop policies to ensure our continued access to those resources in which we are not self-sufficient, especially fuel. We have taken numerous steps with a view to securing greater Australian and government control and supervision of the use of our natural resources. Australia has asserted her sovereign rights to explore and exploit the natural resources of its continental shelf out to the outer shelf of the continental margin. At negotiations preceding the next Law of the Sea Conference, Australia has advocated the exclusive jurisdiction of a coastal state over a broad resources zone extending well beyond the territorial sea. I am proud to acknowledge the role that my colleague the Minister for Minerals and Energy **(Mr Connor)** has played in introducing a Bill which merges the Bill introduced by my predecessor as Prime Minister when he was Foreign Minister in respect of the territorial sea and the Bill that his predecessor promised in respect of the mineral resources on the seabed and under it. But there are wider issues involved than the reassertion of our sovereignty over the territory of Australia. Current resource trends, and our importance as a producer, will oblige us to define our attitudes on a range of new developments of considerable importance in bilateral and multilateral diplomacy. I am thinking of such matters as resource conferences, the question of resource producer and consumer cooperative cartels, regulations for the distribution of resource data acquired by satellite and technological collaboration. All this will require a considerably greater degree of foreign policy expertise than we have at present, and it is with this in mind that the Government has decided to appoint a scientific adviser to the Department of Foreign Affairs. Our possession of a wide range and extensive reserves of resources at a time of unprecedented global resource consumption introduces an element of new complexity into our foreign relations. It alters our strategic thinking, colours our bilateral relations, and presents us with a range of important policy options. I consider resource question will become a very important aspect of our foreign policy, and to that end this Government aims to work towards a comprehensive, integrated resource policy which takes our foreign as well as domestic interests into account. In developing and implementing our international policies, visits abroad by Ministers and visits to Australia by representatives of foreign governments play a most important and constructive part. The visits I have made and planned for this year and later are primarily as Prime Minister of Australia. When he is overseas, the Prime Minister is necessarily Foreign Minister, whether he holds the portfolio or not. This year's overseas missions - to New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, Indonesia, the South Pacific Forum, Britain, the Vatican, Mauritius, India, Mexico, North America, Japan and China - are part of my responsibilities as Prime Minister, even more than as Foreign Minister. Parallel to my own visits, are those of the Deputy Prime Minister to Indonesia, Malaysia and Singapore, and those to be undertaken by the Special Minister of State to African nations in June. Our own increased activity abroad is matched by an increasing number of visitors to Australia - from every continent - I have already mentioned some of them. We have had a most valuable visit by the Malaysian Deputy Prime Minister, Tun **Dr Ismail,** and I am delighted to announce tonight that invitations to visit later this year have been accepted by the Foreign Minister of Singapore **Mr Rajaratnam,** and of the Philippines, General Carlos Romulo. There has been no time in our history when Australia has attracted so much interest abroad and, I emphasise, such friendly interest in all quarters. We are glad to welcome the Danish Foreign Minister, **Mr Andersen,** who is at present visiting Australia. {: .speaker-009MA} ##### Mr McMahon: -- Are you going to Washington? {: .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr WHITLAM: -- Of course. As our nation, our region and world civilisation moves into a more complex, more challenging yet, I profoundly believe, more hopeful era our Government is determined to equip Australia with policies and attitudes to cope with that complexity, to rise to those challenges and to fulfil those hopes. Our task in recent months has been largely one of clearing away the deadwood of the past. This was necessary to permit us to deal in a constructive, contemporary way with the new realities. In most cases we have made no radical departure but rather have ratified these realities. We now stand ready to develop and carry though, in co-operation with our neighbours, policies and programs which will take Australia forward, as I told the people of Australia on 13 November 1972, to her rightful, proud, secure and independent place in the future of our region and the world. I present the following paper: {:#subdebate-36-1} #### International Affairs - Ministerial Statement, 24 May 1973 Motion (by **Mr Enderby)** proposed: >That the House take note of the paper. {: #subdebate-36-1-s0 .speaker-JRN} ##### Mr N H Bowen:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP **- Mr Speaker,** having spoken to the Prime Minister, **Mr Whitlam,** before his statement was made I now seek leave to to make a statement. {: #subdebate-36-1-s1 .speaker-10000} ##### Mr SPEAKER: -Is leave granted? There being no objection, leave is granted. {: .speaker-JRN} ##### Mr N H Bowen:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP -I welcome the Prime Minister's statement early in his speech indicating that since the elections he has not, to use his own words, 'been forcing new directions upon Australia's foreign policy but rather seeking new definitions of the role of foreign policy'. But the fact is that even when the Prime Minister and the new Government are following the direction of the previous Government's policy the style adopted by this Government and particularly by the Prime Minister himself - which I can only describe as being on occasions impulsive and to a degree insensitive to the interests and feelings of our northern neighbours - has created a belief in those countries that there have been significant changes in direction. This has led unfortunately to some concern and loss of confidence by our neighbours. They are at present uncertain about Australia and about Australia's intentions. The respect which those countries had for Australia and their confidence in our integrity and firmness of purpose have been shaken. Ground carefully won by the previous Government has been lost, and I specify in particular countries such as India, Indonesia, Malaysia and Singapore, and there are others. This ground must be regained. There have of course been some changes in direction. However, not all of these changes appear to be in the long term interests of Australia. In a brief statement such as this I will not deal with this except perhaps to take one by way of example. This is the Government's attempt to secure Australia's attendance at the next conference of non aligned nations in Algiers. The Government is seeking sponsorship by Yugoslavia. But the Government still maintains the ANZUS States treaty. Are we aligned or are we not aligned? The Prime Minister's attempts in his speech to rationalise the situation of being a member of the ANZUS treaty and at the same time attend a conference of non aligned nations is a feat of mental acrobatics. This attempt to join the non aligned nations is part, as I gather from other remarks made on other occasions, of an attempt to bring Australia into the third world and is seen by some other countries as somewhat ridiculous. Furthermore, the non aligned conference of which Yugoslavia may historically be described as the originating genius is not notable for its understanding or concern for the interests of the South East Asian nations; and these of course are our closest neighbours. The attempt to join the non aligned conference again is causing uncertainty about what the real direction of our foreign policy is at the present time. The Prime Minister speaks as if what he describes as a constructive flexible and progressive approach in Australia's foreign policy is something new. He seeks to depict the previous Government as slow moving and resistant to change in foreign affairs. The facts, if honsetly considered, will show that this is a contrived and distorted appraisal of what has happened in the past. The fact is that it was under the Liberal-Country Party Government that Australia matured as a middle ranking power. During the whole of the past 20 years and more Australian foreign policy was in a constant process of evolution and change, and particularly from the time of the announcement of the withdrawal of Great Britain from the region the evolution of Australian foreign policy was vastly accelerated. It was the previous Government which announced regional policies in Asia and in the Pacific and we took the significant practical steps toward achieving them. For example, the Prime Minister refers in his speech to his attendance at the South Pacific Forum recently as if this was a great initiative of his own. The fact is that the Forum was established with out encouragement and joined by us in the previous Government. The previous meeting of the Forum was in fact held in Canberra and we were the hosts. There was no mention of this in the statement. It is an entire distortion to put forward his trip to the South Pacific Forum as showing a new concern in regard to the South Pacific area. This kind of approach runs through this statement. But this is only intended to be a brief statement from me in response this evening. I shall say no more at this stage because I wish to reserve my detailed remarks for the debate on the statement. Debate (on motion by **Mr N.** H. Bowen) adjourned. {: .page-start } page 2652 {:#debate-37} ### PAPUA NEW GUINEA LOAN GUARANTEE BILL 1973 Assent reported. {: .page-start } page 2652 {:#debate-38} ### HOUSING AGREEMENT BILL 1973 {:#subdebate-38-0} #### Second Reading Debate resumed from 16 May (vide page 2223), on motion by **Mr Les** Johnson: >That the Bill be now read a second time. {: #subdebate-38-0-s0 .speaker-K9M} ##### Mr Les Johnson:
Minister for Housing · HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP -- **Mr Speaker,** may I have the indulgence of the House to raise a point of procedure on this legislation? Before the debate is resumed on this Bill I would like to suggest that it may suit the convenience of the House to have a general debate covering this Bill, the States Grants (Housing Assistance) Bill 1973 and the States Grants (Housing) Bill 1973 as they are associated measures. Separate questions may, of course, be put on each of the Bills at the conclusion of the debate. I suggest therefore, **Mr Speaker,** that you permit the subject matter of the 3 Bills to be discussed iri this debate. {: #subdebate-38-0-s1 .speaker-10000} ##### Mr SPEAKER: -- Order! Is it the wish of the House to have a general debate covering the 3 measures? There being no objection, I will allow that course to be followed. {: #subdebate-38-0-s2 .speaker-JQB} ##### Mr BONNETT:
Herbert -- The Housing Agreement Bill, after study, is one of the most unusual pieces of legislation on housing that I have ever seen. I say it is unusual because I believe that this is the first time that a housing Bill which affects all States has been introduced without any agreement being reached between the States and the Commonwealth prior to its introduction; more especially so when all States were unanimous in their views against a specific clause in the Bill. Yet that clause still remains in the Bill. It is also unusual because while the Minister has been at great pains over the last few months to inform us that he and the Government are adamant in their intentions to foster opportunities for home ownership this Bill deliberately places restrictions on home ownership. I am well aware that the Minister has a great desire to ensure that an adequate number of low rental homes are made available to those people who are on low incomes. He is to be commended for his admirable desire. But in introducing this specific Bill I feel that he has in his haste in doing so without allowing the States a reasonable time to study it allowed his desire to overrule an intelligent approach to the balance between the important subject of home ownership and low rental accommodation. The States are extremely important contributors to ideas on housing which would be of benefit to the communities within the States. Yet on this occasion some State Housing Ministers did not receive a copy of the draft agreement until 48 hours prior to the Bill being introduced into this Parliament. This procedure allowed no time whatsoever for objective study of the proposed legislation by State Cabinets or committees. Therefore, it is no wonder that the States are unhappy with the Bill in its present form. In those unhappy States I include States with governments of the same political persuasion as the Federal Government. It is quite apparent that clause 19 of the Bill - especially sub-clause (1), which places restrictions on the sale of commission or authority houses - is the one to which the States are objecting. The Government's intention to ensure that a certain percentage of commission homes are available at a low rental seems rather superfluous when one considers the policies of most of the States on this matter. The selling of commission homes and the provision of commission homes at a low rental to people on low incomes has been the established practice of the States for a considerable time - in fact, since the commissions or authorities were established - and I can see no legitimate reason why the Commonwealth should buy in at this stage and attempt to dictate to the States on a matter on which, through established practice, they conform with the principle expressed by the Commonwealth Government. Then there is the matter of the Government's proposed needs test. The introduction of this part of the Bill leads me to believe that the Minister for Housing is completely unaware of the States' policies with regard to the selling or letting of commission homes. I suggest that the Minister has not visited the States and personally discussed this matter with the relevant Ministers but has done a paper study, which is never entirely satisfactory when compared with a personal practical examination; or perhaps he has taken just one State policy as an example. I say this because it is quite possible that in his own State commission homes could be classed as being oversold and there could be a big demand for low rental homes in his electorate of Hughes and the adjacent electorate of Reid. As a consequence of this, the Minister may be under the impression that the situation is the same throughout the country, and perhaps this has led him to introduce this needs test and restriction clause. I suggest this as a possibility because I am sure that if the Minister had taken the opportunity of closer liaison with the individual State Ministers this Bill would have been introduced in a different form. The Minister and the Government have no monopoly on the princip'e of home ownership and the adequate provision of low rental accommodation for people on low incomes. We on this side of the House have been conscious of this need and, in conjunction with the State governments, have acted upon it. Let me refer to just one example of our policy of strongly advocating home ownership. I use one State as an example rather than use my own State which is in the same category. In Victoria when the Labor Government was in power prior to the present Liberal Government, a total of 15,000 commission homes were constructed. Up to the time the Labor Government was defeated it had sold only 52 of those 15,000 homes. It had allowed ownership of only 52 homes. Since the present Government was elected in Victoria it has constructed a total of 57,000 commission homes and has made 34,000 of them available for home ownership. I suggest that this is quite an impressive record which could not have been achieved without the assistance of a Commonwealth government that was dedicated to a policy of home ownership. I know that Prime Minister Curtin and Prime Minister Chifley had firm ideas on home ownership when they were in power and that they introduced measures to assist the States in this matter. However, the first housing Bill that this Labor Government introduces puts a restriction on the States' authority to allow home ownership for sections of their residents. On the basis of the figures I have quoted alone, it can be seen that with a restriction of 30 per cent placed on commission accommodation available for home ownership, the people of Victoria, just to mention one State, will be worse off if this proposed restriction becomes law. The Minister claims that the 30 per cent restriction on house sales is a concession. He could have in mind the speech he made on 16 January this year in which he said: >I also propose that the sale of new homes built by the State Housing Authority after June 30 next be severely restricted, if not entirely prohibited . . . If this is in his mind I suggest that a 30 per cent restriction is a concession, but it is not a concession when the actual figures from the States are taken into consideration. The Bill contains other clauses which could be looked at and the subject matter of which could be improved. This also leads me to think that this Bill was thrown together with undue haste and with not enough thought being given to detail, such as whom it would affect and how it would affect them. For example, clause 16 deals with eligibility for allocation of housing. I will not discuss the categories of people eligible, as they are in the Bill for everybody to read. However, I ask the Minister: Why not include a single person with a dependent mother or father and a single person who has to accept responsi bility for younger brothers and sisters? Surely these people could have been considered when the eligibility clause was drafted. Clause 16 (1) (b) states that eligibility extends to an aged person or an invalid who is the breadwinner for him and his wife. They are eligible only if their income does not exceed 60 per cent of average weekly earnings. Yet a younger couple - maybe one or two years younger - can have an income equal to 85 per cent of average weekly earnings and still be eligible. This is unfair discrimination against an aged couple. Why not place all people affected on the limit of 85 per cent of average weekly earnings? Clause 19 of the Bill deals with the disposal of a dwelling by a purchaser. In my opinion it places an unfair limitation on the purchaser. There are other important circumstances in which a purchaser should be permitted to dispose of his dwelling. Again this leads me to believe that the Bill was thrown together in undue haste and without any constructive thought being given to it. Why should not a purchaser be allowed to dispose of his dwelling in the following circumstances: In the case of death, by the provisions of a will or under the appropriate laws governing succession or intestacy; in the case of dissolution or breakdown of a marriage, by the property passing to the appropriate spouse who may or may not already be a joint purchaser; pursuant to the order of a court in divorce proceedings; on transfer or removal of the purchaser to another town for reasons of employment; or for any other reason of a non-voluntary nature considered equitable by the housing authority? I do not think that those circumstances are unreasonable and I ask the Government to seriously consider including them in the Bill. Clause 27 provides for a loan to a home owner for the purchase of a new or previously occupied dwelling not built by a housing authority. Why not extend these conditions to enable a current borrower to obtain finance for additional accommodation for a growing family or aged parents or in some other similar circumstances? Again, I do not think that this request is unreasonable. So I could go on making suggestions to improve many more sections of the Bill. I call it an unusual Bill and it certainly is but there are other honourable members who wish to speak after me. To my way of thinking my suggestions on these clauses would make the Bill more acceptable to the States, but in my opinion and in the opinion of the States the most upsetting portion of the whole Bill is that clause which restricts the States to allowing only 30 per cent of commission or authority homes to be allocated for home ownership. I believe that an agreement between parties or authorities means a partnership. But this is no partnership agreement. When all States have registered their disapproval of the 30 per cent restriction on home ownership, for the Federal Government to go ahead and ride roughshod over their combined protests to me is a complete dictatorship and a determined effort by this Government to undermine the authority of the States. The Opposition agrees with the States that if restrictions are to be placed on the sale of commission homes or dwellings then 50 per cent is a more realistic figure than 30 per cent for home ownership, and it is in this regard that I will move an amendment at the Committee stage. I commend to the Government for consideration the suggestions I have made for improvement of the Bill. They relate to only a few of the clauses that could be improved. As we are taking the 3 Bills together, I refer to the Bill which is designed to withdraw the grant of $2.75m a year to the various housing commissions or authorities. I fail to see why this concession should be withdrawn at this time under the present circumstances of the Housing Agreement Act 1973. When 1 say 'the present circumstances' 1 mean that this draft agreement has not been ratified by the States. This grant of $2.75m has been of great benefit to the States and consequently of benefit to our own people and, in my opinion, to withdraw a benefit from the very people that this Government says it wishes to help is bad business and can only do the Government harm. I have yet to be convinced that the States will benefit from the proposed withdrawal of the grant of $2. 75m and the proposed increasing flow of finance at a highly concessional rate of interest. I would suggest that the proposed date for the Act to come into operation - that is, when it receives royal assent - should be altered to coincide with the coming into operation of the Housing Agreement Act. I do not think that this would create any hardship for the Government and it would cer tainly save a little of the Government's face with the State governments. {: #subdebate-38-0-s3 .speaker-JME} ##### Mr ASHLEY-BROWN:
Mitchell -- The main provision of the new CommonwealthState Housing Agreement is that moneys should be provided by the Australian Government to enable the States to increase lower rental housing. The Minister for Housing **(Mr Les Johnson)** has stated, and I agree, that the 3 Bills are inter-related. As I mentioned when speaking on the second reading of the Housing Bill and also on the Defence Service Homes Bill, the fact that nearly 100,000 families are waiting for homes is something that needs urgent and immediate attention. The main issue is to reduce this long waiting list of people who have made application and are waiting for homes. Negotiation with the States, particularly with the Housing Ministers of Victoria and New South Wales, has not been easy but this Bill now requests the authority of Parliament to enter into agreement with the States so that such agreement can come into operation as from 1 July 1973. The need for good quality, low rental accommodation for families with low incomes is easily understood when one considers the economic factors operating in the housing industry at present. Firstly, there are the observed facts that both the cost of land and the cost of home building are rising rapidly and in excess of inflationary increases in money value. As examples of increases in land costs, the Minister for Urban and Regional Development **(Mr Uren)** is quoted as saying: >Speculation is running riot in Melbourne. The cost of a medium priced suburban block in Melbourne has gone up by 43.75 per cent to $5,750 in the past 5 years. In Sydney the price has gone up by 133 per cent from $5,500 to $12,000 a block in the 5 years. A survey carried out by the Knox City Council in suburban Melbourne has shown an average land price increase of 62.63 per cent in the 12 months to February this year. The price increases average $48 a week for land 15 to 20 miles from the GPO with made roads and all other services but unsewered. Sewered blocks in the area sell from $9,000 to $11,000. The speculation appears to be caused to a large extent by a disequilibrium between demand for and supply of serviced residential land, particularly in major urban areas. With an interest rate of 4 per cent for housing authority purposes and 4i per cent for home building accounts, which are fixed rates for the duration of the agreement, and repayment by the States over 53 years, the proposition is very attractive and will go a long way towards keeping costs down and creating a more settled community. Building costs have been caught up in the inflationary spiral and one recent estimate put the cost increases at about $30 a week on low budget mass produced homes. As the Minister for Housing has stated, 'unlike the housing assistance offered to the States by the former Government, we propose and the agreement provides that our assistance will henceforth be directed towards those families and persons most in need of it'. No less than 85 per cent of the family homes to be built by the State Housing Authorities with our advances will be allocated to families where the average gross weekly income of the main breadwinners will not exceed 85 per cent of average weekly earnings per employed male unit as defined in the agreement and, where the family includes 2 or more children, this will be increased by $2 a week for each child beyond the second. Those eligible are mainly the lower income families who are paying too high a proportion of their incomes in private rents or are living in unsatisfactory accommodation. The short-run factors causing this housing costs increase are the short supply of both skilled tradesmen, especially - and I emphasise this - bricklayers and carpenters, and of materials, particularly timber and imported timbers such as Oregon and Canadian Pine. It has been estimated that 10,000 more workers will be needed in the housing industry by 1973 to meet the growing demand for bouses. Unless skilled tradesmen can be diverted from other types of construction, this shortage, aggravated by large injections of public money, will drive housing costs even higher. Another short term factor affecting housing costs is the prosperity currently being enjoyed by the community. Finance is readily available, although not so easily obtainable as it was 6 months ago. Over the last 2 years housing construction has been fairly static, so there is now a certain element of pent up demand. In addition there is one pressing long term factor which will affect demand over the next decade, that is, the bulge of the 20 to 29 years of age section of the population. As the babies of the postwar boom reach this age, marry and begin to rear children - I stress this point - they will want to see their dream of a home of their own translated into a bricks and mortar reality. Providing the level of prosperity does not decline, demand, especially by this group, is not expected to slacken until the 1980s. The effects of cost increases are two-fold. Firstly, absolute increases in prices of the order mentioned earlier can add as much as $4,000 to the cost of a home over a 12 months period. This increase will be reflected also in prices for existing dwellings, especially as they are often situated more favourably to places of work and social amenities. Since few private lending bodies will provide finance at less then 10 per cent, anyone saving for a home will have to save an extra $400 a year - about $8 a week - in order to be eligible for finance. In addition, money must be available to pay both legal fees and stamp duties, which are generally a percentage of the cost of the house and thus increase as the price goes up. At the same time, people who are waiting to buy houses generally occupy rented dwellings. The cost of these dwellings also is rising because of the general pressure on dwelling space. In Canberra, for instance, rents for private 2- bedroom flats range from $32 to $45 a week, and 3-bedroom unfurnished houses are rarely available below $35 a week. There is a waiting list in Canberra of 38 months for 3- bedroom homes provided by the Government. The net result is that price increases in land and building costs push the low income earner further and further behind in the struggle to accumulate enough capital to buy his own home, while the other dwellings that are available to him are generally increasing in price, leaving him with less of his weekly earnings to put towards his future home. The Minister for Housing has estimated that each of the 93,000 applications on the waiting lists of the nation's housing authorities represent a family of 4 or more. The Minister for Housing further stated: >Taking into account . . . that other people don't join the waiting lists because it is hopeless to do so, one can conservatively calculate that today perhaps 400,000 people are seeking a decent adequate home - so far without hope. For an appalling number of people, both individuals and families, home ownership is just not available. This legislation seeks to rectify that very position. It is those people that the present legislation seeks to help. In his second reading speech the Minister for Housing said: >Whilst the Government is firmly convinced that those most in need of housing assistance are families and persons who are seeking rental accommodation, we are certainly not opposed to home ownership. Under the proposed Agreement up to 30 per cent of the family dwellings built by the housing authorities with our advances may be sold at a fair price to families who satisfy the needs test. For the most part they would be families which would be unable to borrow privately the finance they need to own their own homes. The interest charge to purchasers, including the costs of administration, shall not be more than *5i* per cent per annum The agreement with the States provides for 2 options to be open to applicants for a home - they can either buy or rent. It is very pleasing to see that the Minister has recognised that the co-operation of the States with local government is vital and that the States will have the power to advance to local government by way of bridging finance moneys that will be used by local government to provide essential amenities, such as park and recreation areas, community centres, swimming pools and so on. I wish to quote for the information of the House and for the information of councils of outer metropolitan areas what the Minister has provided for in the agreement. This is something for which local government in the outer areas has been waiting for years. He said: >The Government is also concerned at the frequent absence of essential community amenities m many new estates developed largely by State housing authorities. In developing areas where the local authority is not yet receiving its full potential revenue from general rates, the Government is willing to approve the temporary, use of portion of our housing advances in order to accelerate the provision of essential community facilities where a satisfactory arrangement is entered into between the local government and housing authorities. For how long has local government waited for the opportunity to do something about amenities? It has never had such an opportunity before. This legislation will give local government the opportunity to provide, in addition to housing, the essential requirements so far as amenities are concerned. Local government now has 2 avenues of finance open to it for amenities, over and above its normal loan allocations, namely, bridging finance as provided for in this legislation and, as a result of the introduction of the Grants Commission Bill, the opportunity on special occasions to make application for grants. A weakness in the past has been the inability of local government, especially in the outer metropolitan areas of the cities where mushroom growth has taken place because of the erection of war service homes and housing commission homes and the construction of homes by private builders, to provide the amenities that are so essential to the making of home life more comfortable, particularly where children are concerned. This legislation provides for that. Briefly, bridging finance will help councils to meet the expenses involved in providing amenities, without disturbing their normal loans. Also councils will have the opportunity under extraordinary circumstances to seek assistance from the Grants Commission. This legislation is long overdue. The sooner it comes into operation the sooner we will have a more contented community. {: #subdebate-38-0-s4 .speaker-JRD} ##### Mr BOURCHIER:
Bendigo -- Before getting on to the substance of the points I wish to contribute to the debate on this legislation, I wish to make one or two comments on the remarks of the honourable member for Mitchell **(Mr Ashley-Brown).** Firstly, I share with him his concern for the welfare of the needy. I think we all do. The honourable member mentioned that 85 per cent of the homes built by State housing authorities with Commonwealth Government advances will be allocated to families whose income does not exceed a particular figure. He also claimed - unjustifiably - that this is the Government's innovation. I shall come back to that shortly. The honourable member seemed to be somewhat confused. He talked about home ownership not being available to certain sections of the community and mentioned that this legislation was designed to help overcome that situation. It is obvious that he has not read the terms of the legislation and that he did not listen to the remarks of the Minister for Housing **(Mr Les Johnson)** on this subject. However he did mention the shortage of materials and of building labour. In this regard I repeat a statement which I made during the debate on an earlier Bill dealing with housing requirements. The situation is worsening. The materials shortage is so bad at present that it is not a question of getting a building contractor to build a home but of getting materials to enable its construction to proceed. Up until December last year materials were readily available in the building industry. Materials necessary for the erection of the frame of a home could readily be found. Possibly within 2 weeks of signing a contract the house construction could be under way. Today one may wait almost 2 months for the materials. This is one reason for the delay experienced by people in procuring homes. I only mention this in passing because it is obvious that the Minister must consider that it is not simply a matter of providing moneys to the States or to housing concerns; there is a tremendous shortage of tradesmen to erect homes and a tremendous shortage of materials. So great is the accelerated demand for housing that at present in the building construction field building contractors who normally tender for Housing Commission contracts are reluctant to be bothered tendering for these low priced home units. I do not say that in any derogatory sense of the contractors because such homes are built to a specified price and there is a great demand for high priced homes on which these people can make more money. The honourable member for Mitchell referred to the high cost of houses and flats in Sydney and Melbourne. A similar situation applies in Canberra where the release of land is controlled. Building contractors would rather tender for high priced building work. If they seek to engage in what is called 'spec' home building for sale, they have all the market they need. This is a factor which contributes to the delay in getting Housing Commission homes built. This applies particularly in my home State of Victoria. The Bill provides that 85 per cent of homes built by State authorities must be provided for low income families. What a magnificent provision this is for the Minister for Housing to include in the Bill. Last weekend we heard statements accusing the Victorian Government of stealing policies belonging to another party. Victoria, and I think all the other States, have provided homes for the needy for years - ever since the inception of Housing Commission type buildings. The Minister is only stealing their policies. The States have always provided this service, particularly in Victoria, so it is not this Government's innovation. In his second reading speech the Minister said: >I wish to make it perfectly clear, **Mr Speaker,** that despite this emphasis there is no thought that a person who has been allocated accommodation by a State housing authority will be asked to vacate his dwelling if his income subsequently rises above the needs test level. There is absolutely no truth in statements that have been made to this effect. I draw attention to that last sentence: >There is absolutely no truth in statements that have been made to this effect. In an article which appeared in the 'Bulletin* of 10 February 1973 appears the following: > **Mr Johnson** also told the 'Bulletin' last week that the Commonwealth would insist that people should be moved out (he objected to the word 'evicted')- 1 think it is the same thing - of Housing Commission homes when their incomes moved above the means test being used as the measure of 'need'. I wonder which statement of the Minister is the truth. However the States considered the Minister's attitude to evicting people from their homes as against the rights of the people of Australia. People have the right to choose where to live and certainly such decision should not be governed by the income they receive. Every Housing Commission in Australia, whether it be under the control of a Labor or Liberal government, offers its tenants the right to purchase as well as to rent homes. Home ownership is a deeply imbedded Australian aspiration. For years Australians have demanded the right to own their own homes. The honourable member for Herbert **(Mr Bonnett)** quoted the number of homes that were sold in Victoria when the tenants were given the opportunity by a Liberal government to buy them. The number purchased was a staggering figure, but many Housing Commission homes still are available for rental purposes. The Minister said that he, is not against home ownership. He said - 'this, of course, is a change from his previous statement - 'that he is prepared to allow up to 30 per cent of homes built by the Housing Commissions to be sold. In the article in the 'Bulletin' to which I referred earlier the Minister is reported to have said that the sale of new houses built by the. State housing authorities should be severely restricted, if not entirely prohibited. I think that is an indication of the Minister's thinking. Prior to the election in Victoria the Victorian Government announced, as part of its policy, that the $200 deposit previously needed for a person to buy his Housing Commission home would be no longer required and that people would be able to buy homes on a no-deposit basis. At present in Victoria for Housing Commission homes in the metropolitan area the rental charged is $12.30 a week and in country areas $1 1.80 a week. This would be well below the amount that the Minister has provided in the Bill as the maximum guideline. Throughout Australia rentals are certainly higher. The Minister mentioned that and I am glad that he did for I will refer to that aspect presently. The Victorian rental is well below the guidelines the Minister set out. The Minister said that a means test will be introduced in respect of rental housing. The Minister subsequently found to his dismay that again he was stealing the Victorian Government's thunder because it has applied a means test for years. Since the Liberal Government took office in Victoria in 1955, 33,780 housing units have been sold to persons allocated homes on the basis of the means test. These homes were sold not by direction of the Victorian Housing Commission but because the occupants wanted to buy them. As I mentioned earlier, a $200 deposit was required and the purchasers paid slightly more than the average rental to buy their homes. Payments to own homes are slightly higher, but not much higher, than the rental. If the rental is $12.30 a purchaser would possibly pay an extra $3 a week. This still is as low a payment as is available anywhere in Australia to purchase a home. Home buying is a saving whereas renting a home is a dead loss. Home buying provides a form of security that Australians desire. I believe that the States have a death benefit insurance scheme for persons purchasing their homes so that in the event of the decease of a breadwinner the purchase price outstanding is discharged and the family has no fear of losing the home. I said that more than 33,000 homes had been sold in Victoria. I believe that only a small percentage of those home purchasers had to revert to a rental basis of tenancy. At present Victoria has what is termed an average rental system. Earlier the Minister said that in some parts of Australia rentals are higher. I know this. Victorian rentals are kept at a minimum because of the way its government has planned for the needy people of that State. In Victoria rents for Housing Commission homes are graduated so that even though new homes cost more they are able to be provided for at a rental lower than the cost would justify. I understand that some of the other States charge rentals of up to $20 and $22 a week. The Minister has sug gested in his guidelines, to which I believe the States have agreed, that the rental should not exceed 22i per cent of the upper limit of the needs test. That would be approximately $20 a week. I understand that in New South Wales the economic rent system, as it is termed, is used and rentals average from $18 to $20 a week. If Victoria is forced, by this Government's dictatorial attitude, to adopt this economic rent system, rents in Victoria will rise from $11 or $12 a week to $20 a week. I am sure that the people of Victoria have indicated already their reaction to that type of attitude. Let me turn to a Labor election promise in relation to housing. We have heard very little about it since the election. The ALP promised tax deductibility for interest on housing loans. People earning $4,000 and less were to receive a 100 per cent deduction. Mir **DEPUTY SPEAKER (Dr Jenkins)Order!** I think that the honourable member is straying somewhat from the subject matter of the cognate debate. {: .speaker-JRD} ##### Mr BOURCHIER: -- I take your point, **Mr Deputy Speaker.** I accept your ruling. I think that the point was well made. The people are well aware that that Labor promise will not be honoured anyway. It is similar to Labor's promise about land prices. I am not straying from the subject here because the Minister himself mentioned that the Government was making great strides towards buying land, developing it and providing it at cost. So far we have seen very little of it. I believe that that promise will be like the one on interest payments; we will hear it and then we will not see very much done about it. An election promise made by the Prime Minister **(Mr Whitlam)** in his policy speech was: >A Labor Government will request each State authority to estimate the funds needed to reduce the waiting period for houses to 12 months. The Government is not requesting the States to do anything; it is telling the States what to do. The Government has not reached any agreement with the States. It has had discussions with the States but it will not accept the States' request for a 50 per cent salability of homes. Why should the Government not allow the States to sell 50 per cent of the homes built with their allocations of money? It is the needy people who qualify for the homes. If they are given the opportunity to buy the homes and to be proud of their standard of living, why should this Government lower that standard of living? The Government is using blackmail tactics to force the States to agree. This Bill provides for the interest rate on loans to be 4 per cent. Unfortunately, the subtle suggestion has been made that, if the States do not wish to agree, they may have to find the money by other means. That would mean that they would have to pay at least *6i* per cent interest. As I said, there has been no agreement on the Bill as it is presented. The States have had no discussions on the Bill. As the honourable member for Herbert stated, the Bill was introduced into this House and it was only 2 days prior to that that some of the States received copies of the Bill. This is supposed to be a 7-way agreement. It is called 'The Housing Agreement'. It is not an agreement. It is a dictatorial, take-it-or-leave-it attitude. The Government is using blackmail tactics and threats, which is typical of the attitude of this Government towards the States. Last Saturday the Victorian electors censured this Government for its policy on housing. {: #subdebate-38-0-s5 .speaker-L6X} ##### Mr GARRICK:
Batman -- Naturally, I support these Bills. I wish to refer to some of the strange utterances that have been made by honourable members opposite. The honourable member for Herbert **(Mr Bonnett)** was disturbed that the Government would make sure that a certain number of houses would not be sold but would be let. He reminds me of the person who was caught out in graft. That person would not take a small amount of graft; he wanted a large amount. The honourable member for Herbert does not disagree with the principle, but he is arguing about the amount. He thinks it is wrong that 30 per cent of houses should be sold, but he wants 50 per cent. This is quite strange. He does not disagree with the principle; he is arguing about the amount. The honourable member for Bendigo **(Mr Bourchier)** mentioned something about innovation. Of course, the honourable gentlemen on the other side of the House have never been known for innovation. His great concern was income. He seemed greatly disturbed. He said that a person's income should never determine where he lives or the type of housing in which he lives. What utter bourgeois baloney! What else decides where a man lives and the type of home in which he lives? Do we ever see the millionaires and the land owners of Bendigo lining up for housing commission homes? Of course we do not. That is the sort of diatribe in which honourable members opposite engage to disturb the working class people of our nation. These Bills amend and replace the States Grants Housing Act 1971 which in turn replaced the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement. The Agreement was first introduced by a Commonwealth Labor government under the Prime Ministership of **Mr Chifley.** At that time an agreement was entered into between the Commonwealth and the States under which the States would construct dwellings for workers on low incomes. The original policy was that the Commonwealth would charge the States interest at 3 per cent. That interest rate was retained from 1945 until 1956 when a new agreement was entered into. The conservative government charged the States an interest rate which was 1 per cent below the ruling bond rate. In 1970 that interest rate was 7 per cent. But in 1971 the Liberal Government replaced the Agreement with a Bill which abolished the 1 per cent rebate and charged the States the ruling bond rate. Under the new Agreement which this Government is now presenting, the interest rate on advances for housing authority purposes will be fixed at 4 per cent per annum and for home builders accounts at 41 per cent per annum for the duration of the Agreement. The 3 Bills are inter-related. They mark the emergence of our Government's long stated aim of directing the greatest assistance to those most in need of decent housing at rents which they can afford and of reducing the waiting lists for State housing authority dwellings. The number now awaiting this type of accommodation exceeds 93,000 and is growing daily. The States Grants (Housing) Bill amends the States Grants (Housing) Act 1971 by withdrawing Commonwealth assistance to the States in the form of grants of $2.75m a year payable for 30 years in respect of advances they may make to their housing authorities and their home builders accounts after 30 June 1973. It is the intention of our Government that from 1 July 1973 the bulk of the Government's housing assistance to the States will be in the form of advances at a highly concessional rate of interest, as mentioned in the Housing Agreement, and not tied to movements in the bond rate. It is to be emphasised, however, that this Bill does not repeal the grant of Si. 25m a year payable over the next 3 years to the States as a contribution towards the cost to them of the losses they incur in letting a number of dwellings at less than their economic rents. The States Grants (Housing Assistance) Bill seeks authority from the Treasurer to pay to the States advances totalling S84.6m in the first 6 months of 1973-74 under the terms and conditions of the Housing Agreement in order to provide for the States' needs for housing funds in the early months of 1973- 74. The Housing Agreement Bill is designed to obtain parliamentary approval for the Commonwealth to enter into agreement with each State so that the Commonwealth, for the next 5 years from 1 July 1973, will be able to make advances at low rates of interest for welfare housing purposes. The agreement states that one of the purposes for which advances to the State housing authorities may be used is for the purchase and renovation of existing dwellings. This I believe, is to be commended, for in the Victorian State Housing Act provision is already made to allow the Housing Commission to advance funds for the renovation of existing houses. Yet this has never been done. The Commonwealth has the power to lay down conditions under which it makes funds available to the various State housing authorities. In the past to some extent the Commonwealth has played a positive role in ensuring that the Victorian Housing Commission makes available public housing for those on low incomes. However, the Victorian Housing Commission has been doing this in the inner areas of Melbourne in a totally unacceptable manner. It has in many instances, and with a terrible heartlessness, deprived low income groups of houses which they did not want to part with. So much so that in August 1971 no fewer than 250 residents of North Fitzroy, which is in my electorate, marched in protest into the Brookes Crescent area where the Housing Commission was attempting to have a demolition order placed on the whole area, so that the houses could be torn down to make way for another high rise anthill, in answer to the demand for more houses. One of the residents pointed out to the protesters that it was ironical and incongruous that potentially good houses should be pulled down against the wishes of the owners to make way for flats. I should like to see the Commonwealth not only permit but insist on some money being made available for the renovation of houses in a state of disrepair. The Victorian Housing Commission to date has failed to respond to the needs of people for funds to restore existing houses. Many people presently residing in the inner suburbs have made clear their satisfaction with their houses in every particular but one, namely, the need for renovation. If we travel through these areas we see evidence of successful renovation, but we also see the results of brave attempts which have ended in failure. While in many instances failure may result from the lack of informed knowledge, they frequently result from too little money being available to do the renovation properly. On the basis of any cost-benefit equation there are excellent grounds for the Government to insist that a large sum at low interest be made available to house owners or purchasers for renovation. Furthermore, failure to take steps to ensure that funds are made available for renovation encourages the Victorian Housing Commission to press on with its wanton destruction of what is potentially good living accommodation for accommodation which is less conducive to the good life. Let us consider the variety and diversity that renovations would preserve, not only for keeping things because they are old, but also for keeping them for the good effect that variety and diversity have on the imagination not of adults alone but also of the children who are growing up in the community. In the inner suburban areas which are part of my electorate there are interesting land masses which nature has left unadorned but also which man in his building has made, if not beautiful to the trained eye, at least exciting and entertaining to those who enjoy the novelty of variety. In these places we see a mixture of old and new houses, some with a Spanish or Italian influence. There are churches and factories of various sorts and shops whose purposes and styles are as varied and seemingly as unconnected as the houses, giving the community a vitality that I regret is being undermined by uncertainty about the future. Many of the residents of this area do not care about this community. They see it as a mess of old run-down houses and they will sell out for flat development, which also will add to the variety of the community. But many - in fact, most - are prepared to hold fast to that which they have, even at some cost for renovation. I sincerely believe that the Government should ensure that they are assisted to do just that. In these Bills the Government is making the first progressive move. The Minister for Housing **(Mr Les Johnson)** has begun to usher in a new progressive deal in housing by recognising what has regrettably been ignored by previous Ministers, the fundamental fact which was expressed at the Building and Construction Forum in Melbourne on 29 September 1970. It was stated: >We cannot hope to eliminate poverty, or to derive full benefit from improved health and education services, without making proper provision for housing. It is hypocritical for us to celebrate national affluence and prosperity while so many Australians are so wretchedly ill housed or are so impoverished by the cost of housing. Proper housing for all is the foundation and the prerequisite of genuine national prosperity. These Bills express quite clearly the Government's deep concern towards the housing needs of those who do so much of the toil to create so much of the wealth of this nation and to whom the past Liberal Party-Country Party Governments have had such a cavalier attitude. I commend the Bills and I congratulate the Minister. {: #subdebate-38-0-s6 .speaker-KHS} ##### Mr HOLTEN:
Indi -- I think that every honourable member with any sense of feeling for members of the Australian community would share the thoughts expressed by the honourable member for Batman **(Mr Garrick)** and other honourable members. Every member of all the Parties that are represented in this House of course wants to see ever person, no matter what is his financial position, adequately and suitably housed. But to be quite realistic, there will always be needy people in the community, as the honourable member for Batman implied. Another realistic fact is that there are not unlimited finances, materials and human resources to devote purely to housing. Therefore, there will always be this problem unless some unforeseeable miracle occurs. People in what we might call the very low income bracket will always have a problem in purchasing a home or even in finding a suitable home to rent. However, the point I want to make is that the Labor Government has no monopoly of concern for and interest in the average person, or perhaps even the below average person, in the Australian community. It is proposed that an amendment to one clause of this Bill will be moved by my colleague the honourable member for Herbert **(Mr Bonnett).** The Australian Country Party will support the amendment that he proposes to move. In essence it is to amend the 30 per cent figure in clause 19 of the Schedule and make it 50 per cent. The Bills we are debating now are complementary to one another and have varying degrees of significance. The main Bill is the Housing Agreement Bill 1973. It contains 4 clauses and a schedule with 29 clauses. The Bill is a continuation of many such Bills which have been introduced in this House since 1945 when the Commonwealth Government first gave assistance to the State governments under an agreement regarding the provisions and use of finance for government housing purposes. These agreements have traditionally been negotiated and agreed to, at least in recent years, each 5 years. As I have said, the Commonwealth Government has been providing money since 1945. The second Bill authorises the Treasurer to make advances totalling $84.6m to the various States for the first 6 months of the next financial year, from 1 July 1973 to 31 December 1973. New South Wales will get $28.6m, Victoria $18.75m, Queensland $7.75m, South Australia $14.75m, Western Australia $ 10.5m and Tasmania $4.25m. Those figures should add up to a total of $84.6m for the first 6 months of the next financial year. The third Bill amends the States Grants (Housing) Act 1971 so as to withdraw Commonwealth assistance to the States in the form of grants of $2. 75m a year over 30 years in respect of any advance they may make to their housing authorities and their home builders' accounts during the next 3 financial years. However, the basic housing grant of $2.75m a year in respect of State housing activities in each of the last 2 financial years will continue to be paid for the remainder of the 30-year period. The major Bill, as I said, is the Housing Agreement Bill. It has 4 clauses and a Schedule with 29 clauses. One of the basic things in this Bill is that it asks for the approval of this Parliament for the Minister for Housing **(Mr Les Johnson)** to negotiate an agreement with the States in accordance with the terms of the Bill and its Schedule. The Schedule contains important terms and conditions which, if this Parliament - that is the House of Representatives and the Senate - agree to this Bill, the Commonwealth Minister will be authorised to offer to the States. There is disagreement among the Opposition Parties in this House - that is the Liberal Party and the Country Party - and also disagreement in every State Government about one particular figure in clause 19 of the Schedule. I shall deal with that more fully later. As is well known, a great deal of controversy, discussion and publicity has attached to meetings between the Federal and State Ministers over this matter, both at official meetings and through interviews with media representatives. To say that there has been considerable dissatisfaction on the part of State Ministers with many fundamental policies and proposals of the Labor Government and the new Minister for Housing would be rather understating the problem. The main reason for this fierce debate and opposition is that certain of the proposals in the Bill represent a complete departure from the traditional and basic conditions of previous Commonwealth-State Housing Agreements. The Bill, to a certain extent, is not a definite clear cut proposal because it has not been agreed to by the States. Therefore it is difficult for this House to appraise and consider in a realistic way the provisions contained in the Schedule. Nevertheless we are forced into that position. Really the Bill only seeks the approval of the Parliament for the Minister to negotiate with the States. For the first time for some years there has been no final meeting of Federal and State Ministers at which a basic agreement has been reached on a major and fundamental point. This is a very unusual situation. Not only has no agreement been reached; according to my information, the situation is quite to the contrary. It could be inferred from the Schedule that the States had agreed to all the conditions contained in it, but my understanding is that this is definitely far from being the true position. It is not possible to cover all the details of all the circumstances and policies relating to housing provisions in every State in Australia in the few minutes at my disposal so I propose to confine my comments basically to the circumstances in my own State of Victoria. Other speakers - the honourable, member for Herbert **(Mr Bonnett)** and the honourable member for Bendigo **(Mr Bourchier)** - have very competently dealt with certain aspects of this position but reiteration may not hurt. The concern of the Victorian Government reflects the general concern of other States. There is a strong and consistent note of genuine con cern - it is a common denominator - about the change of emphasis from State control of State finances and decisions regarding housing finance. The major point of concern is contained in clause 19 (1) of the Schedule which states: >Subject to sub-clause (2) of this clause, the Housing Authority of a State shall not sell more than 30 per centum of the family dwellings . . . That refers to the dwellings built with the money provided. The States are not to sell more than 30 per cent of such houses. Never in the history of Commonwealth-State Housing Agreements has any restriction been placed on the State Housing authorities and this is the burning point at issue: Whether we should agree in this House to a restriction, particularly one of 30 per cent. The Labor Minister for Housing certainly encountered very strong opposition on this aspect all along the line. From the time that he made his statement on 16 January he has been roundly condemned by all State Ministers - Country Party, Liberal Party and Labor Party - in the various State governments, and rightly so. His original proposal went against all the traditions and birthrights which the average Australian has valued so highly for many years. His original proposal was that this huge amount of Commonwealth money for the States - I calculated that it worked out over 5 years to be roughly about $84m, and probably more - could be used in future for rental houses only. Under that scheme many people no longer would have their traditional right of purchase. Many people in the income group just below the average weekly earning have depended for years on this type of housing to achieve their lifelong inbuilt ambition to own their own home and land. This traditional right is a basic ingredient of the expectation of thousands of Australians who for varying reasons find this type of home is the type that they are most capable of achieving. Evidence of their appreciation of and pride in the ownership of a Housing Commission house can be seen across the length and breadth of Australia, both in the capita! cities and in the rural areas. Under previous governments formed by the Liberal and Country Parties people felt secure in the knowledge that they would be able to use part of their weekly income for payments towards owning their own home rather than pay rent every week and at the end of each year have no asset to show for their money. They could do this, particularly in Victoria, almost by choice. The objective of the Commonwealth Minister for Housing in January was to take this away from them. This sense of security received a severe jolt with the election of a Labor Government and the appointment of the present Minister for Housing. The first rude awakening came with the bombshell announcement by the Minister on 16 January per medium of a 5i-page Press statement. The bombshell was more or less tucked away on page 4 of that statement, which said: >I also propose that the sale of new homes built by the State Housing Authority after June 30 next be severely restricted, if not entirely prohibited, with sales to continue from their existing stock. This was the statement that really set the State Ministers of Housing alight and concerned a great number of people throughout Australia. The general theme of the statement was designed to give the impression that the new Labor Government was introducing a big new deal for people on low incomes, that at last here was a government which really cared about needy people. The Minister was obviously unaware of the situation in some States, particularly in Victoria. I will not repeat in detail the statistics that have already been mentioned by the honourable members for Bendigo and Herbert but one figure, I think, is very illustrative of the situation. Until 1955 only 52 out of 15,000 housing commission homes in Victoria were able to be purchased. Since then 34,000 out of 57,000 building units have been purchased at a very reasonable interest rate. The information I have is that there is no need at all to restrict sales in Victoria. However the Minister, by use of what I might term the technique of financial blackmail, has said to the State governments: 'Here is the money. You can take it under the condition that 30 per cent' - it was to be none - 'of the houses built can be sold. You can take the money at 4 per cent. If you do not do that you will take the money all right but you will pay the long term bond rate, which is *6i* per cent'. The calculation is that over 53 years the difference in cost to Victoria would be $175m or $3m a year. So this Bill seems to represent quite a sinister departure from Labor's professed policy of encouraging people on all sides and of all income levels to own their own homes. There have been no final discussions with the States. Many State Housing Ministers are very upset, as the Minister will no doubt ascertain with great definiteness when this Bill goes through the 2 Houses. All States are unanimous, I understand, that they want the figure in clause 19 increased from 30 per cent to 50 per cent. I understand that that was the effect of a motion that was moved, seconded and agreed to by all States in Adelaide recently. Just briefly I wish to relate this Bill to the situation in rural areas. Presuming that a satisfactory agreement can be reached between the State and Federal Ministers, I, particularly on behalf of the Australian Country Party, make special mention of the importance of the States spending in country areas a fair and substantial share of the $84.6m over the next 6 months and a similar substantial proportion of the millions of dollars that will be available over the next 5 years. If this happens the expenditure in rural areas will be an excellent investment for the Government and for the people of Australia. Extra houses in rural areas would make a tremendous contribution to the successful decentralisation of our population. Ever increasing amounts of money will need to be provided to get more houses in both metropolitan and rural areas. Costs are rising dramatically for several reasons. Lack of skilled tradesmen caused substantially by our reduced migration program, shortage of timber and other materials, rising wages not matched by increased productivity and longer holidays, are all causes of the rocketing costs of building a home. On top of all these causes, of course, the Commonwealth Government supports the stupid proposal to introduce a 35-hour week. This can only add further to the cost and the housing industry will be one of the areas worst affected by the 35-hour week. However the Labor Government apparently could not care less about public opinion or responsible economic management. The Minister for Housing, presumably with the complete support of the Labor Government, has brought this Bill to the House. Whilst there is general agreement with the objective of the Bill to provide Commonwealth-State housing money over 5 years, the amendment that is proposed to be moved by the honourable member for Herbert, which will be supported by myself and the Country Party, is the crux of the matter. It is to the effect that the homes available for sale should be increased to 50 per cent. < Debate interrupted. {: .page-start } page 2665 {:#debate-39} ### ADJOURNMENT Education: Children in Isolated Areas - Australian Surf Life Saving Movement - Foreign Affairs - Political Parties {: #debate-39-s0 .speaker-10000} ##### Mr SPEAKER: -Order! It being 10.15 p.m., and in accordance with the Order of the House of 1 March, I propose the question: >That (he House do now adjourn. {: #debate-39-s1 .speaker-KCT} ##### Mr DRUMMOND:
Forrest -- Tonight I wish the attention of this national Parliament to be drawn to the plight of the isolated children in some of the remoter areas of Australia. I believe that this Government has acted in good faith in introducing the present scheme of assistance to these children. Its contribution would have been a generous one to a section of our community who are disadvantaged by where they live if it had been accepted by the States in the manner in which it was offered. In response to my question this morning the Minister for Education **(Mr Beazley)** said: >When we launched this scheme an appeal was made to the State governments to continue their form of assistance monetarily, their travel warrants, rail warrants and so on that assist isolated children. He also said, as reported in the 'Australian' of 19 January 1973, that he hoped the States would not halt grants to outback students because of the Federal Government's intention to give them additional financial aid. I believe that the Minister's intentions were made abundantly clear. This was to be an addition, a topping up of the assistance to isolated children given by the States. But some States - and I make particular reference to Western Australia - could not drop their responsibilities quickly enough, and near chaos has been the result. The Western Australian State Government immediately this year dropped its grants to isolated children. The Federal scheme in Western Australia is not understood. Application forms for assistance have not been applied for, have not been sent out or have not been sent back. The Minister said this morning that only a third of these forms had been returned. I say again that obviously the scheme is not being understood. I am sure that any one of us here who received an application form telling us that we would receive $350 per child would ensure that the application form was sent off in the next mail, affluent as we may be in comparison with the people concerned in this issue. Might I just also comment on the Minister's answer to my question this morning regarding the Hon. W. R. Withers and his part in supposedly discouraging people from applying by the campaign that he is waging. Firstly the Minister implied that nearly all the representations he has had on this subject came from the Hon. H. R. Withers. {: .speaker-JF7} ##### Mr Beazley: -- His is the only telegram or message I have received on this subject. {: .speaker-KCT} ##### Mr DRUMMOND: -- The Minister implied that other groups were not concerned. {: .speaker-JF7} ##### Mr Beazley: -- I do not imply that. You asked me about representations. {: .speaker-KCT} ##### Mr DRUMMOND: -- I feel that this is far from the case. If that is not implied, I can assure the Minister that members of the Isolated Children's Section and the Hostels Association and such people are most concerned. The Honourable W. R. Withers represents in the Western Australian Parliament the people in the North Province electorate. He is a hard working, dedicated man and he has the confidence of the people in the north. I feel that the people go to him and make representations when they have problems. This is how I thought government should work especially as this has been a State matter. I think people should go to their State members so that the information can be correlated, sifted and presented to the Federal Minister who is concerned without everyone running to him and perhaps loading him down with additional work. I have said that the Honourable W. R. Withers has had the strongest representations made to him from people concerned about isolated children, including Captain David Perry who is the chairman of the Port Hedland Hostels Association. He has passed on to the Minister not only his own thoughts but also the thoughts of a very concerned and very unhappy community today. The honourable W. R. Withers has also urged the Western Australian Government to find out - and the Federal Minister referred to this today - why people had not received or sent back the forms. He has also asked whether it would be possible to advertise through the Press and on radio to inform the people on this matter and to urge them to claim boarding allowances or to contact the Department if they had not received application forms in order to find out what they should do. I believe that the Minister did unfairly denigrate the Honourable W. R. Withers this morning because his actions have been only in the interests of thu people he represents. What has led to this concern and worry on the part of these unhappy people in the north of Western Australia? As I said earlier, on the face of it the scheme is a good one. There is an across the board grant of $350 to all isolated children. There is an additional amount of $350 which may be applied under a means test. There is a further amount of $304 for cases of special hardship. The additional amount of $350 which is subject to a means test is granted where the gross combined income is below $4,200. This limit in these isolated areas is truly unrealistic. At Kununurra in the north of Western Australia the average earnings of a labourer working for the Public Works Department - including overtime - are $5,720 per annum. A carpenter who works approximately the same amount of overtime would receive $6,500. A fourthyear clerk would receive $6,760. Honourable members can see how unrealistic a means test of $4,200 is when a labourer receives $5,720 annually. The cost of living is so high in these areas that the means test is at least $2,000 below the required level. At the wage level for the people I have mentioned they could not afford to send their children away from home to high schools under the present system of allowances unless the wives worked to bring in extra money. One must remember that areas such as Kununurra and Wyndham have no school hostel and the children have to travel to the nearest high school hostel which is at Port Hedland, approximately 1,000 miles away. The cancellation of State assistance which was $312 for fourth and fifth-year students plus the Commonwealth across the board grant of $350 may have been adequate. The State of Western Australia has left this Federal Government high and dry. Let us look at rising costs. The fees even at the Port Hedland hostel have risen above $350. The people and the children are today left in a worse position than they were in 12 months ago even with the best endeavours of the federal scheme. There is another unusual twist to the fate of many people as a result of the introduction of this scheme. Some people are now receiving less money than they did before. I mention the case of a fourth or fifth-year girl who won a nursing bursary. Under the old system she received $250 bursary and $312 State living away from home allowance, giving a total of $562 for the year. Under the present system she does not qualify for the federal allowance because she is under bond. She does not even qualify for the first $350. After the State allowances were cancelled she was left with a bursary of $250. {: .speaker-JF7} ##### Mr Beazley: -- This was for nursing training? {: .speaker-KCT} ##### Mr DRUMMOND: -- Yes. I am sorry that I did not mention that. That is all that she receives. That lass now gets $312 less than she received before. One would have assumed that she would be better off because of the federal allowance of $350 compared to the former State allowance of $312, but in fact she has lost $312. I appreciate that the Minister said this morning that the means test and zone allowances were under review but time goes by. It is almost the middle of the year. Tonight I spoke with **Mrs Margaret** Lacy who is an acquaintance, I believe, of the Minister for Education. She is very involved with isolated children. She has 4 children of her own and she lives out at Meekatharra. As soon as the forms were available she filled them in and returned them but she has not received any money yet, nor to her knowledge has anyone else in her area. The money is not flowing on to the hostels. I repeat, as I said earlier, that chaos is reigning supreme. I wonder how **Mrs Lacy** feels today. Some months ago she came to see the Minister for Education who was then the shadow Minister for Education and after an hour and a half spent in an interview she said, as is reported in the 'West Australian' of 26 April 1972: >The ALP sees education as a total concept with equal opportunity for all children. **Mr Kim** Beazley, M.H.R., said that disadvantaged children would automatically be taken care of, and therefore, there would be no need for this piecemeal approach, where associations such as ours had to plead the cause of the underprivileged. {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr SPEAKER: -Order! The honourable member's time has expired. {: #debate-39-s2 .speaker-JF7} ##### Mr BEAZLEY:
Minister for Education · Fremantle · ALP -- First of all I have to apologise to the House and to the honourable member for Forrest **(Mr Drummond)** for misinforming him in my answer to a question this morning when I said that 700 isolated children had received the grant. As of today 1,424 applications in Western Australia had been processed for the payment of a grant and of these 384 had also received a payment of the additional grant. There are 2,100-odd applications which have been received. There have been 1,424 granted but of the 5,700 applications which were sent out about 2,100 are all that have so far been returned. That is the first thing I wanted to say. The second thing that I should like to say is that when this scheme was started Victoria's isolated children's scheme was insignificant. The maximum grant was §40. New South Wales also paid small allowances to students obliged to live away from home. Queensland had an extensive system which is continuing. Tasmania and South Australia had small schemes. All of the States except Queensland have dropped the schemes. I am not quite sure whether the New South Wales limited scholarship scheme still exists because it was not of great significance but all the States have dropped their schemes and this is contrary to our request, as the honourable member has suggested. The figures that were fixed pre-supposed the existence of State schemes although it was terribly hard to devise a federal scheme because the State schemes were so varied in nature. Victoria, as I said, provided an amount of only $40. The scheme is not in chaos. Of 10,600 applications that have been returned from all around Australia payments have been made against more than 5,500 - 4,400 basic and 1,200 additional. The Arbitration Court advocates would be grateful for the honourable member saying that we should allow an additional $2,000 under the means test because the State Civil Service regulations provide a maximum of $984 to income for living in these areas. I happen to know this because I am trying to study whether we can liberalise the means test on a zonal basis. We also have to liberalise the means test according to the changing value of money. But when this scheme was adopted in January we just picked up the means test scheme of the former Government's scholarship program and applied that to isolated children. So, the figure of $4,200 and the other figures at which the honourable gentleman has arrived were the figures we adopted from our predecessors. The second thing I want to say to the honourable gentleman is that we are not trying to run a hard and fast scheme. This is the first incursion of the Commonwealth into this field and the scheme is operating under tremendously uneven conditions around Australia. For example, Tasmania has adopted an education system in which it really has altered the nature of high schools and established certain very definite matriculation high schools. In Tasmania a child who lives near a high school normally speaking is ineligible for an isolated child's grant. But, although he may be next to a quite significant high school, if he wants to be a matriculation student he is in fact an isolated child. So we have had to adjust the scheme in Tasmania for children who want to go to matriculation colleges and we have had to assess them as isolated children on their proximity to or distance from matriculation colleges. In Tasmania 657 children so far have been paid grants. It was a change in the practice which brought that about. I am quite flexible in regard to changing the practice anywhere. When we launched this scheme we said: 'The Commonwealth has not been in this field before. We are taking the means test that was devised by the late Government'. I agree with the honourable gentleman that the means test probably has to be adjusted and I am trying to see what allowances are made under State laws and practices concerning the various zones. In no zone is it said that $2,000 extra has to be paid because of the cost of living. The maximum under Public Service Regulations is $984. If this is unrealistic, then many public servants are being deprived of their just dues, which is not normally argued by honourable members opposite. However, I will not go into that question. I am grateful to the honourable member for Forrest for bringing this matter up. I am sorry if my comments on **Mr Withers** were misinterpreted. He issued all sorts of challenges to me to debate this matter and heaven knows what. I did not know what he was getting at. I should not attack him because I myself have been the victim of misreporting and I am not quite clear on what he is saying and doing. However, very many people seem to me to have put a veto on themselves by saying: 'We will not be eligible for anything because of the means test'. I wish that **Mr Withers** in his statement would emphasise that any isolated child is eligible to receive $350 if he meets the definition of an isolated child. To put the barrier of the means test first causes many parents not to apply. So, if people use the universal eligibility of those who are isolated rather than the means test, I think they will help those who are applying. I want to adjust this scheme. We may have to make adjustments because of what has happened in various States. After all, this scheme was very new. I became Minister for Education on 18 December. I was under pressure to make clear to people that there would be a scheme for these isolated areas. I do not pretend that what we produced in January this year was the optimum. I want to improve it, and in this respect I am grateful to the honourable member for Forrest for bringing up aspects of the disabilities that are developing. I am trying to find intelligent ways of rectifying them. {: #debate-39-s3 .speaker-JTP} ##### Mr BURY:
Wentworth -- I rise to lend support to the remarks made last night by my colleagues the honourable members for Mackellar **(Mr Wentworth)** and Warringah **(Mr MacKellar)** and also by my electorate neighbour, the honourable member for Phillip **(Mr Riordan),** concerning the Surf Life Savings Associations of Australia. As you are well aware, **Sir, your** predecessor in that chair when he was the honourable member for Phillip also played a great part in obtaining some financial support from the Government for these bodies. Their activities are well known. Of course, what they are doing is something which is an essential part of the Australian ethos. It is a characteristic not only of Sydney but also of Australia as a whole. As was pointed out last night the movement is well known throughout the world. There are 2 very important social applications. First of all, there is the effect on the young men who give up so much time and effort throughout the year to remain on duty and to safeguard the lives of .'hose people using our beaches. But the unfortunate thing about this is that the cost of their equipment is continually rising. Nowadays, for the purpose of saving the lives of many citizens who use the beaches life saving clubs have to buy sophisticated equipment, the cost of which goes up year by year. This is quite apart from their facilities, life saving houses and the rooms necessary for them to maintain their continuous watch. The honourable member for Phillip recently arranged for the Minister for Tourism and Recreation **(Mr Stewart)** to tour the beaches in the municipality of Waverley which area my electorate also overlaps. I hope that the Minister will now be particularly familiar with this problem. There is a need for an increase in the public moneys which are made available to support these associations. The Minister for Tourism and Recreation has a great advantage in this matter because he also happens to be the Minister Assisting the Treasurer. Of course I held the office of Treasurer many years ago. The Minister Assisting the Treasurer is given a certain advantage because his hand is near the till. I hope that these remarks of mine will be passed on to the Minister and that in administering one portfolio he will not entirely forget the opportunities which his second portfolio gives him. I see the honourable member for Phillip nods assent. There is a cost in running these life saving associations. I point out that it is not only the people in the immediate vicinity such as the business peop'e and other private donors who contribute to the movement who benefit but also the whole of Sydney benefits, because a great proportion of the 3 million people who live in Sydney use the beaches from time to time. An undue burden is being thrown not only on these young men but also upon the people who support them in raising the funds and who generally help them. I feel that the Minister should take into account that this is a service which benefits many people, on a large scale. The community, through the Commonwealth, should be called upon to give this movement adequate support. At the moment it is short of funds, lt is struggling and facing great difficulties. A great many people give up a good deal of time and energy. This is purely a public service which they render to their fe'.low citizens. I, like my colleagues in this House, feel that the movement should be supported to a greater extent, particularly as we now have a Minister whose responsibility is directed towards this aspect and who, as I say, has one hand in the till. I hope that the Commonwealth will review the claim of these bodies with a very generous eye. {: #debate-39-s4 .speaker-KJO} ##### Mr JAMES:
Hunter -- I rise tonight because I particularly want to congratulate the Prime Minister **(Mr Whitlam)** on his brilliant and sincere address to the Parliament and the nation on the achievements of the Government's foreign policy and its changes since attaining office on 2 December last. The Prime Minister has created history. In future the Whitlam Labor Government will be marked as the most realistic and progressive that this nation has had since federation because it has faced up to the realities of the times and has given overall benefits to the Australian people today and for generations to come. I was deeply proud to hear the Prime Minister in his address on international affairs say: >In the same spirit, the Government has decided to establish diplomatic relations with the Democratic Republic of Vietnam, the German Democratic Republic, Cyprus, Poland and the Vatican, and to make informal contacts with the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. Similarly we have decided that on commercial trade with the Soviet Union, Eastern Europe, Cuba, North Korea, North Vietnam and China, . . . I was particularly proud to know that our Government is to recognise little Cuba in respect of trade. I hope that the new diplomatic relations that have been established with the Vatican may be used to liberate little Cuba from the sadistic economic embargo at the hands of certain hawkish influences that seem to have some control over successive United States governments. I am one of the few members of this Parliament who have had the privilege of visiting little Cuba. I visited Cuba in 1962, 10 days before the missile crisis, and from that day onwards I have taken some interest in Cuba's history. It is a sad history. Cuba was under the tyrannical rule of Spain from 1492 and fell into the hands of American big business after the Spanish-American war. What was found after the successful revolution of Fidel Castro - a Jesuit who had a very strict upbringing and was reared in the teaching order of the Roman Catholic church? This little country of 80 per cent Roman Catholics has suffered too much for too long. After the revolution it was actually found that there were 650,000 permanently unemployed in a population of 6) million. {: .speaker-KET} ##### Mr King: -- Where did you get all this information? {: .speaker-KJO} ##### Mr JAMES: -- 1 got the information from reading numerous books and the verbatim speech which Fidel Castro made before the United Nations. There were 650,000 permanently unemployed in a population of 6) million people. Rents and telephone charges were the highest in the world. Seventy per cent of the farmers' crops had to be paid in rent to the landlords. Organised crime was the order of the day. The mortality rate of children between the ages of 7 and 12 was among the highest in the world and a frequent killer was hookworm which could easily have been rectified had the unfortunate parents of those children been able to afford medical attention. I want to place great credit and praise on the Roman Catholic bishops charged with the responsibility for Latin America. Today, the Roman Catholic bishops are organised in exerting pressure on the United States Government to lift their ruthless embargo against little Cuba. The American Government in about 1962 told the world that it was going to implement a savage economic embargo against Cuba but was not going to employ sanctions against Cuba in connection with necessary drugs to save human life. But this was proved to be an outrageous lie, because after the unsuccessful Bay of Pigs invasion during which some hundreds of American mercenaries were arrested by the Cuban defence forces and were imprisoned, the Cuban Government told the American authorities that they would let their prisoners out of gaol if certain life saving drugs were sent to Cuba. In the United States the hat was taken around and some thousands of United States dollars were collected to supply the necessary drugs. On 7 June 1972 the Division for Latin America of the United States Catholic Conference issued the following statement on the United States embargo of Cuba: >For 10 years our government has observed a total economic embargo against Cuba. Whatever reasons argued for such a policy in 1962, no compelling justification has been offered for its continuance in recent years. On the contrary, one overwhelming argument against it has sounded with increasing force and urgency - it is simply wrong to impose needless hardships and suffering on those most directly affected by this policy: The poor, the sick, the aged and the very young. > >Insofar as the embargo has had discernible political effects, they seem quite different from those intended. > >The real effects of the embargo, however, are to be measured not in political but in human terms. It causes, in the words of the bishops of Cuba, unnecessary suffering and should therefore be ended. > >April 10 marked the third anniversary of a major statement from the Church in Cuba, the collective pastoral letter signed by all the bishop? of Cuba, which said in part: > >Who among us does not know of all kinds of difficulties that are blocking the way that leads to development . . . external difficulties arising from complications that govern the current direction and fabric of international relations among peoples. These causes have unjustly led to adverse conditions for the weak, small and underdeveloped countries. > >Is this not the case with the economic blockade to which our country has been subjected . . .? > >In seeking the common good of our people and our faithful, in serving the poor among them, according to the comand of Jesus ... we denounce the unjust conditions of the blockade, which is contributing to unnecessary suffering, and to making all efforts at development more difficult. Therefore, we are appealing to the conscience of all those in the position to solve this problem to initiate decided and efficient action aimed at the lifting of the blockade'. > >We join with the bishops and people of Cuba in calling for an end to this embargo ... we appeal to the conscience of all who are in a position to solve this problem to do so as quickly as possible. Therefore I urge my Government to continue the progress in foreign affairs which it indicated tonight it will do. I would applaud our Government as loudly as I possibly can if it sent to Cuba now a ship with the goods which are necessary to help that country overcome the sadness and tragedy which have been imposed upon it by the savagery of the United States embargo. I agree with the Roman Catholic Bishops of Cuba and the United States Roman Catholic Bishops whom I applaud for their actions in seeking to end the economic embargo against this small country in the Caribbean. {: #debate-39-s5 .speaker-KIH} ##### Mr LUCOCK:
Lyne -- It gives me a great deal of pleasure to be associated with the remarks which were made this evening by the honourable member for Wentworth **(Mr Bury)** and with the remarks which were made yesterday evening by the honourable members for Mackellar **(Mr Wentworth),** Phillip **(Mr Riordan)** and Warringah **(Mr MacKellar).** Perhaps it is appropriate that this subject should have been raised in the House this evening because if the House had not been sitting tomorrow I was to have had the pleasure tomorrow evening of attending an annual dinner and prize giving for a group of surf clubs in my electorate. I disagree with one thing that the honourable member for Mackellar said. He said that there are more surfing beaches in the electorate of Mackellar than there are in any other electorate in the area. {: .speaker-DB6} ##### Mr Wentworth: -- I said that there were more surfers in the electorate. {: .speaker-KIH} ##### Mr LUCOCK: -- Well, even that I doubt. There are some magnificent beaches in the electorate of Lyne. Until the electoral distribution commissioners took Kempsey and the Macleay Valley away from me, I also had the surf clubs in that area in my electorate. On many occasions I have listened to **Sir Adrian** Curlewis at various functions associated with surf clubs speaking about the magnificent effort and work of the young men in the life saving movement. Those of us who have had any association with beaches appreciate the tremendous contribution that the young men who are a part of the surf club movement make to the safety of our beaches. I can think of many older men who have attended functions with me at surf clubs who have given years of selfless service to the surf club movement. The only thing that has motivated them has been a desire to serve their community and their fellow man and a feeling that they are making a contribution to the community of which they are a part. For that reason, I believe that any encouragement which can be given to them by the State and Commonwealth governments, particularly the Commonwealth Government in view of the vast resources it has at its disposal, would be most welcome, would be appreciated and would be of tremendous value. A great deal is spoken of and I think many of us are perturbed about what might be called the future of our country. I think that sometimes we tend to give more thought and consideration than we should to the groups of young people who are depicted in the mass media as demonstrating against and trying to upset community affairs. I believe that there are times when we do not give sufficient thought to the literally thousands of young people who are making a contribution to the progress and development of our nation and who are accepting responsibility as citizens of our nation. In that sphere I place all of those involved in the administration of the life saving movement and those who participate in the swimming and athletic side of its activities. I am sure that there is no need for me to repeat the remarks that have been made by those who have already spoken on this subject. But I think I should point our that costs are increasing and that the financial resources of the young people who do such a tremendous amount of work in this field are not great enough to meet the increased expenses being incurred. They have been able to meet their financial obligations so far by engaging in a tremendous amount of voluntary effort and by depending on charity for support. A number of business houses and prominent firms have helped them in this respect. I believe that insurance companies also have made contributions, as have other organisations. But I think the time has come for a very large contribution to be made by the Commonwealth Government. The sophisticated equipment that is in use today is expensive to buy. Expenses in other avenues also have increased. I believe that the Commonwealth should play its part in this sphere. The House was talking earlier today about the making of grants to local government and there was discussion about the additional responsibilities that have fallen upon local government in its sphere of activities. One of those responsibilities is the patrolling of beaches. Local government provides assistance to the surf clubs. I believe that some responsibility should be accepted by the Commonwealth Government also in this sphere. By providing financial encouragement, I believe the Commonwealth Government also would give a great deal of heart to those young people who are giving of their time and effort to provide such an important service to the community. {: #debate-39-s6 .speaker-SH4} ##### Dr KLUGMAN:
Prospect -- I rise tonight to discuss an issue which worries me slightly. Honourable members who were in this Parliament during 1971 and those who were not then members may recall that **Sir Frank** Packer, who was then not only a newspaper owner but also the owner of a number of television stations, took it upon himself to remove from office the then Prime Minister and Leader of the Liberal Party of Australia, **Mr John** Gorton. He had extreme power then in the Liberal Party. Although **Sir Frank** Packer has now sold the daily and Sunday newspapers that he published in Sydney - the Daily Telegraph' and 'Sunday Telegraph' - he still exerts a considerable amount of influence through his television stations and magazines. I notice that **Sir Frank** Packer's hatchet man, **Mr David** McNicoll, has a full page article in one of **Sir Frank** Packer's publications, the 'Bulletin' of 26 May 1973, which has just gone on sale. He tells us that the Liberal Party in New South Wales will remove a number of its present members in this House. Knowing **Mr David** McNicoll and **Sir Frank** Packer, it is interesting to note the names of the people at whom **Mr McNicoll** has pointed his finger. These are the people whom his hatchet man says will be removed from this House - no matter what our views may be of them as members of this Parliament. I should like to read a part of the article that **Mr McNicoll** has written. He states: >There's a great deal of movement behind the scenes in Liberal circles. The big wheels are in action, and there will certainly be some major changes before the next election. > >The emphasis will be on putting top quality men into blue ribbon seats, some of which are currently occupied by members who are too old, or too ineffective. I think many of us probably would agree with that. He continues: >The moves will be aimed at upsetting past methods of pre-selection, whereby party adherents and little old ladies belonging to Liberal branches could swing a_ candidate into the No. 1 position - no matter what his lack of qualifications might be. In future, only top quality men will get the selection. In other words, they will be people of whom **Sir Frank** Packer approves. I have no doubt that is his definition of 'top quality men'.; David McNicoll continues: >Destined for the chop: **Sir John** Cramer (Bennelong), aged in the wood, and due for the sweet pastures of retirement; Leslie Bury (Wentworth), a first class parliamentarian in his day, and a nice chap, but over the hill politically; H. B. Turner (Bradfield), one of the most effective back-benchers in the House, but thinking of retirement which he should do as soon as possible; Bruce Graham (North Sydney), decent and hardworking, but not sufficiently hot quality to occupy a blue ribbon seat. And there is much talk that Bill Wentworth (Mackellar) is thinking of turning politics in - this would mean another blue ribbon seat becoming available. I do not know who **Sir Frank** Packer's picks are for those seats. I know that for the seat of Bennelong he has lined up Peter Coleman who at present is the M.L.A. for a State seat which undoubtedly he will lose in the forthcoming State elections unless the redistribution adds half of **Mr McCaw's** seat of Lane Cove to the present seat of Fuller. {: .speaker-KB8} ##### Mr Giles: -- I wonder whether it will be like Victoria. {: .speaker-SH4} ##### Dr KLUGMAN: -- Even with the changes between the 1970 election and the last election in Victoria, Fuller would go. David McNicoll continues: >One difficulty in getting the top men required is, that they would, in some cases, have to make a financial sacrifice to go into politics. There is serious discussion about ways in which parliamentary salary, could be supplemented by the party in such cases. This is an interesting point that David McNicoll makes on behalf of **Sir Frank** Packer. **Sir Frank** Packer is obviously putting up the proposition that he is prepared to kick in some money to persuade people to enter Parliament. I take it that it will be some of. the $15m, if I remember correctly, that he received from the sale of his 'Daily Telegraph' and 'Sunday Telegraph' newspapers. He is there making an offer to the Liberal Party: If the Liberal Party will get rid of the people mentioned by David McNicoll, there will be money available - and money is available, of course, to **Sir Frank** Packer in large quantities. It will be given to those people, and no doubt it will be given to other people who co-operate with **Sir Frank** Packer in getting rid of those people. I think that it behoves all of us, as people who are interested in parliamentary government, to watch what will happen in those areas, especially in the case of those members who are not keen to retire. What kind of offers will be made either to the new members who would replace the existing members in those seats or to the existing members to retire gracefully? I think that it is important for the parliamentary process to make quite sure that there is no interference in the method of preselection by people who have huge amounts of money at their disposal with which to buy and sell parliamentary seats - blue ribbon seats, as David McNicoll calls them. We have seen what is happening in the United States at the present time. {: .speaker-KN9} ##### Mr Martin: -- The Watergate affair. {: .speaker-SH4} ##### Dr KLUGMAN: -I am referring not only to the Watergate case but also to the related sorts of scandals where people have offered large amounts of money to politicians, especially Republican politicians, in order to exert undue influence on the government. {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr SPEAKER: -Order! It being 11 p.m., the House stands adjourned until 10 a.m. tomorrow. House adjourned at 11 p.m. {: .page-start } page 2673 {:#debate-40} ### ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS UPON NOTICE The following answers to questions upon notice were circulated: {:#subdebate-40-0} #### First Whitlam Ministry: Decisions and Instructions (Question No. 129) {: #subdebate-40-0-s0 .speaker-K9L} ##### Mr Garland: asked the Prime Minister, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. During the period of the First Whitlam Ministry, Australia's first two man government, and remembering his undertaking to conduct a more open government in the public interest, what were all the decisions made and instructions given by this government. 1. Was it necessary, in each case, to make the decision and instruction in the few days before the full and Second Whitlam Ministry was sworn in; if so, why. {: #subdebate-40-0-s1 .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr Whitlam:
ALP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Details of the decisions taken during the period of the First Whitlam Ministry were announced at my Press conferences on 5, 12 and 19 December and by means of separate press releases, copies of which have been made available to honourable members. These will be published in consolidated form in the Australian Government Digest which will soon be available to honourable members. The First Whitlam Ministry was the smallest ministry with jurisdiction over Australia since the 1st Duke of Wellington formed a ministry with two other ministers 128 years previously. At a meeting of the Executive Council on 12 January 1901 it was decided that the presence of at least two members of the Executive Council, exclusive of the Governor-General, shall be necessary to constitute a meeting of the Executive Council for the exercise of its powers. For the period of the interim Government, therefore, the presence of all three members of the Council - the GovernorGeneral, the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister - was necessary for the transaction of business. 1. It was necessary for the First Whitlam Ministry to make decisions and give instructions in the fortnight before the Second Ministry could be sworn in on 19 December 1972 because the United Nations General Asstmbly was concluding its session, the Christmas holidays were at hand and many thousands of conscripts had to be discharged. The First Whitlam Ministry took the view that the nation's interests were best solved by the prompt discharge of its obligations to the people. Department of the Northern Territory: Transfers of Officers (Question No. 239) {: #subdebate-40-0-s2 .speaker-JTW} ##### Mr Calder:
NORTHERN TERRITORY asked the Minister for the Northern Territory, upon notice: >How many officers of the former Northern Territory Division of the Department of the Interior in Canberra have transferred to the Department of the Northern Territory to be stationed in Darwin? {: #subdebate-40-0-s3 .speaker-8H7} ##### Mr Enderby:
ALP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: >As at 16 May, 3 officers have transferred to Darwin from the former Canberra Northern Territory Divisions. {:#subdebate-40-1} #### Mr R. Chan: Appeal Against Conviction (Question No. 254) {: #subdebate-40-1-s0 .speaker-KJO} ##### Mr James: asked the Minister for Immigration, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Was an Asian named Raymond Chan, who is not naturalised, convicted in the Australian Capital Territory Supreme Court in June 1972 and sentenced to 6 years hard labour on each of 3 charges of administering a stupefying drug with intent to commit robbery. 1. If so, has consideration been given to deporting the prisoner. 2. Was the crime unique in the annals of Australian criminal history. 3. Prior to arrest in the Australian Capital Territory, did **Mr Chan** abscond in Victoria when on bail of $1,500 provided by his wealthy, and influential parents. 4. When did **Mr Chan's** parents and other members of his family migrate to Australia. 5. Who sponsored them. 6. What were their special qualifications to gain admission. 7. Did they migrate from Mainland China or Hong Kong. 8. Which migration officer handled the recommendations which enabled the family to migrate. {: #subdebate-40-1-s1 .speaker-8V4} ##### Mr Grassby:
ALP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: >I am informed that as **Mr Chan's** case is pending appeal it is sub judice. It would therefore not be proper for me to reply until the matt* has been dealt with by the Court. {:#subdebate-40-2} #### Migration: Approvals (Question No. 260) {: #subdebate-40-2-s0 .speaker-JP8} ##### Mr Berinson: asked the Minister for Immi gration, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Is it the intention of the Government to honour approvals for migration which were granted by the previous Government prior to 2 December 1972. 1. If so, how many such approvals are still valid but not yet acted upon for each country of origin. {: #subdebate-40-2-s1 .speaker-8V4} ##### Mr Grassby:
ALP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Yes. 1. Persons approved for travel as unassisted migrants are granted visas or endorsements normally valid for travel within a period of twelve months and there is no obligation to provide travel details. Statistics of persons approved for unassisted migration who have not yet travelled to Australia are not available. Assisted migrants usually travel under arrangements made by my Department. As at 30 November 1972 there were approximately 19,000 persons approved and awaiting movement Many of these would have arrived in Australia by now whilst others may have deferred or cancelled their migration. The number of those approved as assisted migrants at 30 November 1972 still overseas is not known. {:#subdebate-40-3} #### Immigration: Visa Applications (Question No. 289) {: #subdebate-40-3-s0 .speaker-KIM} ##### Mr Lynch: asked the Minister for Immigra tion, upon notice: >How many, visa applications for entry into Australia have been rejected since 4 December 1972. {: #subdebate-40-3-s1 .speaker-8V4} ##### Mr Grassby:
ALP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: >Complete statistics on the rejection of visa applications are not available but from the information held from some thirty-five countries, including the major sources of migrants, it is estimated that in the threemonth period December 1972 to February 1973 inclusive, 5,000 people who had applied to enter Australia were refused authority to do so. In addition, applications for assisted passages covering an estimated 13,000 people were refused during this period. {:#subdebate-40-4} #### Education: Pupil-Teacher Ratios (Question No. 335) {: #subdebate-40-4-s0 .speaker-KOE} ##### Mr Mathews: asked the Minister for Education, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Can he give later figures of pupil-teacher ratios in primary and secondary grades of government, Catholic and other non-government schools in each State and Territory (Hansard, 26 September 1969, page 2146; 17 September 1970, page 1364 and 22 February 1972, page 71). 1. Can he give separate figures of enrolment in primary and secondary grades of government, Catholic and other non-government schools in each State and Territory (Hansard, 22 February 1971, page 474 and 22 February 1972, page 71). 2. Is it yet possible to provide these figures on a uniform basis which would allow comparisons to be drawn between sectors and States. {: #subdebate-40-4-s1 .speaker-JF7} ##### Mr Beazley:
ALP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Later information has not been compiled on the basis of the previously supplied data. Revised data which is more consistent between States is currently being prepared.I will provide this information to the Honourable Member when it becomes available. 1. The number of pupils in primary and secondary grades in 1972 in government and non-government schools was published by the Commonwealth Statistician in 'School Enrolments 1972 (Preliminary)' and is shown below. Separate figures for Catholic schools are not yet available for 1972. This information is currently being compiled by the Commonwealth Statistician. I will provide the information to the Honourable Member as soon as possible after publication. {: type="1" start="3"} 0. No. {:#subdebate-40-5} #### Education: Secondary Schools Science Facilities Program (Question No. 356) {: #subdebate-40-5-s0 .speaker-KOE} ##### Mr Mathews: asked the Minister for Education, upon notice: >What amount is available to each State under the current Secondary Schools Science Facilities Program, and what is the (a) amount, and (b) percentage so Tar expended by each State. {: #subdebate-40-5-s1 .speaker-JF7} ##### Mr Beazley:
ALP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: >Under the States Grants (Science Laboratories) Act 1971, the following amounts are available: The States are responsible for the administration of the funds paid to them under this program for government schools. Advances are made to the States in amounts related to the actual and estimated expenditure of the States under the program. Information on the actual expenditure by the States only becomes available to my Department at a later period. The tables below set out the advances made to the States for government schools during the current quadrennium, while in the case of non-government schools the payments to these schools are shown. Information is given for the period I July 1971 to 31 March 1973. {:#subdebate-40-6} #### Education: Secondary School Libraries Program (Question No. 357) {: #subdebate-40-6-s0 .speaker-KOE} ##### Mr Mathews: asked the Minister for Education, upon notice: >What amount is available to each State under the current Secondary Schools Libraries Program, and what is the (a) amount and (b) percentage so far expended by each State. {: #subdebate-40-6-s1 .speaker-JF7} ##### Mr Beazley:
ALP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: >The State Grants (Secondary Schools Libraries) Act, 1971 provides the amounts set out in the following table for the period 1 January 1972 to 31 December 1974. The States are responsible for the administration of the funds paid to them under this program for government schools. Advances are made to the States in amounts related to the actual and estimated expenditure of the States under the program. Information on the actual expenditure by the States only becomes available to my Department at a later period. The tables below set out the advances made to the States for government schools during the current triennium, while in the case of non-government schools the payments to these schools are shown. Information is given for the period 1 January 1972 to 31 March 1973. {:#subdebate-40-7} #### University Staff Salaries (Question No. 423) {: #subdebate-40-7-s0 .speaker-K9L} ##### Mr Garland: asked the Minister for Educa tion, upon notice: >When does he expect to receive the report of the Campbell Committee inquiry into university staff salaries. {: #subdebate-40-7-s1 .speaker-JF7} ##### Mr Beazley:
ALP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: >I received **Mr Justice** Campbell's report of the inquiry into academic salaries on 16 May 1973. The report was tabled in both Houses of Parliament on 17 May 1973. {:#subdebate-40-8} #### Migrant Counselling and Selection System (Question No. 439) {: #subdebate-40-8-s0 .speaker-KFH} ##### Dr Forbes:
BARKER, SOUTH AUSTRALIA asked the Minister for Immigration, upon notice: >In what way does the new migrant counselling and selection system, announced by him as an initiative of his Government, differ from the proposal on the same subject announced by the previous Minister on 31 August 1972. {: #subdebate-40-8-s1 .speaker-8V4} ##### Mr Grassby:
ALP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: >The new migrant counselling and selection system was developed by a departmental committee which held its first meeting on 18 June 1971. The Committee's task involved examination of procedures for application by migrants as well as their selection and counselling, and it first considered these latter aspects in depth at a meeting on 27 January 1972. > >On 31 August 1972, the Honourable Member as Minister for Immigration, announced that new measures for migrant selection and counselling were being planned. > >In November 1972, these procedures were discussed at meetings in London and New York of Chief Migration Officers stationed in Europe, the Middle East and the United States of America and were field-tested in four migrant source countries. As a result certain changes were made. More recently, at my instigation, special emphasis has been placed on the need for all migrants to have the sincere intention of settling permanently in Australia and joining the Australian family through citizenship. > >My statement of 31 January 1973 referred to the fact that these new procedures 'had drawn on the expertise of senior officers within the Department of Immigration which had been anxious to improve selection methods and training of selection and interviewing officers' and announced that they were to be brought into general use in migrant source countries forthwith. This has been done. {:#subdebate-40-9} #### Commonwealth Parliament Offices (Question No. 499) {: #subdebate-40-9-s0 .speaker-K9L} ##### Mr Garland: asked the Minister for Services and Property, upon notice: >What is the average area, in square feet, of the offices of private Members in each of the Commonwealth Parliament Offices at Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane, Adelaide and Perth. {: #subdebate-40-9-s1 .speaker-6V4} ##### Mr Daly:
ALP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: >Sydney - 250 square feet. > >Melbourne - 313 square feet. > >Brisbane - 322 square feet. > >Adelaide - 340 square feet. > >Perth- 324 square feet.

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 24 May 1973, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1973/19730524_reps_28_hor84/>.