House of Representatives
27 November 1974

29th Parliament · 1st Session

  1. House of Representatives
  2. 29th Parliament
  3. 1974

Mr SPEAKER (Hon. J. F. Cope) took the chair at 12 noon, and read prayers.

page 4127

DEATH OF U THANT

Mr WHITLAM:
Prime Minister · Werriwa · ALP

All Australians will be sad to learn of the death in New York of the former SecretaryGeneral of the United Nations, U Thant. U Thant served his country, Burma, with honour. He became the first Secretary-General from the so-called Third World. He served his country and the United Nations to the lasting credit of both. He went on to discharge the highest office in the United Nations Organisation with the greatest distinction during a decade fraught with crisis in the United Nations and for a period longer than any other Secretary-General. The office which U Thant held has been described with justice as the most impossible job in the world. It is a greater tribute than any I can pay to recall that after his first term U Thant was reappointed for a further 5 years as SecretaryGeneral, and would have received the confidence of the United Nations for a third term had he not elected to retire. All who met him will always remember his charm and courtesy. The cause of peace is the poorer for his passing. On behalf of the Australian Government I offer to his widow and to his daughter the condolences of the Australian people.

Mr LYNCH:
Flinders

-On behalf of the Liberal Party and Australian Country Party Opposition I join with the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) in giving expression to our sadness on the recent death of U Thant whose 10-year career as the third Secretary-General of the United Nations coincided with a sense of growing disillusionment with the organisation. He was the man who may well have prevented its disintegration at a very critical time. I concur entirely in the sentiments expressed by the Prime Minister.

Mr SPEAKER:

-As a mark of respect to the memory of the deceased I ask all honourable members to rise in their places. (Honourable members having stood in their places)

Mr SPEAKER:

– I thank honourable members.

page 4127

PETITIONS

The Clerk:

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

Foreign Students in Australia: Rights

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

That many foreign students in Australia, as well as many Australian students are deeply concerned at the political surveillance of foreign students in Australia by the officials of foreign missions from the nations of these students, particularly students from Malaysia, Singapore, Philippines, Indonesia, South Korea and South Vietnam.

That the undersigned strongly object to the extension into Australia of the laws of foreign nations in regard to the political activities and or beliefs engaged in by foreign students during their stay in Australia.

That foreign students on their return home have in fact been charged with activities engaged in while in Australia which under Australian Law are legal.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled will ensure that:

  1. foreign students in Australia are not subjected to political surveillance;
  2. foreign students in Australia have full civil rights while in Australia;
  3. the Governments of the nations concerned are informed in the strongest possible manner that political recriminations against students for activities engaged in while studying in Australia will not be tolerated;
  4. foreign students who because of their political activities in Australia fear for their personal security upon returning to their home country be granted permanent residence in Australia.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Dawkins and Mr Ruddock.

Petitions received.

Family Law Bill

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

That we support the concept of no fault divorce in the Family Law Bill because:

  1. . Marriage is not merely a contract it is a relationship.
  2. That if a party withdraws from that relationship for whatever reason there is no good to be achieved by insisting on a continuance of a contractual shell
  3. That where a marriage relationship has demonstrably broken down divorce should be as quick and simple as possible. The interests of the dignity of the parties and the emotional well being of the children

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Family Law Bill be debated and passed as soon as possible.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Dr Cass.

Petition received.

Marriage

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 the whole principle of the Family Law Bill 1 974 is aimed at destroying the entire concept of marriage as traditionally recognised in Australia, with its special obligations between husband and wife and between parents and children.
  2. That the bill fails to recognize or provide for the equal rights and responsibilities of both parties to a marriage, such as are provided for in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, including the rights of parents to choose the type of education they desire for their children.
  3. That this bill appears to express the desires of only a minority of Australians.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled should not admit into the law of this land the principle that marriage is only temporary and the family no longer the fundamental unit of society.

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

Petition received.

Uranium

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

That whereas uranium found in vast quantities in Australia is the raw material for the nuclear fission reaction.

And whereas presently assured reserves of uranium in Australia represent a potential production of over 540,000 kilograms of Plutonium 239 if utilized in Light Water Reactors overseas,

And whereas the Maximum Permissible Inhalation of Plutonium 239 is 0.00000025 gram,

And whereas Plutonium 239 is one of the most dangerous substances human society has ever created, causing mutations and cancers,

And whereas there are no methods of safety and absolutely confining Plutonium from the biosphere for the requisite quarter of a million years,

And whereas Plutonium coming in contact with the air forms an aerosol cloud of micron-sized particles, its most dangerous form,

And whereas the export of uranium may return to us an import of Plutonium particles dispersed in the global environment via the circulation of the atmosphere,

And whereas there are no sure safeguards against the military use of nuclear fission, and the nuclear proliferation represents a prime environmental threat to all forms of life on the only earth available to us,

And that it is therefore an act of self-preservation to demand a halt to all exports of uranium except for bio-medical uses.

Your petitioners humbly pray that the members, in the House assembled, will take the most urgent steps to ensure:

  1. That further mining and export of uranium from Australia except for bio-medical purposes be banned,
  2. That the Australian Atomic Energy Commission be transformed by the rewriting of its charter into an Australian Energy Commission to further the understanding of energy flows through our society and to promote national economic independence and self-sufficiency.

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

Petition received.

Metric System

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:

That the plan to obliterate the traditional weights and measures of this country is causing and will cause widespread inconvenience, confusion, expense and distress.

That there is no certainty that any significant benefits or indeed any benefits at all will follow the use of the new weights and measures.

That the traditional weights and measures are eminently satisfactory.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray:

That the Metric Conversion Act be repealed, and that the Government take urgent steps to cause the traditional and familiar units to be restored in those areas where the greatest inconveniences and distress are occurring, that is to say, in meteorology, in road distances, in sport, in the building and allied trades, in the printing trade, and in retail trade.

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

Petition received.

Taxation : Education Expenses

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:

That the reduction of the allowable deduction of education expenses under Section 82J of the Income Tax assessment Act from $400 to $150 is $50.00 below the 1956-57 figure.

That this reduction will impose hardships on many parents who have children attending school, whether nongovernment or government; and particularly on parents with more than one child at school.

That this reduction will further restrict the freedom available to parents to make a choice of school for their children.

That some parents who have chosen to send their children to a non-government school will have to withdraw their children and send them to government schools already over crowded and under staffed.

That the parents to benefit most relatively from educational income tax deductions, in the past and even more in the future,.are the parents of children in government schools and this has a divisive effect in the Australian community.

That parents should be encouraged by the Australian government to exercise freedom of choice of the type of school they wish for their children. The proposed reduction means an additional financial penalty is imposed on parents who try to exercise this choice and discourages them from making an important financial contribution to Australian education over and above what they contribute through taxation.

That an alternative system, a tax rebate system, could be adopted as being more equitable for all parents with children at school.

To compensate for the losses that will follow from the proposed reduction and to help meet escalating educational costs faced by all families your petitioners most humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled should take immediate steps to restore educational benefits to parents, at least at the 1973/1974 level either by increasing taxation deducations or through taxation rebates. by Mr Peacock.

Petition received.

National Liberation Movements in Africa

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

That whereas the Budget Paper No. 9 titled “Australia’s External Aid 1974-75” allocated $150,000 for humanitarian assistance to National Liberation Movements in Africa;

And whereas the humanitarian needs of these oppressed people require greater assistance from Australia than the above amount allocated in the budget;

And whereas such assistance is in keeping with that provided by Norway, Sweden, Finland, Denmark, The Netherlands, Canada, the Federal Republic of Germany, and New Zealand, and United Nations Organisations such as UNICEF, UNDP, UNHCR, FAO and WHO, and such non-Government organisations as the World Council of Churches, the Australian Freedom From Hunger Campaign, Community Aid Abroad, and some Roman Catholic Aid Agencies in Europe;

So therefore your petitioners most humbly pray that the Government will take action to increase substantially the abovementioned humanitarian assistance.

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

Petition received.

page 4129

QUESTION

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

page 4129

QUESTION

RESIGNATIONS FROM DEFENCE FORCES

Dr FORBES:
BARKER, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

-I ask the Minister for Defence: Is it a fact that Air Vice Marshal Hurditch, Deputy Chief of the Air Staff, has tendered his resignation? Is it also a fact that 2 admirals have tendered their resignations or indicated that they intend to do so? Can he say whether these further resignations of extremely valuable senior officers reflect the frustration and the intense dissatisfaction in the Services with the Government’s handling of defence matters and, in particular, its handling of the reorganisation of the defence group of departments? When will the Minister wake up and recognise that we will have no defence forces left if this situation is allowed to continue?

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

-It is true that I received yesterday a minute from the Department of Defence indicating that Air Vice Marshal Hurditch was submitting his resignation. I accepted his resignation. He indicated that he had expressed some opposition to the reorganisation of the defence departments. It would be unusual, of course, if there were not some officers and indeed some civilians within the Defence Department who did not express opposition to the reorganisation. But the great majority of the personnel of the Defence Department- servicemen and civilians- have accepted the reorganisation. I have read some statements made by journalists which have suggested that Air Vice Marshal Hurditch had resigned and that his resignation would be followed by that of other officers. The suggestion that 2 admirals intend to resign has not been brought to my attention. What the honourable member should understand is that the situation has changed. It is now much easier for officers to resign under this Government than it was previously. As a result of the changes in the Defence Forces Retirement Benefits legislation, an officer can now retire before what would have been his normal expiration of service and can receive his entitlement.

Mr Jacobi:

– How much will he receive?

Mr BARNARD:

-Under the previous Government, he could not do that. I have been asked the question: ‘How much will he receive?’ Naturally, I am not in the position to indicate nor would I want to indicate to the House how much Air Vice Marshal Hurditch will receive under the DFRB scheme when he retires. However, I can say to honourable members that under the legislation, as it now exists, an Air Vice Marshal with 34 years service would receive a pension of about $14,000 a year. But because there is automatic commutation, which again was provided under the DFRB legislation, an Air Vice Marshal in this position would be able to commute his pension, receive a lump sum payment of $56,000 and a reduced pension of $1 1,000 a year. This is the situation that exists today. Therefore, it is understandable that some officers who believe that they have reached the peak of their career and have no hope of further advancement should seek to retire and take another position.

There have been a number of resignations over the years since the defence forces retirements benefits legislation was introduced. These retirements have been amongst senior officers who were about to retire or who would be very close to their retirement anyway. I have stated in the House before- I want to repeat it today- that I am not unduly concerned when older senior officers who have nearly reached their retirement age retire in order to provide opportunities for younger servicemen to be promoted to their positions. There is nothing exceptional about this.

Finally, I want to say to the honourable member for Barker, who is interjecting, that he is smarting from the announcement by the Leader of the Opposition of his Party’s decision in regard to defence spending. The honourable member for Barker said during the debate on the Estimates that the Opposition would actually increase defence expenditure, yet the Leader of the Opposition said last week that there would be a cut in Government expenditure right across the board. It would include expenditure on education, health and social welfare. But the plain fact is that if the honourable member for Barker happened to become Minister for Defence, and I doubt that very much- even the members of his own Party are not satisfied with his performance in that respect- he would be faced with a drastic cut that would not only reduce defence expenditure but also would certainly bring about a spate of resignations that would alarm even the honourable member.

page 4130

QUESTION

POLITICAL PARTIES

Dr JENKINS:
SCULLIN, VICTORIA

– Has the Prime Minister received a request for privileges and prerogatives for an additional party leader arising from the emergence of a fourth party in this chamber? If not, has he any reason to anticipate receiving such a request?

Mr WHITLAM:
ALP

– Naturally, I prepare for all contingencies in this respect. It was quite clear that the emergence of a fourth party might be announced in the House today. I gather that it would have been the formation of a liberalcountry party. But that contingency seems to have been deferred for the time being. However, I will have the position investigated. Perhaps I can inform the honourable gentleman of the position by correspondence. I take the opportunity which the honourable gentleman accords me of asserting in words what was very obvious when the Leader of the Opposition came into the House. I refer to the delight which members of the Government felt at his being declared, on a recount, the winner. It has never been my habit to reveal what takes place in the Government Party room or Caucus. But the waiting Press, of course, discerned the cheers which accompanied the announcement in Caucus that the Leader of the Opposition had survived. It was the universal opinion that nothing could suit the interests of the Government better than for the leadership of the Government and the Opposition to remain in their present hands.

page 4130

QUESTION

NATIONALISATION OF INDUSTRIES

Mr HYDE:
MOORE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I direct my question to the Minister representing the Acting Minister for Labor and Immigration. In reply to a question the Minister for Labor and Immigration said that he could think of a number of industries that would be candidates for the extension of public ownership. People in these industries need to plan their economic future in case the will of the people, as assessed at a referendum, should coincide with the will of the Minister. Which are the industries to which the Minister referred?

Mr CHARLES JONES:
Minister for Transport · NEWCASTLE, VICTORIA · ALP

-As the honourable member for Moore is aware the Minister for Labor and Immigration is in New Zealand attending an important civic conference. As the information sought by the question is available to him and not to me at this point I will draw the honourable member’s question to the attention of the Minister when he returns. No doubt he will treat it as a question on notice.

page 4130

QUESTION

LIBERAL PARTY LEADERSHIP

Mr ARMITAGE:
CHIFLEY, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I direct my question to the Minister for Services and Property in his capacity as Minister in charge of electoral matters. I ask: Is there any electoral division, subdivision or polling booth within his jurisdiction known as the Valley of Death? If not, is he aware of any proposal for one of them to be so named?

Mr DALY:
Minister for Services and Property · GRAYNDLER, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– There are many strange names of electorates and polling places. For instance, there is a polling place called Spring Gully; another called Barkers Creek; another called Harkaway; another called Nangiloo and one called Wuk Wuk-Wy Yung in Gippsland. As a matter of fact there is one called Happy Valley. I have not, as yet, been able to ascertain with certainty whether there is one named the Valley of Death. This name first received prominenceand this gives some substance to the suggestion that there should be one, or is one- following a statement that the Leader Opposition made in Melbourne on 16 November in which he said:

If I asked them to walk through the Valley of Death on hot coals, they would do it.

He also said:

Every one of them trusts me completely and absolutely because I am honourable.

I repeat what the Leader of the Opposition said:

If I asked them to walk through the Valley of Death on hot coals, they would do it.

This gives substance and prominence to the suggestion that possibly a polling booth or electorate should be named Valley of Death. Recent events in this once great Party, if I might coin a phrase, indicate that many members are having second thoughts about walking through this Valley of Death- even without the hot coals. In fact I would say that the honourable member for Wannon is now an unemployed fire walker. I can also confirm that he will not be burnt at the stake. Despite the statement made in regard to the Valley of Death I notice today some news- it has been reported and I presume it is authentic- that there was a move to oust the Leader of the Opposition this morning. So evidently in addition to the honourable member for Wannon there are a number of others also who are no longer fire walkers.

It has been put to me that we should make the Valley of Death a subdivision or an electorate as the case may be. It is quite topical because there is a redistribution on and the Government has the responsibility of naming electorates. What would be better than to rename the electorate of Bruce the Valley of Death? I would ask the Distribution Commissioners to consider that proposal but I am certain to receive great objection from the honourable member for Wannon who would no doubt contradict that point of view and possibly would want the change made to the name of his electorate. In any case. I thank the honourable member for the question. It is an appropriate one. As I say it is unfortunate at this stage that so many have so quickly lost their zeal to walk over those coals for one who can always be trusted. As the Leader of the Opposition said in his statement at the time his team recognised his political judgment and knew if he said ‘it must be thus’ on an issue, it was that. He said:

They also trust what I will achieve for this country.

Is it not regrettable that so many who a few weeks ago, as he said, would have walked over hot coals today had to be dragged in to support him and to bring him back to the realisation that the Valley of Death is not the place to fight political battles?

page 4131

QUESTION

BEEF EXPORTS

Mr KING:
WIMMERA, VICTORIA

– I address my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Agriculture. The Minister will recall an announcement by the Minister for Agriculture recently to the effect that the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics had purchased some 10,000 tons of Australian beef. Since that time it has been reported that the sale has fallen through. I ask the Minister whether he is in a position to indicate whether the report is correct. If it is correct, why has the sale fallen through? Does the Government intend to take any action to try to rectify the disastrous position in which the meat industry finds itself today?

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

-I will check the statement the honourable member made, but I am unaware that the Minister for Agriculture made that announcement. I am aware that there were newspaper reports that a very significant sale of approximately 10,000 tons of beef had been made by Australia to Russia. I must say that when I read that report I was somewhat surprised. I knew that negotiations were going on, but to the best of my knowledge there still has been no contract for this sale. I understand that it is purely a commercial sale, involving Borthwicks and perhaps other export meatworks, of a consignment of beef in the vicinity of 10,000 tons.

The honourable member will probably also learn, as I have learned, that most of the beef will be fore-quarters. Anybody with any knowledge of meat export would know that sometimes there are technical problems in the sale of forequarters to specific countries. I shall go into the question more deeply, but as far as I can make out the negotiations are still proceeding. Apparently the matter got into the newspapers; how I do not know. I hope, as every other person in this Parliament and in the cattle industry hopes, that the negotiations are successfully finalised as quickly as possible.

page 4131

QUESTION

JOHNS CONSOLIDATED LTD

Mrs CHILD:
HENTY, VICTORIA

– My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. In view of the comments made yesterday on conditions at Johns Consolidated Ltd in Victoria that the firm is crippled and is sacking men day after day, will the Prime Minister give the House the up-to-date facts on Johns, bearing in mind that yesterday’s statement could cause Johns serious harm?

Mr WHITLAM:
ALP

– It is true that the Leader of the Opposition did make such an irresponsible and damaging reference in his speech yesterday. He was, not for the first time, right behind the times. I had the previous day referred the position of Johns to the Temporary Assistance Authority. The Government is assured that there will be no sacking at Johns Consolidated Ltd in view of the reference to the Temporary Assistance Authority. Members of the public dealing with Johns Consolidated Ltd or persons employed by it should have no qualms as to its future. I welcome this opportunity to discount and refute the irresponsible allegations made yesterday.

page 4132

QUESTION

COMMONWEALTH EMPLOYEES SUPERANNUATION SCHEME

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
WANNON, VICTORIA

– I ask the Treasurer whether when he introduces the legislation for the Commonwealth Public Service superannuation scheme which I understand is to come into the House shortly- possibly next week from published reports- he will indicate the funding involved in the scheme; what it would cost or what the cost would be to the taxpayer as a percentage of the Commonwealth’s salary bill, which is a normal way of indicating the funding of private schemes. The new proposals do bear comparison with good, and the best, private schemes. I think it is important that in coming to a judgment in this matter the Parliament should have available to it the actual cost to the community and to the general taxpayer. I ask the Treasurer to make sure that the Parliament is not denied this information when the legislation is introduced.

Mr CREAN:
Treasurer · MELBOURNE PORTS, VICTORIA · ALP

– I indicated in an answer to a question some time ago that it was our intention to bring the legislation forward in the early part of 1975. It was hoped that the scheme would apply from 1 July 1975. 1 can assure the honourable member that the fullest details will be given when the Bill is brought down.

page 4132

QUESTION

EMPLOYMENT IN BUILDING INDUSTRY

Dr GUN:
KINGSTON, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

- Mr question is directed to the Minister for Manufacturing Industry. Has his attention been drawn to reports that the brickyards of PGH Industries Ltd in South Australia face closure because of excessive stockpiles? Is it not a fact that demand for building materials will certainly recover, therefore should we not encourage production to continue now to avoid future shortages? Is it not far less costly to retain workers in their present jobs, which are fully geared to production, than to employ the same number of people under, for example, the Regional Employment Development scheme? Will the Government therefore consider providing assistance to such industries in the form of payment of the interest component of any overdraft that is necessary to allow excessive stockpiles to be carried so that such firms can continue production, sustain employment and avoid future shortages?

Mr ENDERBY:
Minister for Manufacturing Industry · ALP

-My attention has been drawn to newspaper accounts of the position referred to by the honourable member. It is true that there are brickworks in the situation described by newspaper articles, and it is equally true that this problem is related to the current situation in the building industry. It is well known that the Government has taken a number of very active measures in recent times to release credit which should give substantial assistance to the building industry. There is always a time lag in these matters. As to the question of giving some guarantee in respect of interest rates, that clearly would involve major issues of policy. They will be given full consideration.

page 4132

QUESTION

INDUSTRIES ASSISTANCE COMMISSION

Mr KELLY:
WAKEFIELD, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question to the Prime Minister relates to the correspondence between him and Mr Rattigan, Chairman of the Industries Assistance Commission, in which the Prime Minister obtained an assurance that the IAC will not make recommendations that adversely affect employment in the short term. Is the Prime Minister aware of the fundamental problems inherent in this new arrangement in that instead of getting clear-eyed economic advice as to the best use of our limited resources in the long term, the IAC might now be tempted to give too much weight to short term problems and so its more important long term view might become too clouded? Would it not have been better to confine the IAC to the narrower task of advising about the long term position only and expecting that in unusual times the Government might have to take the responsibility of altering the IAC recommendations, at least in the short term, to suit unusual situations?

Mr WHITLAM:
ALP

– I did not seek an assurance from the IAC as suggested by the honourable member. The Chairman told me in his letter of 18 November that the Commission proposed supplementary recommendations designed to ensure that acceptance of its recommendations for longer term assistance would not add to any existing short term employment difficulties. I accept the view expressed in his letter that it is necessary to separate short term considerations from the long run objectives of industry development policy. I believe the Commission’s approach will leave the Government free to deal with questions of long term assistance in a way which promotes the long term welfare of the community. Confining the Commission to the task of advising about the long term position would unnecessarily limit advice to the Government from its key advisory body on industry assistance matters. I received a further letter from Mr Rattigan yesterday. I propose to publish it. With the leave of the House I would incorporate in Hansard the letters we exchanged last week and this letter which I received yesterday.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Is leave granted?

Mr Snedden:

– As a point of order, and just for clarification: The Prime Minister has said that he will incorporate in Hansard his letter to Mr Rattigan and Mr Rattigan’s reply to him. There was a letter from which the Prime Minister was quoting at the commencement of his answer to the question. Did he include that?

Mr WHITLAM:

-Yes. The letters that I thought it might suit honourable members to have incorporated in Hansard are Mr Rattigan’s letter to me on 1 8 November, my letter to him on 24 November and his further letter to me on 26 November.

Mr Snedden:

– Leave is granted.

Mr SPEAKER:

-There being no objection, leave is granted. (The documents read as follows)- 18 November 1974

The Honourable E. G. Whitlam, Q.C., M.P., Prime Minister, Parliament House, Canberra, A.C.T. 2600.

Dear Prime Minister,

One matter discussed in the Commission ‘s annual report was the relationship between the long term objectives of industry policy, which will require some structural changes within Australian industry, and the effects of cyclical fluctuations on the economy’s capacity to sustain structural change (paragraphs 138 to 144). In particular, it drew attention to the fact that there will be certain times when the economy can more readily accommodate desirable structural changes.

The economy is at present slack and unemployment high, by Australian standards. In this situation, workers and resources who may be displaced by decisions designed to induce structural changes cannot readily be absorbed in other activities. The Commission has therefore given further consideration to the question of timing in formulating its recommendations for long term assistance to industry.

Three factors influence the extent of structural change that is possible at any time: the general level of activity in the economy; the general mobility of the community’s resources; the availability of assistance to enable industries and individuals to adjust to change.

As already noted, the current level of economic activity is slack by Australian standards. Moreover, the Government’s measures for adjustment assistance are still being developed. The present, therefore, is not a suitable time for implementing significant structural changes- however necessary such changes may be to improve the welfare of Australiansbecause the immediate cost would be further temporary disruption to employment and a resulting increase in deprivation for employees. The Commission believes that, in this situation, its recommendations should not add to the unemployment already evident in the economy.

The Commission therefore proposes that, in the present situation, when it is considering recommending a long term level of assistance that would be likely to bring about important changes in employment within an industry, it will include in its report on the industry a supplementary recommendationto apply in the short term. This supplementary recommendation will be designed to ensure that acceptance of the Commission’s report would not add to any existing short term employment difficulties in the industry concerned. (It should be noted that, as only some of the Commission’s recommendations for long term assistance to particular industries are likely to have adverse effects on employment, only some of the Commission’s reports will need to contain the types of supplementary recommendations described above).

One effect of this approach will be to separate short run considerations, arising from cyclical fluctuations in the economy, from the long run objectives of industry development policy. Issues of structural change will be dealt with in the basic long term recommendation. This will leave the Government free to deal with questions of long term assistance in a way which promotes the long term welfare of the community as a whole and in accordance with the industry assistance policy expressed in the Commission’s statutory guidelines. It will also remove pressures which may otherwise develop to settle questions of long term assistance in response to the pressures arising from short term changes in the economy.

The Commissioner will, during the next several weeks, examine the reports it has signed and on which the Government has yet to decide- to identify any requiring supplementary recommendations on the grounds outlined above. As far as is possible within its commitments to deadlines set by the Government for completion of individual reports, it will also now give the highest priority to those inquiries it has on hand bearing directly on general assistance measures which will contribute to the long term objective of improving the quality and mobility of resources. These general measures were referred to in paragraph 147 of the Commission’s annual report. This will provide the Government with advice on the availability of general measures to support the complementary policies being developed to facilitate structural changes, to ease their private adjustment costs, and to develop those low cost industries which contribute most to efficient use of the community’s resources and, thus, its general welfare.

As the machinery now being established by the Government to assist adjustment to structural change develops, the need for the type of supplementary recommendations by the Commission referred to above should diminish.

Yours sincerely,

  1. A. RATTIGAN

24 November 1974

Dear Mr Rattigan, 1 refer to your letter of 1 8 November 1 974 about the relationship of cyclical fluctuations in the economy to longer term industrial policies involving structural change. I understood from the approach to high cost industries outlined in the Commission’s Annual Report for 1973-74 that the Commission would relate its recommendations to the economy’s capacity to sustain the changes involved, but I welcome your reassurance that this is to be the case.

The degree of change which is sustainable by particular social groups and locations is, of course, affected by factors other than the state of the business cycle. In this connection, I have noted comments in the Annual Report in relation to the possibility of containing, rather than significantly scaling down, some industries in the high cost area. For example, the thrust of paragraph 144 of the Annual Reort suggests that the Commission has in mind that new investment should be encouraged into areas requiring lower levels of protection, whilst measures would not be recommended which would have the effect of significantly scaling down those high cost industries where change would present intractable social problems.

Having in mind the balance which the Government must hold between the national welfare and the effect of changes on individual welfare, I should like more attention to be directed to this general approach which appears to provide a sound base upon which to encourage at a. manageable rate the greater efficiency, and with this the greater prosperity, of Australian industry in the interests of the community as a whole.

Whatever the stage of the business cycle, the Government needs the fullest information about the social and locational implications of the Commission’s recommendations. The Government has not taken decisions on a number of reports including, for example, the Man-Made Fibre Fabrics report of last January, because of its concern for the social and locational implications of the Commission’s recommendations.

I note that you have in mind re-examining during the next few weeks such reports to identify any supplementary recommendations which might be appropriate. Our consideration of these reports has progressed to such an extent that it would be undesirable to delay matters further, but if the Commission can provide supplementary recommendations quickly enough the Government will consider them.

Reports which have yet to be submitted to the Government are in a different category. The Government’s structural adjustment measures have been developed (loan guarantees being an exception only in still requiring legislation to be passed ) and you have been fully informed of the Government’s non-metropolitan subsidy scheme. Whilst helpful, these measures are not designed to meet changes in the business cycle; nor indeed can they necessarily be expected to meet all the problems, whatever the stage of the cycle, which might arise from a structural change seen as in the national interest by the Commission. The Commission therefore should not make recommendations for change-on the assumption that other measures available to the Government will necessarily allow their implementation without difficulty to the community.

It would therefore be entirely appropriate, as has been indicated already through the questions directed to the Commission by SIDCAI on some recent reports, for the Commission to couch its recommendations against the background of the immediate social and locational changes which might follow from their implementation.

I shall publish your letter as you suggested, and also my response.

Yours sincerely,

  1. G. WHITLAM

Mr G. A. Rattigan, C.B.E., Chairman,

Industries Assistance Commission,

Kings Avenue, Barton A.CT. 2600 26 November 1974

The Hon. E. G. Whitlam, Q.C., M.P.,

Prime Minister,

Parliament House, Canberra, A.CT. 2600

Dear Prime Minister,

I refer to my letter of 18 November and to your reply, which was delivered to my home on Sunday night.

The Commission has examined the eleven reports on which the Government has not yet announced a decision, and has identified five as requiring supplementary recommendations on the grounds outlined in my letter of 18 November. These are:

Woven Man-Made Fibre Fabrics Glass and Glassware Polyamide and Polyester Yarns Tyre Cord and Tyre Cord Fabrics Foundation Garments 17 January 1974 23 May 1974 18 June 1974 25 June 1974 28 June 1974

The areas covered by each report to which the supplementary recommendations should, in the Commission’s opinion, apply in the short term- and the levels of duty (including Primage) which should apply- are set out in the attachment to this letter.

The Commission’s supplementary recommendations are intended to apply to the specific areas in each report where the implementation of its original recommendations may have adverse short term effects on employment. In assessing the possibility of such effects, the Commission has taken account, not only of the data available at the time of the reports, but also of more recent changes in the level of imports.

In those cases where it considers there is even a slight chance of a report having adverse short term effects on employment, the Commission has made supplementary recommendations. I has done this because it believes that, as far as is possible, its recommendations should not add to any existing unemployment in the industries concerned.

The Commission recommends that, in relation to the tariff items (or pan of items) listed in the attachment, the rates of duty applying before 19 July 1973 should, with some minor rationalisations, be the basis for the supplementary assistance. In the case of flat glass it has also recommended that Developing Country preferences should not apply to imports from the Philippines and the Republic of Korea. It further recommends that its supplementary recommendations should apply until 30 November 1975. Before that date, the Commission will advise you concerning its views on their possible continuance.

I am writing a separate letter to you today, on the general matters raised in your letter of 2 1 November.

Yours sincerely, G. A. RATTIGAN

page 4135

QUESTION

MOTOR VEHICLE INDUSTRY

Mr WALLIS:
GREY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– Has the attention of the Minister for Manufacturing Industry been drawn to the report that a major South Australian car manufacturer, General Motors-Holden ‘s Pty Ltd, is to carry out a major expansion program at a cost of $ 18m? Does the Minister consider that the decision by GMH indicates confidence in the future of this industry, as a result of the recently announced plans of the Australian Government for the restructuring of this important Australian industry?

Mr ENDERBY:
ALP

– Yes. In common with many honourable members, I read the article that announced the decision by General MotorsHolden ‘s Pty Ltd. I think we can all take some satisfaction from the fact that the corporation has declared its confidence in the future of the Australian automotive industry. As is well known, the Government recently announced certain measures dealing with the restructuring of the industry and to give it protection from excessive import competition. The essential features of that scheme are that while the imports remain above 20 per cent, the tariffs on CBUs and CKDs go up by about 10 per cent. Should the percentage fall to 20 per cent, those tariffs revert by 10 per cent. In the meantime, of course, it is hoped to encourage some Japanese manufacturers to explore the possibilities of perhaps a joint venture with the existing facilities in South Australia, which are extremely important. At the same time, the Government is determined to encourage the industry to increase its efficiency and its competitiveness with overseas manufacturers by moving the 95 per cent content plan progressively over a period of 4 years down to 85 per cent. That action will result, we believe, in the components side of the industry being able to make itself more efficient, more competitive, and more export oriented.

page 4136

QUESTION

CATTLE TICK CONTROL FUNDS

Mr ANTHONY:
RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I direct my question to the Prime Minister. I believe that there has been correspondence between the State Premiers and the Prime Minister on this matter and for that reason I ask the question. The Prime Minister will be aware that funds have been provided by the Australian Government over the years to assist the States of Queensland and New South Wales in their efforts to control the damage caused to the cattle industry by ticks. I ask the Prime Minister whether the Government has discontinued this assistance and, if so, why? Is the Prime Minister aware that there is serious concern in the 2 States about the effect of the Government’s decision to end the provision of funds not only on the existing programs to control and eradicate ticks, but also on the employment situation with 225 employees of the Board of Tick Control in New South Wales facing retrenchment if funds are not provided? I ask the Prime Minister whether the Government will reconsider this matter.

Mr Whitlam:

– The Minister representing the Minister for Agriculture will answer the question.

Dr PATTERSON:
ALP

– I am unaware of any decision. Certainly there has been no decision to discontinue the assistance given to the States of Queensland and New South Wales with respect to ticks. Of course, the tick areas are in eastern Queensland and northern New South Wales- as well as in parts of the Northern Territory and the Kimberleys. These are the areas where the highest density of beef cattle in Australia is to be found in concentrated specialist zones. Everybody acquainted with the cattle industry knows full well the annual damage done to the cattle industry by ticks. Probably one cannot work it out at current beef prices, but it was as high as $40m or $50m a year. That includes the cost of acaricides and the extra men involved, as well as the measures taken on properties, such as mustering and dipping, to control the tick. I am aware, as other honourable members are aware, that if ticks are not controlled, particularly in relation to clean areas, the extent of redwater can do tremendous damage to the cattle industry in Australia. I shall certainly have a good look at this question and follow it up.

page 4136

QUESTION

DONATIONS TO VOLUNTARY ORGANISATIONS

Mr CHIPP:
HOTHAM, VICTORIA

– I ask the Treasurer-elect a question. In the absence of any statement to this House by the Prime Minister, in lieu of which there was an extraordinary statement leaked to the Press blaming the Governor-General for the change in the Treasurership, I presume that it is Dr Cairns to whom I should address the question. I ask: Will the Deputy Prime Minister now give the House an unequivocal assurance- as his predecessor, I understand, did- that when he does become the Treasurer he will not recommend the withdrawal of taxation deductibility of donations to voluntary welfare organisations?

Dr J F CAIRNS:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

– As usual, questions are begun in this House by a complete distortion.

Mr Sinclair:

– You are not going to be Treasurer, then?

Dr J F CAIRNS:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

– I mean the one about the Governor-General being blamed for the delay. The Governor-General was not blamed. It was pointed out that the Governor-General was absent and the necessary arrangments could not be made until he came back. That is not blaming him for it. That is the twisted interpretation that the honourable member and his colleagues are developing, to almost everything that they say in this House.

The allowance of deductions for donations to voluntary organisations is, in principle, a practice that has been adopted by both sides of the House for many years, and as a principle it will continue to be adopted by myself when Treasurer, as in the case of all my predecessors. Of course, it depends in application upon which organisation these advantages are to be given to, and that is a matter that is determined on its merits. There will be no difference whatever in the practice.. The practice in the future will be the same as in the past.

page 4136

QUESTION

QUEENSLAND SEWERAGE

Mr CROSS:
BRISBANE. QLD

-I ask the Minister for Urban and Regional Development: What progress has been made on the allocation of funds to Queensland local authorities under the national sewerage program for 1974-75? In particular, can the Minister give the House an indication of the amounts offered by the Australian Government to shires and other councils in Queensland for sewerage and the terms and conditions under which this assistance will be made available?

Mr UREN:
Minister for Urban and Regional Development · REID, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– The Queensland Government has entered into the national sewerage program to catch up on the backlog of sewerage in our urban areas, to improve environmental standards and to construct new headworks in our cities. In the first year Queensland received approximately $4. 5m. That year the money was made available on the long term Commonwealth bond rate, repayable over 40 years. This year Queensland will receive $ 11.3m for the backlog sewerage program. Australian Government officials have offered the following program of expenditure: Brisbane City Council $3.6m; Redland $1.2m; Ipswich $340,000; Pine Rivers $710,000; Albert Shire $530,000; Beaudesert $560,000; the Gold Coast, which because of the previous Government is more than 80 per cent unsewered $770,000; Moreton Shire $1,070,000; Caboolture $310,000; Townsville $370,000; Cairns $950,000; Mackay $330,000; Rockhampton $80,000; Maryborough $10,000; Bundaberg $270,000; Mount Isa $100,000 and Toowoomba $70,000. A further $15m has been made available for all States to meet extra expenditure, but its allocation has not been determined yet.

Thirty per cent of the $1 1.3m will be made available to Queensland this year in the form of an interest free non-repayable grant and the other 70 per cent will be a loan on the long term Commonwealth bond rate repayable over 40 years. This program is being carried out under the pledge of the Prime Minister given prior to December 1972. The present Government inherited the urban problem of sewering of our cities. On present day prices this will cost $3,800m. We estimate that within the next 10 years the work carried out by the national Government will clear the backlog. About 40 per cent of it will be paid for by the Australian Government and about 60 per cent by the States.

page 4137

QUESTION

PALACE HOTEL, PERTH

Mr BENNETT:
SWAN, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– My question is directed to the Minister for Urban and Regional Development. Subsequent to recent announcements on the desire of public and national bodies to have the Palace Hotel in Western Australia and its contents preserved, can the Minister inform the House as to the future of the building and any plans to preserve antique furnishings at the expiry of the licensee’s lease? Will the Australian Government take definite action to preserve this part of Western Australia’s history and heritage?

Mr UREN:
ALP

-The Palace Hotel in Perth was acquired by the Commonwealth Bank in late 1971. It was then the Bank’s intention to demolish it and to erect a commercial building in its place. Under the then Government’s policy of what is called the bulldozer mentality, many unique and beautiful things were demolished for what it called progress. The Whitlam Labor Government set up an inquiry under Mr Justice Hope of the New South Wales Supreme Court to inquire into the national estate. It is our Government ‘s policy to try to preserve for posterity things created by man or by nature that are unique and beautiful. The Committee of Inquiry into the National Estate said that the Palace Hotel was an important element of the national estate and should be preserved and not demolished, defaced or destroyed.

Mr Snedden:

– There is no election in Perth; it is in Brisbane.

Mr UREN:

– It is an important matter for the people of Australia generally. I know that the Leader of the Opposition, who has just interjected, is concerned only about elections, but we at least want to try to preserve this part of our heritage. The Commonwealth Bank is a government agency and we have been corresponding with it to convey that our policy is that the Australian Government should set an example. In the first year we made $2.5m available to try to preserve the national estate. This year $8m has been made available through my Department and some $9m has been made available through the Department of the Environment and Conservation to try to preserve the national estate. The Government will do everything within its power to preserve the Palace Hotel in Perth and it will seek the co-operation of the Commonwealth Bank. If we cannot get the co-operation of the Bank we may have to take other action.

page 4137

QUESTION

INFLATION

Dr EDWARDS:
BEROWRA, NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is addressed to the Deputy Prime Minister. Discussing comparative inflation rates recently he referred to inflation in Australia to September last as being 16.1 per cent. He then referred to high inflation rates for the same period in Japan, Italy and other countries, and then to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development average of 14. 1 per cent, saying that all this was comparable with Australia. Is the Deputy Prime Minister not aware that the very OECD document to which he referred states with respect to inflation rates, and I quote:

Two groups of countries emerge clearly -

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! Quotes are not in order.

Dr EDWARDS:

-The document refers to the fact that 2 groups of countries emerge clearly. In the one group, which includes Germany, there are inflation rates significantly below the average and in the other group there are countries- and the document specifically mentioned Italy, Australia, Belgium and Japan- with rates considerably above the average. In castigating in lofty moral terms efforts to deceive and confuse in the debate the other day, did not the Deputy Prime Minister make a rather selective use of the facts in referring only to the high inflation group and not to the low inflation group? Would he not agree that the OECD itself thus takes cognisance of Australia’s above’ average and totally unwarranted rate of inflation?

Dr J F CAIRNS:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

– The comparison was perfectly valid. I gave the full figures in the speech I made and the honourable gentleman can read them if he has not already done so. I pointed out that the difference between Australia and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development average was very slight- 14.7 per cent as against 16.1 per cent. I listed the OECD countries whose increases were comparable to Australia’s, ranging from the average and those close to the average through to Italy, which was considerably above the average. I also referred to Japan, where I think the rate was 25 per cent. I said that I was aware of the difference in rates in recent times, and in that speech I went on to explain why there was a difference in rates- that inflation in Australia had come mainly from the boom in export values in 1972-73 and from the fantastic boom in overseas investment in the Australian minerals industry.

None of this happened in any OECD country. There was no boom in exports that was comparable with Australia’s in any single country. There were no great discoveries of nickel or uranium in Germany or in Italy or in France. There was no mineral boom in those countries in 1972-73. I explained that this accounted for a good deal of the difference in rates. I am surprised that with his background the honourable gentleman is not aware of economic history as well as economics, because this is pari of the economic history of every boom, and the character of the boom is given to it by the impetus from its sources. I tried to explain this again yesterday in the no confidence debate but apparently the Opposition leaders are unaware of what causes inflation. I have done my best over two or three days to explain it to them, and I refer the honourable member again to the record in Hansard of the speeches I have made.

page 4138

QUESTION

DISCRIMINATION AGAINST WOMEN IN CANBERRA HOTELS

Mr MATHEWS:
CASEY, VICTORIA

– I ask the Minister for the Capital Territory if he is aware that women, including a very distinguished senator, have been refused service by certain Canberra hotels? Will the Minister ensure that in Territories administered by the Australian Government women do not suffer discrimination in this or in any other form?

Mr BRYANT:
Minister for the Capital Territory · WILLS, VICTORIA · ALP

-I am astonished that in this very liberal minded city this situation could occur. It has been reported to me that in one of the hotels, the Canberra Rex, a lady senator was refused service in the public bar. This is in breach of an ordinance which requires that the public must be served in public bars. It is also in breach of the Prices Regulations Ordinance, which requires that goods that have been declared- of which beer is one- shall be served to the public on demand. I regret that people drink the stuff, but while it is legal and while it is their right I shall use any influence I can to see that there is no case for discrimination in this Territory or throughout Australia. I shall use whatever power the law puts at my disposal to bring down our wrath upon the guilty persons.

page 4138

CONSUMER AFFAIRS COUNCIL

Mr BRYANT:
Minister for the Capital Territory · Wills · ALP

– Pursuant to section 17 of the Consumer Affairs Ordinance 1974 I present the first annual report of the operations of the Consumer Affairs Council and the Consumer Affairs Bureau of the Australian Capital Territory for the year ended 30 June 1974.

page 4138

AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY ELECTRICITY AUTHORITY

Mr BRYANT:
Minister for the Capital Territory · Wills · ALP

– Pursuant to section 33 of the Australian Capital Territory Electricity Supply Act 1962-1973, I present the annual report of the Australian Capital Territory Electricity Authority for the year ended 30 June 1974, together with financial statements and the report of the Auditor-General on those statements. I regret very much that the Chairman of this very efficient Authority is being paid inadequately because of the action of the Senate in relation to the Remuneration Tribunal determination. His salary at retirement will be much less than he is entitled to and so higher superannuation benefits will be denied him.

page 4138

AUSTRALIAN BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES STUDY INTERIM COUNCIL

Mr MORRISON:
Minister for Science · St George · ALP

– For the information of honourable members I present the first annual report of the Australian Biological Resources Study Interim Council for the financial year 1973-74.

page 4139

REHABILITATION CENTRE TOWNSVILLE

Report of Public Works Committee

Mr Keith Johnson:
BURKE, VICTORIA · ALP

-ln accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969-1974, 1 present the report relating to the following proposed work:

Rehabilitation Centre at Townsville. Queensland

Ordered that the report be printed.

page 4139

PERSONAL EXPLANATION

Mr SNEDDEN:
Leader of the Opposition · Bruce

– I wish to make a personal explanation.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Does the right honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?

Mr SNEDDEN:

-Yes. I will not take long to make the position clear. Today the Minister for Defence (Mr Barnard) said in question time that there was a disagreement between me and my colleague, the shadow Minister for Defence, Dr Forbes, about expenditure for the defence services. He misrepresented me. He alleged that because I called for a reduction in the rate of Government expenditure there would be necessarily an 8 per cent- I think that is the figure he dreamed up somewhere -

Mr Mathews:

– From the Deputy Leader of the Opposition.

Mr SNEDDEN:

-The honourable member really ought to contain himself. He will have a heart attack or burst. The Minister for Defence said that defence spending would be cut by 8 per cent. This is not correct. On 26 November my colleague, the shadow Minister for Defence, issued a statement in which he spelt out the position in very clear detail, including the fact that 2.6 per cent of the gross national product would go to defence. This is despite a pre-election promise by the Labor Government to maintain expenditure at 3.5 per cent. The defence Budget expenditure has been cut in real terms by 8 per cent by this Government. The proportion of the defence vote going to new equipment this year is 6 per cent, which is the lowest proportion in living memory. When I spoke about arresting the rate of growth of Government expenditure I used the term ‘across the board’ because I was making it clear that there was no area of expenditure which would not be examined. But it is an absurd proposition for the Government to allege that a statement was made that the reduction would be 8 per cent in every area. What would be done would be to find a total expenditure reduction of $ 1,000m. No area would be exempt from examination, and the total would amount to that. What is happening is that the rate of inflation induced by this Government is growing so rapidly that the proportion of the gross national product being spent on defence is constantly diminishing.

page 4139

QUESTION

JOINT COMMITTEE ON PECUNIARY INTERESTS OF MEMBERS OF THE PARLIAMENT

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:
KINGSFORD-SMITH, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I ask leave of the House to move a motion to amend the resolution of appointment of the Joint Committee on Pecuniary Interests of Members of the Parliament to extend the time for the bringing up of the report of the Committee.

Mr SPEAKER:

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

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:
Special Minister of State · KINGSFORD-SMITH, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-I am advised by the Chairman of the Committee that the members of the Committee have met on at least 3 occasions. The Committee has invited submissions from all members of Parliament and from other interested people, including members of the public, from whom it intends to take evidence. It would follow that if the 90-day limit which is now applied were to continue, the Committee would be obliged to report late in January when Parliament would not be in session. Accordingly, it is appropriate that the Committee be given a reasonable time in which to complete its report. It is envisaged that the report should be presented not later than 29 May 1975. Therefore, I move:

  1. 1) That paragraph ( 12) of the resolution of appointment of the Joint Committee on Pecuniary Interests of Members of the Parliament be omitted and that the following paragraph be substituted: ‘(12) That the Committee report within the shortest reasonable period, not later than 29 May 1975, and that any member of the Committee have power to add a protest or dissent to any report. ‘
  2. That a Message be sent to the Senate requesting its concurrence.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 4139

AUSTRALIAN CATTLE INDUSTRY

Discussion of Matter of Public Importance

Mr SPEAKER:

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

The failure of the Government to undertake positive measures to assist the cattle industry in its present financial straits.

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

Mr SPEAKER:

-I call the Deputy Leader of the Australian Country Party.

Motion (by Mr Daly) put:

That the business of the day be called on.

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

AYES: 61

NOES: 50

Majority……. 11

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Sitting suspended from 1.4 to 2.15 p.m.

page 4140

URBAN AND REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT (FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE) BILL 1974

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 14 November on motion by Mr Uren:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr McLEAY:
Boothby

-The Opposition does not oppose the Urban and Regional Development (Financial Assistance) Bill 1974 although it does have strong reservations about some aspects of the legislation. I have read the second reading speech of the Minister for Urban and Regional Development (Mr Uren) very carefully and I must say that it is almost like a call to motherhood- who could possibly oppose it? It could have been written by a Liberal Party or Country Party Minister. I suppose it is all things to all people. But I think it is important to look at the Bill and, as my colleague the honourable member for Parramatta (Mr Ruddock) said, it is the practice of the legislation that concerns members on this side of the House. On the very first page of his second reading speech the Minister outlined three of the provisions of the Bill, with which we entirely agree. Very briefly he said that the Bill provides that the Minister for Urban and Regional Development may, in consultation with a State Minister, approve programs of urban and regional development. This expression ‘in consultation’ bobs up all the way through the second reading speech. The Minister said also that for the first time it- the Bill- sets the seal on the concept and function of cooperative federalism in Australia. It allows the Australian and State governments to get together in co-operative measures. Again we find that the word ‘co-operative’ bobs up throughout the second reading speech.

We believe the second reading speech is marvellous but, in fact, when one reads the Bill, one finds its effect is the opposite of that stated in the speech. It is not a matter of co-operation with the States; it is a matter of confrontation with the States. I refer to clause 7 of the Bill because if this is the Minister’s idea of co-operation I must have made a terrible mistake in my understanding of that word. The clause states:

A State shall, - ‘Shall ‘ is the very third word- at the request of the Minister, furnish him with such information as he requires in relation to the carrying out of a program approved under section 4.

That does not indicate much co-operation; it indicates confrontation, pure and simple. I give notice at this stage of the debate, Mr Speaker, that in the other place we will be moving an amendment to clause 7 which will have the effect of making it possible for a State Minister at least to participate in discussions. We probably will add such words as: ‘As he may reasonably require’- meaning the Federal Minister. We expect the Federal Minister to be reasonable about the matter. The Opposition believes that the clause, as presently worded, is a typical example of the way in which the present Labor Government is introducing its socialist and centralist philosophies- with a sugar-coated pill.

We do not have to look very far to find other examples of what I would describe as State government bashing. The Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) and his Party policies confirm that the Labor Party stands for the complete destruction of State governments. I should like to quote to the House- especially as the great man is herefrom a book written by the Prime Minister called ‘Labor and the Constitution’, in which he referred to the Constitution and the role of State members. The Prime Minister said:

Much can be achieved by Labor members of the State Parliament in effectuating Labor’s aims of more effective powers for the national Parliament and for local government. Their role is to bring about their own dissolution.

What could be clearer than that? The Prime Minister and his Government subscribe to the destruction, the dissolution, of local government and State governments. Later I read an articleand I do not have the date of it- by the Labor Leader in the New South Wales Government in which he dealt with the question of what would happen if Labor were in government in New South Wales. He indicated that his Party would appoint watchdogs- that is the expression he used- to take part in the planning of local government administration. Mr Wran said:

A State Labor government would place government officers in local councils to act as watchdogs on their planning and administration.

Does the Minister for Urban and Regional Development regard this as an indication of friendly co-operation or, to use his words, ‘cooperative federalism’? Those are simply standover tactics.

Mr Ruddock:

– He calls it progressive federalism later.

Mr McLEAY:

– Yes, progressive federalismthere is a delicate difference there. I quote briefly from what the Prime Minister said later at a local government assembly. He said:

It is not true, as some persist in claiming that: ‘It would be virtually impossible to make these changes now’ -

He is talking about changes to the local government and State government system- and the real choice is between making a federal system work by giving the existing States the means to do their jobs, and starving the States into submission . . .

Those are fairly direct words. The Prime Minister seeks to starve the States into submission. Quite frankly, these are the aspects of the Bill to which we object. I have sought the views of some of our colleagues in the State Parliaments and I quote now from what the Premier of Western Australia had to say about co-operative federalism. Sir Charles Court said:

Our Government ‘s -

That is the Western Australian Governmentexperience of co-operative federalism is that it is not working. We would welcome the opportunity of being invited to consult as equals with the Commonwealth Government -

Surely the second reading speech implies that this will happen- in the formation of policy within which States and local government are expected to perform; in the creation of ground rules for the introduction of various programs.

There is an urgent need for the Commonwealth Government to recognise our traditional constitutional responsibilities and act accordingly to ensure that the resource of people and material is not wasted as at present.

That is the view of the Western Australian Premier. He went on to give his prescription of what should happen and we entirely endorse this. He said that at the moment there is a lack of cooperative federalism, yet the Minister says there is plenty. The Premier said that there is inadequate consultation through poor recognition of the part played by State and local governments. We know the Labor Party’s view on this: He said there is duplication of effort and over-lapping of functions. We are reminded of this every day. Sir Charles Court went on to say:

Because of the lack of real consultation, clear guidelines are not available and programs are not integrated. Despite the Western Australian Government and local authorities’ direct messages to the honourable member Tom Uren M.H.R. expressing our opposition to the creation of statutory regions, the Minister and his colleagues are continuing with constant administrative and financial pressure towards this end.

Mr Uren:

-Who said that?

Mr McLEAY:

-This is the view of the Western Australian Government. It says the Minister is not really co-operating as he said in the second reading speech he would co-operate.

Mr Uren:

– Who is speaking on behalf of that Government?

Mr McLEAY:

-You are speaking on behalf of your Government and I am speaking on behalf of the Opposition. This is the view of the Western Australian Government.

Mr Uren:

– But which spokesman? The appropriate Minister, the Minister for Local Government, has concurred with me on these matters.

Mr McLEAY:

-I am glad to have that on the record. Not only non-Labor people but Labor people have told us that there is not much consultation at the ministerial level. They have indicated that there is consultation at the State officer level but not at the ministerial level. So we are putting these things on record. It is good to know that the Minister claims there is consultation at the ministerial level. The Victorian Government has similar views and I will not bore the House -

Mr Uren:

– I would like to know about this. Would the honourable member tell me who is the Victorian spokesman?

Mr McLEAY:

– The Minister seems to want to know the name of the spokesman. Mr Hunt is the spokesman for Victoria. What he says rather confirms what we are finding. He stated:

The speech indicates -

That is the Minister’s speech- that the legislation will give the Commonwealth the money to enter many areas which have, in the past, been the primary responsibility of the State Government. Although Mr Uren speaks of the legislation as setting -

Once again we have the fancy words- the seal on the concept and function of co-operative federalism in Australia it has been found in practice that the application of these moneys has not been made without strings attached. To bring the matter down to basics ‘the man who pays the piper calls the tune ‘.

The spokesman of the Victorian Government then went on to talk about possible amendments which should be made to the legislation. We believe that this Government is not the slightest bit concerned about the niceties of proper constitutional behaviour. I quote as an example, Mr Speaker, because this is an area with which you would be familiar, the recent purchase of the Glebe lands. I have placed several questions on notice, as has the Leader of the Opposition (Mr

Snedden), going back to early July which relate to some of these matters, but we cannot get any answer from the Minister. Perhaps he could tell us when he sums up today what constitutional power the Government had to buy the Glebe lands.

The Minister might also like to comment on what is happening. in connection with the employment of staff to manage the Glebe lands. I would like to quote from an advertisement which appeared in the Press in the Glebe district just a few weeks ago. The advertisement was for the appointment of a community development officer. It stated:

Applicants should have some relevant experience, a knowledge of inner city problems and a sensitivity for the social objectives of the project. Appropriate tertiary qualifications may help but organisational ability, a cheerful disposition with not a little humility, and the ability to communicate with a wide range of people are essential attributes.

If that is not enough there was another advertisement for a project manager whose salary would be of the order of $1 1,000 to $1 1,500. Another advertisement was for an officer who would receive a salary of $17,000. 1 ask the Minister why it is necessary to have these highly paid officers or is this just the tip of the iceberg in the running of the affairs of the Glebe project.

I would also like the Minister to comment, because I cannot get an answer in any other way, about the Government’s apparent acquisition of the Leyland land, plant, etc. I have placed questions on notice to the Minister himself and to two or three other Ministers in regard to this matter. I do not know whether he has been advised by his Department not to answer my questions or whether he is content to allow my questions to remain on the notice paper for ever or until the Parliament is dissolved. If we are to believe Press reports it appears that the Minister for Urban and Regional Development, who is sitting at the table, intends that the Leyland land at Zetland should be used for housing purposes. I believe that this intention is also supported by the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr Les Johnson). From the reports that we have heard of what has taken place in Cabinet and Caucus this assumption is probably correct.

Mr Morris:

– Fourteen was the vote, was it not?

Mr McLEAY:

– I would be interested to know myself. As the Minister for Urban and Regional Development will probably know, the Leyland factory is built on the old Victoria Park racecourse. As you, Mr Speaker, will know also, the racecourse was situated on a reclaimed swamp in which the static water level is somewhere about 18 inches. I believe that when the factory was being built enormous concrete foundations were sunk to depths of as much as 60 feet and that a great deal of pumping was needed to allow this work to take place. I believe also that there is still a water problem in the factory itself. I would like to know whether the land at Zetland is suitable for housing. I make the point that these things would not happen if the Goverment consulted closely with the States and considered their views. I would suspect that the Leyland purchase is not constitutional. The Minister might like to tell us something about this.

There are other examples of the true intent of the Government’s relationship with the States in the recent Northern Territory Lands Acquisition Bill which was literally bulldozed through this House one night last week. According to the report presented yesterday by the Joint Committee on the Northern Territory the Government is anxious to treat the Northern Territory as a State and wants to transfer State powers to the Northern Territory. The Minister may remember that the purpose of the amendment moved by the Opposition to the Northern Territory Lands Acquisition Bill- I hope, Mr Speaker, that I am keeping within the Standing Orders in referring to this legislation because it has passed through this House- was to refer the legislation to the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly. However, the Government refused to do this. The purpose of the Bill is to take away from local authorities and individuals the right to appeal in cases where the Minister’s Department comes in and takes over land. So this business of cooperation and co-operative federalism- or as one of my colleagues said ‘progressive federalism ‘-is not really happening in practice. I trust that the next time the Minister produces a second reading speech he will include in it some of the barbs that are contained in the Bill to which it relates.

Another piece of legislation was put through this House last week in connection with the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement. Once again the Opposition co-operated and this legislation was urgently put through the House. However, the State housing Ministers are not happy with the terms imposed on them by that legislation. In fact the Victorian Minister walked out of a conference with other Ministers because of the treatment -

Mr Uren:

-When was that?

Mr McLEAY:

– A report in the Melbourne ‘Age’ of 26 October stated that Mr Dickie, the Victorian Minister, said that Victoria had signed the Federal-State Housing Agreement with a gun at its head loaded with a threat of high interest rates.

Mr Uren:

– That is not part of the legislation.

Mr McLEAY:

– That is legislation which we have just put through this House.

Mr Uren:

– That is not part of this legislation.

Mr McLEAY:

– Of course it is not part of this legislation. I am giving an example of the treatment that the Minister’s Government is meting out to the States, and that is all we are concerned about in the legislation before us.

Mr Uren:

– I ask the honourable member to give me evidence of the criticism that was made by State Ministers. I ask him to name the Ministers and the programs about which they have made their criticisms. I ask him to show where a conflict has arisen. I make that challenge to him.

Mr McLEAY:

– I have given the Minister a few examples. I will show him these things afterwards if he does not believe me. I think it is fair to ask what would we do if we were in government. We would seek to achieve agreement with the State governments in principle. We would want to consult with them and let them spend the money and do the work according to their own priorities. I have already expressed concern about the way we believe money is being wasted in the Department. I would refer in passing to the development of Monarto in South Australia because we believe it is highly unlikely that this regional centre will ever get off the ground. A great deal of money has been wasted on that project already. The amount involved is over $8m. I draw the attention of the Minister to a report which was tabled in this House on 28 September by 2 visiting academics commissioned by his Department. They supported this view that Monarto is in the wrong place and will not in the future be a growth centre. We are talking about enormous amounts of money that are being wasted. We believe that the money to be spent on Monarto could have been spent today in other areas within Adelaide itself to improve- the Minister is always talking about this- the quality of life. There will probably never be any suburb, any growth centre or anything at Monarto- certainly not in our lifetime. I do not want to waste the time of the House by going over the same points.

I want to refer briefly- as a mild criticism- to the Report of the Auditor-General. On page 200 of that report when dealing with the accounting of the Department of Urban and Regional Development, in 3.22.1 the Auditor-General stated that audit test checks for last year disclosed a number of over-payments which related to payment of travelling allowance to officers in excess of entitlements, payment of disturbance allowance to ineligible officers and incorrect payments in respect of travel by air.

Mr Uren:

- Mr Speaker, what has this got to do with the Bill?

Mr SPEAKER:

– Yes, I was just having a look at the second reading speech. I think the honourable member for Boothby is getting very wide of the Bill.

Mr Uren:

– This matter should have been discussed in the Estimates for the Department. The fact is that this is not an Estimates debate. This is a Bill relating to specific programs.

Mr SPEAKER:

– I would ask the honourable member for Boothby to confine his remarks to the Bill.

Mr McLEAY:

– I am really concluding my remarks. I make those comments purely as a passing reference.

Mr SPEAKER:

– I was trying to link your remarks with the Bill. That is why I was reading the second reading speech.

Mr McLEAY:

– There are other honourable members from this side of the House- at least half a dozen- who wish to take part in the debate. I do not want to waste any more time. The Opposition is concerned about the money that is being wasted. We agree that a great deal of money needs to be spent to improve sewerage and other facilities in the cities. But we do not like to see money being wasted and we think that money is being wasted at Monarto. I was just saying that in a minor way money was being wasted within the Department. On one occasion a motor car was hired for a number of weeks which cost more than $6,000. It would have been much cheaper to have bought a car. These are general areas of criticism.

The Opposition is also drawing the Minister’s attention to the purchase of land at Zetland. I should like to make the point that every indication is that this site is unsuitable for housing and that if it is, here again, we could be involved in a great deal of waste of public funds. The Opposition will seek to amend this Bill in the other place. Our plea to the Government at this stage is that it should have greater consultation with the States. The Opposition makes the promise that when we are the government we will consult the States and consider their points of view. We will allow the States to spend money according to their own priorities.

Mr MORRIS:
Shortland

– It is a pity that the previous speaker, the honourable member for Boothby (Mr McLeay) did not see fit to regard this Bill as having the importance that it deserves but sought instead to continue the tirade against so-called centralism, allegedly trying to protect the interests of the States. The honourable member for Boothby ignores the fact completely that the mere fact that the Bill is before the House today is the result of strenuous efforts and complete co-operation between officers at State and local government levels and officers of the Department of Urban and Regional Development. It is obvious that as the spokesman in this place for the Opposition on urban and regional development, he has not studied the Bill and he has not given consideration to its provisions. I would say that he is not really concerned with its provisions and the assistance that it will give to local government and to the general standard of living in our communities.

Of all people, he choose to cite the Premier of Western Australia as some sort of authority on co-operative federalism. The Premier of Western Australia could very well join, in that minority of Liberal-Country Party Premiers, with the Premier of Queensland in seeking to divide the Australian people- in seeking almost to want to create farmers republics or the re-erection of the State boundary fences- when it is in the real interests of the people of this nation that we ought to be developing as a nation, not as individual sections of a nation. As I said, it is a pity that the honourable member for Boothby chose to follow that course. That his remarks did not have any substance is evidenced by the Bill before us and the efforts that have been put into achieving that Bill.

This Bill, the Urban and Regional (Financial Assistance) Bill 1974, is only a short Bill with some 1 1 clauses but it represents a milestone in the development of our democratic system of 3-tier co-operative federalism. It is a result of harmonious interaction and consultation between State governments, local governments and this Australian Government. The provision of this Bill will mean the implementation of continuing schemes for the improvement of the quality of living conditions for hundreds of thousands of Australians. It provides for the Minister for Urban and Regional Development (Mr Uren) in consultation- not confrontation as the honourable member for Boothby would havewith appropriate State Ministers to approve programs of urban and regional development for each of the States. It provides for agreement by the Australian Government with a State government for financial assistance to be made available for expenditure by the State or an approved body in the State for approved programs. Significantly, it provides that all such agreements should be tabled in this Parliament.

Our system of co-operative federalism requires that all 3 levels of government- Federal, State and local government- co-operate and consult in their endeavours if the system is to operate for the benefit of our people. It is unfortunate- in fact it is deplorable- that our opponents seek to create dissension, division and dissatisfaction between the various levels of government when it was the wish of the majority of Australians that there should be proper recognition by federal government of the financial burdens of local government. This Government is committed to uplifting the status of local government by assisting it to meet its financial commitments. We received that mandate in December 1972 and a majority of Australians confirmed it as recently as 6 months ago. The financial measures contained in this Bill will do much to assist councils to carry out special projects of regional need and community value- projects that are long overdue and projects which local government authorities have been unable to finance in the past because of their limited capacity to raise revenue.

Following on the expansion of the Australian Grants Commission, which involved the recognition of 74 regional groupings of councils in Australia and the recognition of these groupings by the Minister, we have seen the most exciting development in local government since federation. I refer to the growth of the concept of regionalism and its ready acceptance by the men and women who give their services willingly and selflessly as aldermen and councillors of the 900 odd municipal and shire councils. Councils have welcomed the opportunity to join regional groupings and many have enthusiastically developed regional approaches to problems to their areas as compared with the previous restrictive parochial approach in many councils of: ‘What will it cost us? How much will we get out of it for our area?’. One of the leaders in the development of regionalism has been the Hunter region. I will come back to that later. As agovernment we have been continually subjected to charges of centralism or Canberra centralism by the Opposition and some of their counterpartsI emphasise some of their counterparts -in State parliaments. But the fact is that centralism that has operated to the detriment of community standards and values in the past has been that of State centralism- the Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane based State bureaucracies. One only has to ask anybody who is serving or who has served in local government in the past 25 years to get some account of that.

In Newcastle we have been seeking for 6 years to get a decision from the New South Wales State Premier on the deepening of the bar at the Port of Newcastle where ships are lined up, 20 abreast, outside the Port of Newcastle waiting to load coal and wheat. We have the Country Party members opposite complaining about the sale and export of wheat when the ships cannot get into the harbour. The man responsible for a decision is a Liberal-Country Party State Premier. Under our constitution, local government is a creature of the States; rather, it is a captive of the States. Our approach to local government and our encouragement of the development of regionalism and the ready acceptance of it by local government refutes the claims of centralism that are made against us. We have deliberately followed a course of making local government a vehicle for our legislation. This Bill represents another step along that road.

There are great differences in the standard of living conditions of people in the various regions of Australia. These include differences in job opportunities, housing conditions, wealth, income, educational opportunities, community and recreational facilities, transport services and communications. These differences apply significantly as between urban and rural communities and as between cities and country towns. It is worth noting that when the Australian Grants Commission brought down its recommendationsthey were adopted by this Parliament only a few days ago- the clamour again from the Opposition was in regard to the size of those grants and a comparison of the value of the grants that were awarded to councils. If we examine the grants individually and compare them in per capita terms as between the councils concerned, we find that there is a distinct bias in favour of rural councils. For instance, metropolitan councils placed in category 1 received an average per capita grant of $2.36. The larger provincial towns and cities in category 3-1 received an average per capita grant of $6.82. The average per capita grant for sparsely populated shires in category 6 was $9.61. The reason for this is that the rural councils suffer disabilities by way of their sparseness of population and their limited capacity to raise revenue. That is recognised in our concept of regionalism and the approach to try to bring some sort of equality in revenue raising capacities and works programs to the councils concerned.

Our approach in trying to present a real solution to these differences is regionalism. It is a response to differences and an acceptance that government intervention in our social and economic system has to be designed on a regional basis. It is an attempt to meet the problem of subState differences with sub-State solutions developed with the participation, wherever possible, of the citizens of the regions and their representatives on regional bodies. Our commitment is to upgrade and strengthen local government, not to weaken local government and State governments as our opponents misrepresent our endeavours. The method of implementing that commitment is by having local councils group together into regional bodies on boundaries agreed to between the Australian Government and the respective State governments. To suggest that there is conflict between the State governments and this Federal Government on regionalism or the recognition of the regional bodies is a complete misrepresentation. We would not have had the establishment of the 74 regions or the 100 per cent participation of councils in the project unless there had been conciliatory dialogue between the State, Federal and local governments and agreement with the respective State Ministers to the whole proposition.

These regions have received recognition by the Australian Government and the State governments. As the Australian Government implements regional programs, these programs and the proposals are cleared through the regional organisations of the councils. That is, proposals are submitted for comment which will have equal status with the original proposals. In this way, the regional organisation of councils develops a perspective of its region’s development with regard to the Australian Government and a perspective assisted by establishing policy advisory committees which help the regional organisation to develop expertise and also link it firmly to its regional population. Finally, discussions take place with State governments about integrating their programs regionally and the joint use of the regional organisations of councils as the core of a comprehensive, multifunctional regional planning body receiving support from the Australian and State governments and incorporating into its planning activities existing programs such as the Australian Assistance Plan, community health centres, legal aid officers and child care programs. There are now 76 regions recognised for use by the Australian Government and every council- I emphasise that- of the 900-odd councils in Australia has agreed to join the regional organisation in its area. In the majority of cases the regions adopted are those already preferred for general State purposes or utilised for general State planning purposes. These regions will become common to all Australian Government regional programs wherever possible. For example, I mention regional councils under the Australian Assistance Plan, the area improvement programs, the community health program, employment and manpower planning and assistance to local government through the Grants Commission recommendations.

To assist in the administration cost of the regional organisations $2,000 will be made available to each of the 76 regional organisations and an additional $8,000 will be allocated on merit of application to 20 regional organisations. The previous speaker, the honourable member for Boothby, tried to ignore the complete support of local government for this Government’s efforts to assist local government. As recently as a few days ago the Australian Council of Local Government Associations met in conference at Alice Springs and carried the following resolution:

That the Australian Government be requested to introduce on a gradual developmental basis area improvement programs to cover all regions in Australia.

That 13 regions have been accepted for the area improvement program is to the credit of the personnel of the councils concerned, the Department of Urban and Regional Development and the Minister himself, bearing in mind the physical and financial and time limitations that they were facing in forming and assessing the priorities of regions in the short space of 22 months.

As I said earlier, one of the leaders in the development of the regional approach has been the Hunter region. It embraces the councils in the Hunter Valley. Certainly it could not be suggested that those councils are Labororientated. The councils in that area include the councils of Denman, Dungog, Gloucester, Great Lakes, Greater Cessnock, Lake Macquarie, Maitland, Merriwa, Murrundi. Muswellbrook, Newcastle, Patrick Plains, Port Stephens, Scone and Singleton. The plan of organisations and the appointment of committees by that Hunter region could well be followed by all of the other regions in the nation. Three specialist committees have been appointed. Those 3 committees examine the proposals that are brought forward by the constituent councils and make a recommendation to the executive committee. In addition, some of the regions- this is to the credit of the councils concerned- have seen fit to allocate a portion of their grant from the Grants Commission towards meeting the cost of the administration of the regions in their areas. Again this is evidence that local government has taken the initiative itself, that it wants to be involved and that it fully supports the efforts of this Australian Government.

As I said earlier, the Opposition is labouring in the past if it tries to continue the misrepresentation that there is conflict between the State governments and the Federal Government in relation to the Department of Urban and Regional Development programs. Area improvement programs have long been a plank of Australian Labor Party policy. We seek to provide money for projects of a regional significance to the councils of the regions concerned and to help overcome the deficiencies from which the constituent councils suffer. I know that we have the full support of local government in our endeavours in this legislation. I commend the Minister for what he has been able to achieve thus far and I commend the Bill to the House.

Mr HOLTEN:
Indi

-The Urban and Regional Development (Financial Assistance) Bill 1974 has 3 major purposes. Firstly, it allows the Minister for Urban and Regional Development (Mr Uren), in ‘consultation with the State Ministers, to approve programs of urban and regional development. Secondly, it provides that the Australian government may agree- I presume that it does not have to agree- with the State governments upon the financial assistance to be provided for expenditure by the State or an approved body in that State for approved programs. Thirdly, it provides that all agreements made with the States under this legislation be tabled in the Parliament. This Bill and its purposes have a particularly strong significance for the electorate I represent, namely Indi, as they relate to the provision of finance for the AlburyWodonga complex. The Wodonga section of the growth centre complex is in my electorate. Of course, the Albury- Wodonga area was expanding and progressing very soundly and quite quickly before it was decided to make it a growth centre.

In 1 97 1 the population of the designated area was 54,841 people and there were 16,000 dwellings. The 1974 count shows 59,570 people and 17,800 dwellings. So the population has increased by nearly 5,000 and the dwellings by 1,800 in those 3 years. The target for the area by the year 2000 is 300,000 people. This means that in 25 years about 241,000 more people will have to be provided for in the area and about an extra 60,000 to 75,000 dwellings will have to be provided. My calculations indicate that approximately 10,000 people will have to settle or be settled in the area each year and between 2,500 and 3,000 dwellings will have to be erected to house them.

The achievement of these targets presents a tremendous challenge to everyone concerned. It appears that the responsible authorities face a monumental task to complete the program successfully. When one looks at the wide variety of manpower, resources and materials that will be required it seems that an extraordinary effort will have to be successfully mounted. Consideration of some of the other basic requirements- that is, apart from people and dwellings- which need to be met as the growth centre develops illustrates the magnitude of the task in front of the governments concerned and the individual people involved. I shall briefly list a few of them. The project means we will have to build a town the size of Wangaratta every 2 years. Thousands and thousands of jobs will have to be provided, and at present of course unemployment, particularly in Albury, is at a very serious level. The growth rate of Canberra will have to be exceeded. As I mentioned, the new population will have to be attracted and obviously the people will have to have jobs. Then there are all the other associated facilities which will be needed, such as hospitals, schools- high schools, primary schools and preschools provision for the intellectually handicapped. I hope that the Albury-Wodonga Development Corporation will give every possible assistance to the Murray Valley Centre for Intellectually Handicapped Children which was recently granted a lease on what was Army land. The organisation has done a wonderful job and I am sure that the Development Corporation will give it every assistance. The area will also need health centres, shops, office accommodation, hotels, social planning counselling, recreation facilities, roads, an airport, houses and serviced land.

Another important matter that must be attended to is the removal of the railway line which crosses the Hume Highway and cuts Wodonga in half. Failure to re-locate that MelbourneSydney railway line has constituted a disgrace to all governments over the years. The Albury-Wodonga growth centre concept is a worth-while exercise in principle. The growth centre idea is not new to the world; it has been implemented in other countries with various degrees of success. However, it is relatively new to Australia. Therefore, Albury-Wodonga must be viewed as somewhat of an experiment as well as a much-needed attempt to slow down the growth of our capital cities and to increase the population of Australia in non-metropolitan areas- a factor that the Australian Country Party has supported and fought for over the years.

One of the unique and difficult problems for Albury-Wodonga, in my opinion, is that the development involves the Commonwealth Government and 2 State governments. The territory to be developed is in 2 States. There are differences in legislation and conditions between these States on vital matters. I shall not cover them all, but some of the vital ones are education, health, transport, law, food supply and hospital administration. It will certainly be most interesting to see how these problems can be overcome in practical terms as the development progresses.

I cannot entirely get rid of a feeling of concern that there is and will be too much government control and planning in the Albury-Wodonga growth centre. The major reason which leads me to develop this feeling of concern is the commitment to socialism which the Government has. Every member of the Australian Labor Party in this Parliament has pledged himself to support and to achieve the socialisation of the means of production, distribution and exchange- in other words government control of everything and everybody. People should know and remember that to the Labor machine which really controls the Parliamentary Party, government control means control by one government from one central place, and, if achievable, by one Party entrenched in government by electoral manipulation. To support this statement I quote what the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) said in the House in answer to a question on 20 November, last week. He said:

Of course I have signed the Australian Labor Party’s pledge whenever I have sought to be its candidate-

The pledge to which he referred is the one I mentioned, advocating and supporting socialisation. The Prime Minister elaborated, saying that he will support the achieving of Labor’s objectives by establishing or extending public enterprises where appropriate, by nationalisation, particularly in the fields of banking, consumer finance, insurance, marketing, housing, stevedoring, transport and in areas of anti-social private monopoly. That policy cannot be divorced from the development of the Albury-Wodonga growth centre.

On the subject of government control there are many expressions of worry regarding the future administration and administrative arrangements of the Albury-Wodonga growth centre. I quote the heading of the ‘Border Morning Mail’ of Friday, 8 November, which reads: ‘Hamer Rebukes Planners for “Solo” Stand’. This refers to the administration. I do not say that I support what Mr Hamer said; I merely use this as an example of the concern that is felt in AlburyWodonga about the administration and administrative arrangements. I stress that these comments are not made in criticism of the personality of the members of the administration so much as in criticism of the administrative machinery. I stress that any statements I make here or elsewhere in no way reflect or are intended to reflect on the persons who are working towards the development of Albury-Wodonga.

Naturally in any undertaking like the AlburyWodonga project there will be clashes of personality and differences of opinion, but it is the principles and the administrative set-up and the financial arrangements which must be examined continually and reviewed and revised if it is found necessary so to do. One major aspect that should be watched is the set-up and authority of the Albury-Wodonga Development Corporation and the method of decision-making as the program progresses. It has been suggested to me that a major weakness in the present set-up is that the same people are making policy, implementing policy and checking that the policies have been carried out. It may be found that it will be more practical to change the structure and responsibilities of the Albury-Wodonga Development Corporation as time goes on. All kinds of suggestions have been made. One particularly worthy of consideration is that a much larger and more representative board of management could be appointed. This board would meet regularly and receive reports from a small number of paid executive officers. The effect of this move would possibly be to give the general public and local government a more effective say in the complex. It is felt that the consultative council which exists at the moment is not quite doing the job that it was meant to do in the sense that it does not have enough bite, enough say, enough authority, enough influence in the- decisions that are being taken and implemented.

The claim has been made that most people favour the growth centre plan. A survey by the Albury-Wodonga Development Corporation published on 5 November in the Melbourne ‘Age’ indicated that 65 per cent of the people generally accepted the area as a growth centre. This article states:

The survey, carried out by the Albury-Wodonga Development Corporation, clashes with the result of a skilled survey conducted by fifth form students at Wodonga Technical School.

In the results of that survey. 64.2 per cent of the 820 district people interviewed were against accelerated growth in their areas.

Those 2 surveys were taken within a very short period of each other but different results were obtained.

This Bill provides for the allocation of a significant sum, $40m, this financial year to the Albury-Wodonga area. On the face of it, it would appear that the Commonwealth Government has been generous in its allocation. But the money is not in the form of a grant; it is loan money, future repayments of which are likely to be a heavy burden on the ratepayers. It is anticipated that most of the money will be used for land acquisition- about $30m has been mentioned speculatively for this purpose- and that the rest will be spent providing services to 600 building blocks and 200 acres of industrial land.

I have mentioned the conditions under which this money has been made available. There is to be a 5-year deferment in the payment of interest, but not a holiday from interest. There is great concern in this respect. I have here a newspaper article of substantial size from the ‘Border Morning Mail ‘ showing the concern of the Albury City Council on this matter. The Wodonga City Council also is extremely concerned about what will happen at the end of that 5-year period. Apparently the interest rates are cumulative. The bond rate of interest is the rate which is being charged. The interest accumulates half yearly for 5 years which makes the effective rate of interest after 5 years 161 per cent. In other words, for every $lm that is borrowed, $1,610,000 will need to be found to repay the loan. That loan has to be repaid in 25 years. The opinion is that that period is not long enough. By comparison, loans for water and sewerage purposes are repayable over 40 years.

Mr Uren:

– You are not talking about the $40m?

Mr HOLTEN:

-That is right. This is loan money.

Mr Uren:

– You are not talking about the terms of the $40m? If you are, you are way off the beam. You are only talking about a small pittance of approximately $lm. That is for sewerage backlog in certain parts of that area.

Mr HOLTEN:

-I have obtained the information from a most reliable source. I know that the Minister will be meeting a deputation from the Wodonga City Council at 3.30 this afternoon, if it is possible for him to get away. The Minister will recall that he has that appointment to talk about the moving of the municipal saleyards. The Minister will be able to discuss this matter at that meeting with the appropriate people. My information is that these people understand that the money is to be repaid in 25 years. They compare that with similar loans in England where the repayment period extends over 60 years. These people are concerned about the situation. That is the point that I am making. I am saying that there is concern in the Albury City Council and the Wodonga City Council. It is my job to bring these matters before the Parliament.

Several other matters are worrying the people in that area. One is the fact that the Prime Minister said in his policy speech in 1972 that telephone call charges in this area would be equalised with those charges in capital dues. We have not heard anything more about that undertaking except that the Government proposes no firm program. Another is that the land owners in the area are very worried about the implications and the effect of the capital gains tax proposed by the Government. They are anxiously waiting to see what the situation will be in that respect. That tax certainly will meet with a lot of resistance from the Country Party. Another matter relates to the municipal saleyards which I have just mentioned. The Minister has agreed to see a deputation this afternoon about that matter.

The Bill deserves support as its aim is to help develop areas in Australia outside our capital cities. I have mentioned areas of difficulty and concern. I have expressed some fears relating to the dangers of over-control by governments without sufficient consultation with local government. I have pointed out also the enormous amount of work and co-operation entailed in the success of the project. The Country Party has always supported actions- it will continue to do so- that will help decentralise development. As the member representing the Wodonga section of the Albury-Wodonga complex, I will use my best endeavours to ensure that this ambitious project succeeds.

Mr CLAYTON:
Isaacs

– I welcome this Bill most heartily and wish to give it my full support. It covers quite a wide range of issues and works by the State governments in cooperation with the Australian Government. That point does need to be emphasised. In spite of what Opposition speakers have said this afternoon, the work that is being carried out is being done by the States in co-operation with the Australian Government. It seems quite absurd to me to sit here and to listen to honourable members opposite criticising this Government for overcentralisation and having too much control over these projects. I wonder what would happen if we were to say to the States: ‘Here is a cheque for so many hundreds of thousands of dollars from the Department of Urban and Regional Development. Do what you like with it. We are not going to ask any questions. You need not tell us what you have done with it.’ I am sure that there quickly would be cries of rage about lack of responsibility on our part if we did not make sure that the States were answerable to us for the way in which they spent our money in the same way as Ministers are answerable to the Parliament for what they are doing.

I want to see this Bill passed quickly and the money made available to the States. There are 2 matters which I wish to mention. One concerns the Land Commission program. I welcome the money which is being made available to the Victorian Government for the acquisition of land on the Mornington Peninsula. The city of Melbourne relies most heavily on this area for its recreational activities at weekends throughout the year. People not only from Victoria but also from many other parts of Australia rely on this area for their recreational activities during the summer period. It is refreshing to note that the Australian Government is taking an interest in reserving these areas for the use of the Australian public.

The other matter is the national sewerage program. It is most regrettable that such a program is needed. It is regrettable that, in the past, the State governments have not been able for one reason or another to keep up with the provision of sewerage services to the community, particularly in the larger cities, and that previous Australian governments have not seen the assistance of the States in this work as part of their function. The Australian Government that came into office in 1972 has realised the need for a crash program of sewerage works to reduce the backlog in the provision of sewerage works in the major cities. At a later stage this program will doubtless be expanded to other rural centres.

Port Phillip Bay is pan of the recreational area to which I alluded earlier in reference to Mornington Peninsula. It is a necessary part of that recreational complex. It is a crying shame and a sad reflection on our society that that area of water which could be such an asset to the community is so polluted because of the lack of sewerage systems particularly in the eastern and south-eastern suburbs of Melbourne. The Parliament and the population should be aware that improvements in the quality of the water of Port Phillip Bay will be helped by the sewerage programs which will be able to proceed in the bayside suburbs because of assistance provided by the Australian Government. Not only work in these areas will help to improve the quality of water in Port Phillip Bay, but the work in a large proportion of the eastern and south-eastern suburbs will also assist because the whole of the Dandenong Valley Authority area drains into Port Phillip Bay. If pollution from septic tanks and drainage easements gets into various creeks in their upper reaches, this pollution is carried “down and compounded as other pollution gets into the creeks as they progress towards the Bay.

The Dandenong Valley Authority area contains suburbs as far away from the beaches of Port Phillip Bay as Ringwood and Berwick. It also includes suburbs such as Sandringham and parts of Moorabbin and Cranbourne. It is not only the immediate bayside suburbs of Chelsea, Mordialloc and Sandringham which affect the quality of waters in the Mordialloc Creek and Patterson River. In the last financial year, 1973-74, the Australian Government provided $4.8m for sewerage works in the cities of Chelsea, Moorabbin, Springvale and Dandenong. It is expected that a large proportion of the money being made available to the Melbourne and Metropolitan Board of Works this year will go into works in the areas which I have just mentionedthe areas which are drained by the Mordialloc Creek, the Patterson River and the Kananook Creek. Through this Bill we are also providing about $3m to the sewerage authorities on the fringe of the metropolitan area, such as the Dandenong Sewerage Authority.

I do not wish to expand any further on the effect that this sewerage program will have on the quality of life in the bayside suburbs, except to mention that I know one local government authority which will welcome the news of the provision of this money- the Mordialloc Council. It has underway at present a study for a program to upgrade the land abutting the Mordialloc Creek within its municipality. But this work will not achieve its aims of providing an attractive recreational reserve for the use of Melbourne residents if the waters of the creek on which the projected program is centred remain polluted. There is little that the Mordialloc Council itself can do about the actual pollution in the creek, because, as I have already indicated, most of the pollution comes from further upstream and it is far too late once the water gets into the city of Mordialloc’s jurisdiction for the Council to be able to do much about it. So for its program to go ahead meaningfully and for it to be effective in its final aim, this sewerage money needs to be spent. I do not wish to take up any more time of this House, except again to express my wholehearted support for this Bill.

Mr HODGES:
Petrie

– I am pleased to support this Bill and the contributions that have been made by the honourable members for Boothby (Mr McLeay) and Indi (Mr Holten). My association with the problems of local government has been a close one over the past 8 years. As this Bill basically deals with assistance through the States to local government, I support it wholeheartedly. But I have some reservations, as the previous speakers on the Opposition side have had, particularly with regard to the second reading speech of the Minister for Urban and Regional Development (Mr Uren), which states that the Minister may, in consultation with the State Ministers, approve of programs. It also stated that the Minister may agree with the State Government upon financial assistance being provided. As has been pointed out so ably by the honourable member for Boothby, there is a repetition of this word ‘co-operation’. One wonders when one hears so much about the use of the word ‘co-operation’ whether in actual fact the Minister is not really a wolf in sheep’s clothing. I think it also bears out the fact that the States of Australia are prepared to co-operate with this Government. It has been frequently stated in this chamber that various State governments have been unco-operative and obstructionist. But I think the point is well taken in this instance because it appears from all my investigations that the Minister has gone out of his way to cooperate with the various State governments.

The problems of local government are vast. There are many costly programs which local councils- approximately 900 of them throughout Australia- wish to carry out. As I said earlier, I welcome this Bill because a greater share of the Commonwealth taxation pool must go to local government. In many instances ratepayers in this country are really stretched to the limit. Of course representatives of local councils are not prepared to increase rates to be able to carry out the massive programs that we would all like to see carried out in order that people may enjoy the facilities that we in this country have come to accept. I believe the regional planning concept is extremely important and the Minister is to be commended for the regional concept that has been introduced by his Department. I point out that there are often vast differences between local authority areas in any region and between shires. The facilities which are available at one end of the shire often vary considerably when compared with those which are available elsewhere in that shire. But there are major advantages in regional planning which I believe should be retained without being the fourth tier of Government. It is important that we have co-operation between regions themselves and between shires and cities within those regions. There are advantages in. town planning and in planning our transport systems, the provision of transport corridors and water supply schemes. These can be done on a co-operative and regional basis or a part regional basis. Of course sewerage schemes also can be carried out with great savings to the various local authorities, particularly in relation to the provision of costly treatment plants.

I point out that this Government is not the only government with policies which concern urban and regional development. The Liberal and Country parties have developed policies which provide for an increase in the supply of services urban land and building materials and in the rate of housing construction. They have policies to aid regional growth centres, urban planning and renewal and policies for land tenure. I make that point because it would appear that the Labor Party is the only party with policies in this area. The Minister for Urban and Regional Development in his second reading speech stated that the States will introduce legislation to set up land commissions. In actual fact, I think that 2 of the States he mentioned have already done so. Other States are planning legislation to set up these commissions. I suggest to the Minister that he might inform the House whether, in his opinion, good quality serviced land will be provided at a reasonable price. The theory is attractive, but in practice one wonders whether it will work out satisfactorily. I ask the Minister whether he can give some examples of actual costs or estimates of costs in South Australia and Victoria. Perhaps we might be able to compare those figures with the general market value of land in those areas. I suggest that in the past governments have burned their fingers by intruding into areas where private enterprise normally operates.

I move on to growth centres. I notice that in the Cities Commission report 4 growth centres are planned in Western Australia, one in the Northern Territory, 3 in Queensland, one in South Australia, one in Tasmania, 3 in New South Wales and one in Victoria. Of course, as well there is the Albury-Wodonga area. We have seen the start of Albury-Wodonga, the Geelong scheme, Monarto in South Australia and the Holdsworthy-Campbelltown area in New South Wales. The Minister may give us some indication of when we may see some action in Western Australia, the Northern Territory, Queensland and Tasmania. I am fully aware that all these areas cannot be started at once. It would be impossible for any government to begin them now, I ask the Minister whether he could perhaps give us some indication as to when development of these other areas is expected to commence.

I also question the wisdom of providing growth centres in certain areas when we perhaps could be upgrading our existing cities before commencing these growth centres. Are we assured that we will have people and, of course, commerce and industry to support the people in these growth centres? I point particularly to that part of the second reading speech which deals with Queensland. I thank the Minister for the cooperation which has been forthcoming with the Queensland Government, particularly with the Co-ordinator-General’s Department. At the moment a study is being carried out in the Moreton region on a 50-50 basis with the Queensland CoordinatorGeneral ‘s Department. As I said earlier, we hear so much about non co-operation that I point out this matter to show that we do have a study under way in the Moreton region which surrounds Brisbane.

Next I move on to sewerage. I think it is a shock to Australians to realise that there are 1.5 million people in major cities in this country in accommodation without sewerage. I do not think I need to go into all the strong points which indicate the value of sewerage services to our com.munites. There are 2 major points. Firstly, there is the health of the nation and, secondly, the very important matter of pollution if sewerage is not treated. The standard of the effluent which we issue into our streams, bays and rivers is very important. I question whether the Minister can carry out a 10-year program. In this House this morning we heard him mention that at the moment it is estimated that it will cost $3, 800m to complete sewerage services to all urban areas. One questions whether this can be carried out in view of the fact that $ 147.65m is to be spent in the first 2 years of this 10-year program. The cost of $3,856m for the remaining 8 years will mean that approximately $480m will have to be provided yearly. I realise that not all of this amount will be provided by this Government, but the completion of the program depends upon whether the State governments and local authorities can afford to find the remainder of this large sum of money.

I welcome the 30 per cent non-repayable grant which is provided under this Bill. The remainder has to be repaid by local government over 40 years at the bond rate. I know that there was quite a deal of criticism by this Government of local authorities for not taking up sewerage loans which were available. I inform the Minister that in Queensland a shire in my electorate which had the offer of money took up some of that money. But at that stage before the 30 per cent nonrepayable grant was available that shire was forgoing a 40 per cent subsidy which the Queensland Government was providing. The Queensland Government provides a 40 per cent subsidy on all new sewerage schemes. So this morning I was pleased to hear the Minister announce that the shires of Pine Rivers and Caboolture were to receive some sewerage money including this 30 per cent non-repayable grant. I conclude by commending the Minister on the area improvement program. The selection of areas where funds are to be expended is extremely important. I assure the Minister that I will be watching- as will no doubt the Oppositionto see that no political patronage is extended in the selection of these areas.

Mr McKENZIE:
Diamond Valley · ALP

– The Urban and Regional Development (Financial Assistance) Bill continues the program which the Government has laid down in 2 Budgets, various statements and other Bills which have been presented to the House. This is an important development. Under this Bill a considerable amount of the money which is to be made available for sewerage will be in the form of a non-repayable grant. This is important because municipalities which control sewerage programs and sewerage authorities in the major capital cities need assistance to overcome the backlog which has built up over the years. Most of the matters contained in this legislation are interrelated. It is impossible not to relate sewerage to land development. In the past land has been subdivided without any thought for the community development which would ultimately surround it. Just after the war subdividers in Melbourne drew lines on maps and sold the land. There were no roads or sewerage. Often water and electricity were not available. We have certainly gone a long way since then.

I point out to the House that land development is becoming increasingly expensive as time goes on. Recently I had an opportunity of talking to people concerned with land development and they informed me that in some locations the development of each block of land costs about $8,000. As a community we will have to look very carefully at the way in which we develop areas of land for housing and for development generally. One of the things that I hope will result from the land commissions and the development of land for residential purposes is that people will be persuaded to give serious consideration to high density living. A quarter-acre block or a one-fifth acre block with a house on it has become the ideal of most people. I suggest to honourable members that this is not necessarily the best form of urban living and that it is possible, by the use of cluster housing, town houses and flats of various sorts, to make the best possible use of land and to make it much less expensive from the point of view of the development costs of both roads and service connections. It will also provide a much more pleasant type of living. Areas of open space in which children can play can often be built into such areas. I am pleased that this Bill follows the Government’s stated intention of making money available for land commissions because I think it is up to public authorities to set a lead in this field.

I am also pleased that money has been made available under the National Estate program. Australians are coming to realise that there are many valuable buildings and many open space areas of interest in this country that need to be preserved for the benefit of the people. It goes without saying that it is impossible for any governmernt to buy everything that the comm.munity would like to preserve. For instance, in my own city of Melbourne it is not possible to buy all the land that the community would like to see acquired along the Yarra River valley. The only way to approach such matters is to provide money for open space areas for active and passive recreation and, at the same time, introduce legislation to enable the preservation of those areas. This must be primarily the responsibility of the various States.

I am pleased that in many States legislation is being introduced to preserve buildings of value and to enable land to be preserved in its natural, undeveloped state. Unless there is this sort of control we will find that our river valleys, forests and other places which should be preserved in the national interest will be swallowed up by people who wish to make some money out of them. There is nothing wrong with making money out of land development but I think that, as a community, we have to make sure that it is done in the right way. The sum of $5,748,000 is to be provided in this legislation under the

National Estate program. Although it is not possible to make as much money available as many of us would like, this is a considerable increase on the expenditure last year. In my own electorate Schramm’s cottage was preserved by a grant last year. I am sure that the people of the Doncaster and surrounding areas will make very good use of this link with the past.

The stated intention of the legislation is to make our cities more pleasant places in which to live. As a community we are coming to realise much more that we can design cities which are pleasant. Albury-Wodonga is important- as are Monarto and other places- because it leads the way. I hope to see many more cities developed in the future. If Albury-Wodonga is a success- it gives every indication that it will be, and the cooperation of the New South Wales and Victorian Governments with the Australian Government leads one to believe that this is so- in the future we will see many more cities both on the State borders and within the various States. The money that has been made available to growth centres is also very important. We must make sure that we do not become a country of huge metropolitan areas, that we provide the necessary facilities in country areas to make life pleasant there, and that we provide the necessary health and education facilities in areas such as Geelong, Wangaratta and many other places in the various States. This can be done if we plan it properly. By so doing we will prevent metropolitan areas growing beyond the ability of town planners and various other authorities to organise proper living within them. Already Melbourne is probably too big in many ways. The sprawl has continued beyond what many of us would like to see. But the natural growth will carry it even further, although the estimate of 5 million people in the city of Melbourne has now been revised. I hope that we will be able to be kept under 4 million.

We also need to look at the possibility of developing new designs for cities that take account of the fact that we live in a much more mobile society and that people like to be able to travel from one place to another. The way in which we design cities is very important. Many things could be said about land development, urban development generally and the matters which are provided for in this Bill, but if we keep in mind the fact that this Bill is designed not only to provide money but also to assist co-operation between the States and the Australian Governmentthis is a very necessary priority in a modern society- then I believe we will be moving along much further with what we wish to do.

Mr RUDDOCK:
Parramatta

-I am very gratified to be able to participate in this very important debate. It is important because all the members of this Parliament approach it with a very high degree of sincerity. Nobody can live in a community and not be concerned about the people who live around him and the needs and aspirations of that community. I was pleased that the honourable member for Diamond Valley (Mr McKenzie) had approached with an open mind those people who were concerned about the cost of land and the cost of developing land. I too was concerned at these costs and the difficulties that young people in my own electorate and throughout Sydney experience in buying land. Nobody doubts the sincerity of the honourable member for Diamond Valley in looking for a solution. Nobody doubts the sincerity of the Minister. However, one can doubt the methods they seek to adopt to achieve desirable objectives. Earlier in the debate it was pointed out that everybody is aware of the need to make our federal system work. The Minister certainly went to great lengths and, in fact, one would wonder if he was ever a centralist when one reads the paragraphs contained in his speech.

Mr Uren:

– But I am not a centralist.

Mr RUDDOCK:

– A progressive federalist- a delightful phrase. Additionally, the Minister speaks of co-operative federalism. Every member in this House ought to want to make federalism work. I doubt that that is the intention of the Government. Notwithstanding the willingness of the Minister to accept from the Opposition a proposed amendment which, I believe, was necessary because the particular provision imposed onerous conditions upon States and local government authorities, I do not accept that federalism is being made to work effectively when one looks at the scheme of things. I refer to the honourable member for Diamond Valley because he saw the method by which the cost of land to young people could be lowered as the creation of another government organisation- a further administrative expense. He mentioned that the most important aspect of the increased cost of land was, in most instances, the cost of development.

I point out to honourable members the cost to this community of the duplication that is occurring with the Department of Urban and Regional Development on the one hand and, on the other hand, with other departments which work in this area. I went to the trouble of going through Appropriation Bill (No. 1)- I am not going to speak to that Bill- and the figures are very telling. The cost of administration- that is in terms of salaries and expenses and in terms of the Cities Commission which also operates in this area- to the Australian community is some $8,058,000. There are other service departments that are supposed to operate on a co-operative federalist basis and on behalf of which the Department of Urban and Regional Development previously made grants. They include the Department of the Environment and Conservation whose administrative costs alone amount to $2,730,000. Similarly, the Department of Tourism and Recreation operates in this area. It is supposedly a co-operative federalist department. Its cost of administration is $1,521,000. The cost of administration for the Council for the Arts, which is under the Prime Minister’s Department, is $2m. That is a sum total of $ 14m that could be available to fulfil urgent needs if we did not have to have another set of departments sitting on top of States and local governments and telling them how the job has to be done.

But that is not the only cost. There is also the cost of local government and State governments having to supply information. I was in Parramatta the other day when 3 Commonwealth cars drove past me, one after the other, each containing six officers, or perhaps only four, sitting in comfort, who were leaving the local city council chambers. It would not surprise me if they were from the Department of Urban and Regional Development soliciting additional information to enable the Department to fulfil its functions. Local government officers, the mayor, the aldermen and the town clerk, have to make their time and the time of their officers available to deal with these matters, whereas if they simply received a grant they would be able to make the decisions themselves. If they have to be consulted on a matter why not let them make the decisions? These, then, are cost aspects, but not all of them. As I pointed out in the Estimates debate, there are the costs now being imposed on the community of so-called education- $450,000 to tell the Australian people that another department, superimposed upon all the State instrumentalities, is in fact spending their money in a proper way, and what a great and wonderful job it is doing. I cannot accept such expenditure. This is extravagance, and extravagance that we do not need and cannot afford.

The problem we have, and it gets down to the method adopted to deal with these problems, is that at the moment notwithstanding all these grants, local government and State governments with limited access to funds cannot do the jobs that they are now required to do. Councils are required to put up rates to enable them to carry out the obligations they have had in the past and which supposedly they are now going to be aided in meeting. Most of them have found it very difficult to raise loan moneys as a result of the credit squeeze. Some councils are having to consider putting off employees. The Metropolitan Water, Sewerage and Drainage Board is having to consider putting off employees because it cannot raise the money in the money markets in Australia that it was previously able to raise to meet its obligations. When we start robbing Peter to pay Paul, which is what the Government is doing, this ought to be pointed out to the Australian community. All these grants that are being provided are not even making up for the deficiency that exists when the councils and the Water Board cannot raise the money to carry out their projects. In his second reading speech the Minister acknowledges that State governments and local government authorities have expertise in these areas. He pointed out that State Ministers have made significant contributions in the application of programs. He went further and said:

We are not imposing a grand design on the States.

If the objective of the Department is not to impose a grand design for some overall scheme of things, what is its objective? I put it that that statement was incorrect so far as the Minister is concerned although it ought to be correct so far as I am concerned and, I believe, so far as members of the Opposition are concerned, because we believe that the State Ministers and the local government authorities have expertise and should be allowed to make decisions without the cost of somebody looking over their shoulders all the time. 1 wanted to deal with the statements of the Minister that dealt with the need to decentralise. The statements were admirable but where the Minister fails when he says ‘Firstly, we will work together with the States to change the growth patterns of Australian cities’, and then goes on to cover the urgent needs for decentralisation, is that he does not advance a real program to encourage people to make moves. While he speaks glibly about the cost of the land, the more he attempts to reduce the cost of land in Sydney and in outer metropolitan areas the more likely it is that his program for decentralisation is going to fail. Until he advances a program which is going to include job incentives and certainty of employment for people working in decentralised areas- a program for overcoming communication difficulties to make it easy for people to be able to communicate with the families they leave behind in major cities such as Melbourne or Sydneyand until he makes up in those decentralised centres for recreational disadvantges, people will not be ready or willing to make a move, notwithstanding the substantial cost they may incur by wanting to continue to live in Sydney and Melbourne. Although a program is set out later in the Minister’s speech, and mention is made of the expenditures in New South Wales and in each of the other States, there is nothing to indicate that the Minister has such a policy or program to overcome the difficulties I have just mentioned.

I want to deal with one other matter on which I had the opportunity to have private discussions with the Minister after I had made certain allegations that the grants to the western suburbs made under the area improvement scheme had been reduced. I received a note from the Minister the other day which indicated that the western region of Sydney was now to receive only $2m. Of course, honourable members will recall that the western suburbs received in excess of $5m in the last financial year under the area improvement program. Great play has been made by this Government of the way in which it has met the needs of the western suburbs. The Minister attempted to tell me when I saw him privately on this matter- I hope that I am not breaching any privilege; on this occasion I think that I am not erring- that the grant of $5m included grants for tourism and recreation and grants for the Council for the Arts. He claimed that there would not be a cut in the program in the western suburbs this year.

I have taken the trouble to go through the grants that were made last year in respect of the western suburbs. Although I could find mention of community centres and so on, I could not see any mention of grants related to the Council for the Arts. The only project which related to tourism and recreation was $25,000 for a few scenic roads in Colo. It seems patently obvious to me that cuts have been made in the grants for the western suburbs, that insufficient funds are being made available and that urgent needs are being curtailed so that other programs in other areas can be accommodated. I hope that the Minister will acknowledge that the program in the western suburbs has had to suffer so that other needs can be met.

Finally, I would like to say a few brief words on sewerage. The Minister referred to sewerage in his speech. He indicated that the Government’s intention was to provide all new homes with sewerage by the end of 1982. The Minister is clearly breaching Labor Party policy in 2 respects. The Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) in his original policy statement said that all homes and all premises would be sewered by 1978. This date has been extended by 4 years. The provision of sewerage has also been limited to new homes. The Minister will well know that under section 34(b) of the New South Wales Metropolitan Water Sewerage and Drainage Board Act developers are required to make a contribution for sewerage reticulation and amplification. In other words, all new land and new homes in Sydney have to be sewered anyway. Therefore the glib promise that these homes will be provided with sewerage by 1982 is quite unrealistic. I would like the Minister to be able to reiterate that the Government will attempt to meet its initial undertakings. Of course, most of us recognise that the undertakings were quite specious, they could not be met and they were quite unrealistic and not thought out.

Mr Duthie:

– You will be lucky to get anything after this speech.

Mr RUDDOCK:

– I will certainly make sure that what the honourable member has just said is known around the Parramatta area. Putting that aside, I would like the Minister to reiterate that the Government will try to meet its original commitment because that commitment was related to urgent and needy circumstances. The Minister is just back peddling. I believe that the statements we have heard from the Minister are not worthy of him. As I said earlier in the debate I acknowledge his sincerity and his willingness to try to solve the problems, but I am not prepared to accept any longer the salesmanship that goes with this.

Mr UREN:
Minister for Urban and Regional Development · Reid · ALP

– in reply- This umbrella Bill is an historic piece of legislation because it brings together programs in the field of urban and regional development. I have said on many occasions that activities in the field of urban and regional development are interconnected.. Like environmental aspects, everything is connected to everything else. People have been living in isolation for too long. For instance, even Federal departments do not always correlate with each other, just as the States do not coordinate with local government and even the private sector. The new, young crusaders, if one wants to put it that way, the young men who came into my Department to work with and to advise me want to change the life style of the cities. This is the relationship we have, and of course their objective is a great concept in itself. Our policies will help to make this concept a reality. We are trying to work in a co-operative spirit. It is my view that in the long term the only way in which one can solve problems is for local government, the States and the Australian Government to work together.

I challenge the honourable member for Boothby (Mr McLeay), the Opposition spokesman on urban and regional development, to cite any specific instance in which I, as the Australian Government representative, have ridden roughshod over any State Minister. I am sure that he will find that we have worked in a co-operative spirit. We did not think that the terms and conditions relating to last year’s sewerage program were good enough. At that time I said that I would go back and try and get the States a better deal. The terms decided on last year provided for money to be made available at the long term Commonwealth bond rate to be repayable over 40 years. These were the best financial terms ever given. This year there are better financial conditions. This year we have been able to achieve an arrangement whereby 30 per cent of the money is made available by way of interest free non-repayable grants and the remaining 70 per cent is made available at the long term Commonwealth bond rate. That is just an example of what we have done. We will strive to arrange better financial agreements in other fields.

I accept the attitude that the only way problems can be solved is in a co-ordinated manner. Problems will not just be solved by passing over cheques. The States have made too many mistakes in the past, as has the Federal Government. We want to sit down and plan and work together with the States. If people- whether they be at local government or State government levelreject that I believe that they should start looking at their own attitudes and stop criticising those of the Australian Government.

The honourable member for Parramatta (Mr Ruddock) said that I am a centralist. I am not a centralist. It would be wrong to say that I do not want to extend the powers of the Australian Parliament. I support the extension of powers to the Australian Parliament in such matters as the petroleum submerged lands legislation and the environment which are so important nationally and internationally and which are interconnected in the world in which we live. So on those broad bases I support the extension of powers to this Parliament. I am proud to be a socialist. As far as I am concerned I am committed to a policy of power to the people. I want to give power back to the people. I do not want to centralise power here in Canberra. It is only when one meets people at the grass roots that one really gets some understanding. Although the honourable member for Parramatta seems to show little understanding, I point out that the area improvement program is part and parcel of the attitude which I have just expressed because we seek from the people what they want. All the area improvement programs that we have brought forward have stemmed from the people at the grass roots level.

The honourable member for Boothby (Mr McLeay) who is the spokesman for the Opposition on this matter said that I had been tough with the States; that I had put a hard hand down and that there was no real spirit of co-operation between the Federal and State governments. I want to intimate that in the short term that the Federal Government has been working with the State governments many agreements have been worked out. Such agreements can only be worked out by co-operation. We have an agreement with the States on financial assistance for national sewerage works. Every State has agreed to work on the basis of that agreement. I might say that in respect of sewerage we inherited an awful mess from the previous Government. We inherited a situation in the city of Perth in which half of the city was unsewered. This is in the 1970s. Every one in six people living in Sydney and Melbourne were living in unsewered homes when we came to office. The real cost- on present day costs- of catching up with the sewerage backlog is about $3,800m. It will take approximately 10 years to wipe out that backlog. The real reason relates to the pressures on resourcesmen and materials.

The Federal Government has agreements with the States on financial assistance for the national estate. What was happening to our national estate before we came to office? It was being destroyed by the bulldozer mentality of the former Government. But a new government, with new thoughts, is doing something about it. We are working with the State governments in a spirit of co-operation. Further, we have an agreement with the New South Wales and Victorian governments on the development of AlburyWodonga. This will be the first major growth centre in Australia’s history. We have an agreement with South Australia on the development of Monarto. We have an agreement with the Victorian Government on the establishment of an urban land council. We have an agreement with South Australia on the establishment of a State lands commission. We have an agreement with New South Wales and Victoria on area improvement programs. We have an agreement with Victoria on Emerald Hill. What would have happened to Emerald Hill had we not been the

Government? Because of the positive action taken by an Australian Government which said: ‘Let us work in co-operation with the State Government of Victoria and the South Melbourne City Council to save Emerald Hill’, Emerald Hill was saved. There is now a rehabilitation of that old townscape which is well over 100 years old.

We have an agreement with the Victorian Government on the south-eastern sector of Melbourne. What does the south-eastern sector of Melbourne mean? It means the Mornington Peninsula which was being raped by the developers; it means the Dandenongs which, again, were being raped. Again, we indicated that we would work with the Victorian Government to preserve these areas. We have an agreement, in principle, with the Victorian Government to develop a new growth area in Geelong. We have a joint steering committee for the redevelopment of Woolloomooloo. These agreements are just the beginning of the actions taken by this Government. The only way we can achieve such programs is by a spirit of co-operation.

I should like briefly to answer the points raised by the honourable member for Indi (Mr Holten) in relation to financial arrangements. The honourable member for Indi complained that the Government should do something about the debt situation in Albury-Wodonga. The backlog of the municipal services in that city was basically the responsibility of the State governments of Victoria and New South Wales. They allowed them to get into a deplorable state. One can certainly pass the buck from those State governments back to the previous Federal Government because during the 23 years in which the Opposition was in government the internal debt- the servicing debt- of this nation remained approximately the same. The debt of the States increased about sevenfold; the debt of local government increased 2,000 per cent; and the debts of semi-government authorities increased 2,800 per cent. Of course, Albury-Wodonga is a part of that local government debt structure. This Government has tried to prepare AlburyWodonga as a growth centre by making moneys available.

The honourable member for Indi said that the Government is making loan money and not grant money available. In the first year we made available $800,000 to the Wodonga Shire and a little more than $lm to the Albury Shire. Onethird of the money made available was grant money- interest free and non-repayable- and two-thirds was loan money on a long-term bond rate repayable over 30 years. In relation to the money made available for land acquisition in the development area the financial terms arranged were that repayments of principal would be deferred for 10 years and then would be paid during the last 20 years of the loan. In relation to the acquisition of land some of the money made available will be grant moneys on the basis of $2 from the Australian Government for $1 from the State governments.

It has been agreed that we should finish this debate at a certain time. I do not want to keep the . House much longer. There has been, generally, acceptance of this Bill by honourable members. The spokesman for the Opposition on this matter indicated in his second reading speech that the Opposition intended to move an amendment to this Bill in the Senate. If that amendment were made in the Senate the Bill would have to be returned to this House before we had the authority to pay this money to the States. The States are waiting for the money. If the honourable member for Boothby wishes to move an amendment during the Committee stage of the debate in a spirit of co-operation I will accept it.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.

In Committee

Clauses 1 to 6- by leave- taken together, and agreed to.

Clause 7 (Supply of information).

Mr UREN:
Minister for Urban and Regional Development · Reid · ALP

– I have intimated that I will accept the deletion of this clause from the Bill. I have indicated to the Opposition that in the agreements with the States similar terms will be in the agreement. I accept the deletion of this clause.

Mr McLEAY:
Boothby

– I should like to speak briefly to this particular clause. I thank the Minister for Urban and Regional Development (Mr Uren) for this example of friendly cooperation. It was our intention, as the Minister said, to move in another place that certain words be added to this clause which would ensure that the interests and the feelings of State governments would be protected in the interests of sweet reasonableness. To facilitate the passage of this Bill the Minister has said that the Government will agree to delete this clause altogether. The only way in which that can be done, of course, is for the Opposition and the Government to vote against the clause. We propose to do that. I do not think there will be any further need to discuss any other clauses of the Bill.

Clause negatived.

Remainder of Bill- by leave- taken as a whole, and agreed to.

Bill reported with an amendment; report- by leave- adopted.

Third Reading

Bill (on motion by Mr Uren)- by leave- read a third time.

page 4158

NURSING HOMES ASSISTANCE BILL 1974

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

Second Reading

Mr HAYDEN:
Minister for Social Security · Oxley · ALP

– I move:

The Bill before the House will give effect to the undertaking, announced by the Treasurer (Mr Crean) in his Budget Speech of 17 September 1974, by authorising the Government to enter into agreements with charitable and other nonprofit organisations conducting nursing homes. Under such agreements the Australian Government will meet the financial deficits incurred by these organisations in operating the homes. The provisions contained in the Bill further indicate this Government’s concern for those in the community, particularly the aged, who are in need of specialised care and treatment.

A few weeks ago when announcing the second substantial increase, within the space of 3 months, in the levels of nursing home benefits payable under the National Health Act, I reiterated the Government’s undertaking to introduce a system of deficit financing to meet the losses incurred by nursing homes operated by charitable or benevolent organisations as an alternative to the existing nursing home benefit arrangements. The establishment of a deficit financing system is the core of the Nursing Homes Assistance Bill 1974.

Charitable and benevolent organisations participate with vigour and dedication in the task of caring for the sick and the aged and indeed the care provided by these organisations has become an essential part of our overall system of health care. Their motivation stems from concern for their fellow man particularly the least affluent members of our society. This concern has resulted in many of the nursing homes incurring a deficit as a result of their operations notwithstanding the frequent generous increases in nursing home benefit rates. This has meant that the organisations have had to direct funds to meeting the deficit which otherwise may have been used to expand their accommodation facilities and the services they offer. The Government feels that by providing a means of meeting the losses incurred they will be encouraged to improve and expand the traditionally high standard of patient care that they provide. Not only will this encouragement be directed to religious and charitable organisations as such but it is hoped that local government authorities will be encouraged to provide nursing home accommodation on a local community level.

A further important ingredient of the proposal is that the Australian Government will meet the deficits incurred by eligible organisations, including of course local government authorities, not only in providing inpatient care in the nursing home, but also approved services when sought by the proprietor of the home for visiting patients. It is proposed that these services will include nursing, physiotherapy and occupational therapy for visiting patients- for example, those persons residing in an aged persons complex or in a particular local government area. The provision of these additional services will represent yet another step by the Government towards the establishment of complete and integrated services for the people of Australia. These arrangements will enable the aged to be kept in the community as long as possible with the knowledge that the nursing and associated services they need will be available. I would also mention that the extended services under the deficit financing arrangements will include the cost of transportation of patients to the clinics providing these services.

Before I outline the more important provisions of the Bill I wish to emphasise to honourable members 2 points. First the proposed system of deficit financing was developed in close consultation with representatives of the associations in each State representing organisations operating these nursing homes and these representatives are in agreement with the concept and the system of deficit financing to which the Bill gives effect. Second, participation in the deficit financing arrangements will be entirely at the option of an organisation. An eligible organisation, as defined in the Bill, will be completely free to take stock of its situation and decide whether or not it will enter into the deficit financing agreement with the Australian Government covering all the nursing homes it operates or for any particular nursing home. If it decides there would be no advantage for a particular nursing home it is free to remain outside the deficit financing arrangements and continue to receive the Australian Government nursing home benefits provided under the National Health Act.

Clause 12 of the Bill is a key provision. It provides for the Minister for Social Security to approve a common form of agreement. An organisation wishing to participate in the deficit financing arrangements will enter into the common form of agreement with the Australian Government in respect of each nursing home to which it wishes the new arrangements to apply. The Bill provides that the common form of agreement will be approved by the Minister only after consultation with the associations representing eligible organisations. For example, in New South Wales the Association will be the Voluntary Geriatric Association. Similarly, where the common form of agreement is varied, the associations will be consulted prior to variation of the agreement. It is proposed that the associations to which I have just referred will be prescribed in the regulations to the Bill.

For the information of honourable members, I would like to briefly outline the more important provisions to be included in an agreement. First, the proprietor of a nursing home will submit a budget which will be examined for reasonableness having regard to the costs of operating other nursing homes participating in the deficit financing arrangements and the nursing homes own past costs. The budget may be reviewed and updated during the year to provide for unforseen cost increases. Second, under the arrangements the Australian Government will make advances to the nursing home to meet the deficit as it is being incurred. This will relieve the cash flow problems confronting a number of these nursing homes at the present time. Third, when the actual deficit has been determined at the end of a financial year, the final settlement will be made by the Government.

The amount a patient will be expected to pay for nursing home care has been given particular attention in the Bill. At the present time a patient is expected to meet the fee charged by a nursing home proprietor and these fees rise with increases in costs involving the patient in increased liability. This can result in the patient experiencing financial hardship or in the home having to waive a portion of the fee. This weakness will be overcome under the new deficit financing arrangements and the Bill provides for specific fees to be charged patients in the home. Most patients will contribute $32 a week. This will ensure that a pensioner receiving the standard rate single pension and supplementary assistance will be left with $4 a week for personal spending. This will be varied by regulation having regard to changes in the rate of pension. However, there is a provision for waiver or reduction of this contribution should a patient have an entitlement to free nursing home treatment under the repatriation system or if, because of particular circumstances the patient would not be able to meet a fee of $32 a week, the fee may be reduced.

In relation to workers compensation and third party cases, pending introduction of the national compensation program, the Government considers that where a person is entitled to receive compensation towards the cost of his care under the law of the State or Territory, it is reasonable that the home should be able to recover from the insurer at least part of the cost that it would otherwise have to meet. For this reason provision has been made for a higher fee to be charged in compensation cases. This fee will be prescribed by regulation but it is visualised that it will be equal to the amount that would usually be charged a patient in a nursing home which was not participating in the deficit financing arrangements.

It has been appreciated that an organisation will need to give full consideration to all the factors involved before entering into a deficit financing agreement. Clause IS enables any organisation which enters into an agreement at any time prior to 30 April 1975 to elect to have the agreement take effect from any time on or after 1 January 1975. Should there be any dispute over the amounts detailed in the budget submitted by the proprietor or the final deficit settlement which will be met by the Australian Government, the Bill provides for a nursing home proprietor to seek a review by the Minister. A Nursing Homes Advisory Committee will be established in each State to examine and report on these matters and in giving his decision the Minister shall consider the report of the Committee. The Committee shall comprise 3 members appointed by the Minister. I have in mind that the membership will consist of a representative of the State association representing eligible organisations, a representative of either the Australian Society of Accountants or the Institute of Chartered Accountants in Australia and an officer from the Department of Social Security.

The Bill also contains machinery provisions similar to those in the National Health Act for approval of nursing homes under the new legislation. In commending this Bill to honourable members I wish to emphasise that since coming to office the Government has not only increased the pension rates by $11 a week but has also increased nursing home benefits on 2 occasions so that in the current year it will be paying 67 per cent more by way of benefits than in 1972-73. It has also improved the flow of nursing home benefits to nursing homes to improve their liquidity position, and it has doubled the amount met under the Aged Persons Homes Act for the construction or acquisition of nursing homes from $2 for $1 to $4 for $1. The proposals contained in this Bill are a further indication of the Government’s concern for the welfare of nursing home patients. I commend the Bill to the House.

Debate (on motion by Mr Chipp) adjourned.

page 4160

NATIONAL HEALTH BILL (No. 2) 1974

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

Second Reading

Mr HAYDEN:
Minister for Social Security · Oxley · ALP

– I move:

The Bill before the House contains provisions relating to a number of the Government’s activities regarding health insurance and benefits authorised by the National Health Act. Following the election of this Government to office at the end of 1972, we embarked on a diversified legislative program directed to various aspects of our health insurance initiatives. They were twopronged. Our main effort, of course, was directed to the Government’s own health insurance program- culminating with the passing of the Health Insurance Act and the Health Insurance Commission Act. This main effort was supplemented by investigations as to the manner in which the legislation authorising the present voluntary health insurance arrangements could be improved.

Proposals directed to improvements to the legislation authorising the present health insurance arrangements were placed before the Government recently. We were then faced with a decision as to whether they should be proceeded with, in view of the imminence of our own health insurance program, scheduled for introduction on 1 July 1975. On balance it was decided that we should proceed with proposals to improve the legislative controls directed to the present voluntary insurance arrangements so that the improvements to the legislation could apply for the remainder of the life of those arrangements.

The existing private health insurance scheme authorised by the National Health Act, in fact, is a system supported by extremely generous direct and indirect subsidy from the Australian Government and State governments. The health benefit organisations could not have grown to their present significance nor could they continue to operate, except for the very generous support that comes from Government sources, directly and indirectly. For instance, on average over 60 per cent of the cost of medical services covered by medical insurance is met by direct subsidy from the Australian Government through the health insurance scheme and by indirect subsidy from the same source through tax concessions, which of course are a cost borne by the Government. In the case of private ward treatment in a public hospital, for instance in New South Wales, the fee charged to the patient is currently $39 per day. However, the average bed-day cost of a public hospital bed in that State is estimated to be at least $60 a day. Clearly there is an explicit direct subsidy here and similarly from Australian Government sources there is a $2 bed-day subsidy paid directly to insured patients, special account subsidies which average approximately $4.50 a day over all patients, plus an indirect subsidy available through the taxation system when hospital fund contributions and net fees are claimed as a concessional deduction.

The overall effect is that governments, that is Australian and State governments, are meeting in excess of 60 per cent of the average private ward treatment of a patient in a public hospital in New South Wales. Therefore it is clearly in the interests of the people of Australia that the system of a private health insurance scheme should be properly supervised by the Australian Government and it is the clear responsibility of the Government to exercise this supervision. The most important provisions in the Bill, are designed to enable the responsible Minister to exercise more effectively this supervision of the operations of the health benefits organisations registered under the National Health Act in a way that will enable the Government of the day to achieve its objectives

The present Government recognises, as have previous governments, the need for additional measures in this regard. There was established the Committee of Inquiry into Health Insurance, the Nimmo Committee, which presented its report during 1 969 and the Senate also set up its own committee to inquire into medical and hospital costs. At that time a matter of major concern was the financial policies followed by some of the health benefits organisations.

Another matter of concern was that hospital and medical benefits should be more closely related to the fees being charged for hospital and medical services. Following consideration of the report of the Committee of Inquiry into Health Insurance, amendments to the National Health Act were introduced by the previous Government aimed at rectifying some of the unsatisfactory aspects of the health insurance scheme including the two I have already mentioned.

The previous Government also announced that it would sponsor additional measures of the nature of those included in this Bill. The then Minister for Health, the Honourable A. J. Forbes, in his address to the House dated 4 March 1970, made the following statement:

In addition to the new measures which 1 have just mentioned, the Government is considering the introduction of legislation providing for penalties to be imposed on funds’ officers for serious neglect of their responsibilities, and enabling the replacement of funds’ officers by appointed managers in certain circumstances, as proposed in the Nimmo Committee ‘s recommendation 37.

Recommendation 37 of the Nimmo Committee to which Dr Forbes referred reads as follows:

That organisations and their officers be subject to penalties for any failures to comply with the conditions imposed by and under the National Health Act.

The relevant paragraphs of the Nimmo Committee Report are 14.15 to 14.18 and I would refer all honourable members to those findings of the Nimmo Committee. It was recognised by the previous Government, and it has caused concern to me, that where an organisation does not comply with the Act, or actions taken under the Act, ultimately the only course of action available is to cancel the registration of the organisation. This is a most unsatisfactory punitive measure as the penalty falls on the contributor who is deprived of Australian Government benefits. Furthermore, deregistration would effectively end any control the Australian Government could exercise over reserves. This could, in certain circumstances, be a most unhappy situation for contributors whose money has, in fact, been accumulated in reserves if, for instance, a deregistered fund no longer required to administer its affairs responsibly in the interest of contributors at the direction of the Australian Government, could direct that reserve money into some other commitment which bore no benefit for contributors and over which they had no influence or in which they held no equity. It should be borne in mind, however, that deregistration is the least preferred option. The trouble at the moment is that there are no other options and in an extreme case of a private fund flouting the reasonable directions of Government, nothing but this extremely punitive and unsatisfactory measure is really available to Government, if it wishes to ensure that funds properly discharge their responsibilities to contributors.

Following careful consideration of this situation, the Government has framed provisions similar to those in the Insurance Act to protect the interests of contributors which are compatible with the intentions of the previous Government as made clear in the statement by the then Minister for Health. This Government also believes these to be proper measures which should be included in Federal legislation relating to aspects of private insurance to ensure that the administration of such insurance arrangements can be adequately supervised in the interests of contributors.

The Bill includes provisions to enable the Minister, where he believes it to be in the contributor’s interests, to request an organisation to show cause why it should not be investigated in relation to specified matters. Where the organisation fails to satisfy the Minister, and he believes it to be in the contributor’s interests, he may appoint an inspector to conduct an investigation into specified matters relating to the affairs of the organisation. The Bill further provides that after he has considered the report of the inspector, the Minister may take such action consistent with the Act as he considers appropriate. This may include making an application to the Australian Industrial Court for the appointment by the Court of a judicial manager to manage the affairs of the fund or for the fund to be wound-up by the Court.

Provision is included in the Bill to require a judicial manager, appointed by the Court, to conduct the affairs of the fund with the greatest economy consistent with efficiency and to report to the Court, as soon as possible, as to the course of action to be taken in relation to the fund. This could include recommendations to return the fund to its former management, to transfer all or part of its affairs to another organisation with the consent of the other organisation, or that the fund be wound-up. The Bill provides for funds to be wound-up under the supervision of the Court upon an application and in accordance with a scheme submitted by the Minister, the judicial manager or the organisation conducting the fund. All schemes for winding-up are to be subject to confirmation by the Court which may vary the schemes. The Court is required where practicable to effect the transfer of contributors to a fund to be wound-up to a fund conducted by another registered organisation. As I stated earlier, the arrangements I have outlined are along the lines of arrangements provided for in the Insurance Act and I believe all honourable members will welcome their enactment as a positive step forward in the protection of the interests of contributors to health benefits funds.

The Bill also contains provisions to provide greater flexibility as to the manner in which reserves of medical and hospital funds may be utilised. There has been some controversy recently regarding the reserves of funds and it will be to the general advantage of both the funds and the Government if the rigidity at present contained in the Act regarding the reserves is removed. The rigidity arises mainly from sections 67 and 68 of the present Act which provide that the reserves must remain in the fund which has accumulated them and cannot be used for any other purpose, not even to support some other fund of the organisation that is also registered under the National Health Act. To quote an actual example, the reserves of the hospital fund of a leading organisation in Victoria stand at the equivalent of 6.4 months contribution income, whereas the reserves of the medical fund of the same organisation stand at a deficit equivalent to 2.4 months contribution income. Surely it would be a sensible approach to follow if the excess reserves in the hospital fund could be transferred to remove the deficit balance in the medical fund. The Bill provides therefore that an organisation will be permitted to apply to the Minister for the transfer of reserves from one registered fund to another registered fund. It also provides that the Minister may direct the transfer of reserves in this way where the Registration Committee- the expert Committee established under the National Health Act- so recommends.

There is an allied provision that concerns the special accounts operated within medical and hospital funds by registered organisations. These special accounts, which are authorised by Part VI Division 2 of the National Health Act, ensure that contributors continue to receive medical and hospital fund benefits which otherwise they would be denied by the pre-existing, chronic or maximum benefit rules of the organisation restricting the payment of fund benefits. The Government has been very concerned at the tremendous rate of escalation of the cost of these special accounts. For medical and hospital funds combined, Government expenditure on them has risen from $22m in 1970-71 to $55m in 1973-74. The estimated expenditure on special accounts in the current financial year is $77m and this must be revised upwards due to substantial increases in hospital charges. This escalation in Government spending arising from underwriting the activities of health benefits funds through the special account mechanism has occurred at the time when there were extremely large reserves accumulated by the funds. It has now reached the stage where overall 20 per cent of hospital fund benefits are met by the Government through the special account and, to quote an example, Government expenditure is now almost one-third of the expenditure of one of the major funds on hospital fund benefits.

The special accounts machinery provides a hidden subsidy to medical and hospital benefits funds and the structure of the legislation is such that the system can be manipulated to the advantage of organisations. Of course, most organisations do use the special account machinery in a . responsible fashion. But I am concerned that not all approach it in this way. For example, the fund benefits paid from the special accounts for the medical and hospital funds operated by the Medical Benefits Fund of Australia in Queensland increased from $672,000 in the period July 1971 to September 1971 to $1,664,000 in the period April 1974 to June 1974. Further, the number of contributors transferred to the medical and hospital special accounts of that organisation increased from 277 and 2 1 8 respectively in the period July 1971 to September 1 97 1 to 930 and 790 respectively during the period April 1 974 to June 1 974.

It must be realised that the special account system was designed by the previous LiberalCountry Party Government to prop up the health benefits funds. The transfer of contributors by an organisation to a special account it operates is entirely at the option of the organisation in accordance with its rules relating to contributors with pre-existing ailments, who exceed a maximum benefits level or who, in the case of the hospital special account, are chronically ill. The existing legislative provisions are loosely framed to permit the organisation to take advantage of the subsidy provided through the special account arrangements to a much greater extent that this Government believes is proper. There is not even power in the Act for the responsible Minister to withdraw the special account subsidies from an organisation. What should be borne in mind in the discussion in this area is that the money being provided to prop up private health insurance funds through the special account is not money which belongs to the Government, the funds or contributors; it is money which belongs to taxpayers of Australia. That should be always a discipline exercising our mind where we are allocating this sort of money.

Mr Chipp:

– All money.

Mr HAYDEN:

– Indeed. The fairly wide margin of interpretation permitted organisations is particularly reflected in the statistics to which I have just referred for the Medical Benefits Funds, Queensland. These figures indicate that this organisation, since 1971, has availed itself more and more of the special account subsidies.

This Bill does not propose any revolutionary change to the special account machinery but it does provide that, where it is proper for him to do so, and when he has received a recommendation of the Registration Committee that the moneys standing to the credit of a fund may properly be reduced, the Minister may direct that a portion of any excessive reserves held in a medical or hospital fund may be used to finance, in part, medical and hospital benefits for the long term and chronically ill members of the fund. The specific provision is contained in new section 74c and visualises portion of any excessive reserves being credited to the organisation’s special account for the purpose of providing benefits to high drawing members who, as I have just mentioned, are usually the long term and chronically ill. In any one year in which the Minister makes a direction under this new section, the amount to be transferred is limited to 25 per cent of the amount of the special account deficit of the fund in the last completed financial year.

There are provisions in the Bill for direction of the Minister given under new section 74C to be subject of review. It is intended that the reviews should be conducted by the general administrative appeals tribunal, legislation for which is being prepared by the Attorney-General (Senator Murphy). However, if it is necessary for a review to be conducted in the interim period before the appeals tribunal is established the Bill provides for an independent tribunal to be established specifically for the purpose of reviewing directions by the Minister. I have in mind that the tribunal which may be established by this Bill will comprise 3 members. One will represent the interests of health benefit organisations, another the interests of contributors to the organisations and that the third member would be a qualified accountant.

The Bill before the House also includes provisions relating to 4 matters associated with the administration and payment of nursing home benefits. The proposed new definition of ‘Government nursing home’ in sub-clause 3 (i) and other clauses provides for public nursing homes in the Australian Territories to be exempted from nursing home admission and fees supervision under the National Health Act as are public nursing homes in the States at present. Clause 1 5 provides for a specific power to vary by regulation the rates of additional Australian Government nursing home benefits for pensioners with pensioner medical service entitlement and their dependants and the rates of nursing home fund benefits for insured patients.

Clauses 16 and 25 include provisions amending sections 57b and 73c of the National Health Act to provide for an increase in the nursing home patient contribution from $2.55 a day to $4.55 a day. Sections 57b and 73c are machinery provisions which are invoked only where the approved fee for a nursing home patient is less than the aggregate of the nursing home benefits payable and the patient contribution. In this situation, the invoking of these provisions means that nursing home benefits are reduced with the effect that patients in all nursing homes pay the same patient contribution. This contribution will be $4.55 a day or $3 1 .85 a week and is fixed so as to leave a patient in receipt of the standard rate single pension plus supplementary allowance with approximately $4 a week for personal spending.

Clause 42 provides for the incorporation of the rates of additional nursing home benefit, as currently prescribed by regulation, into the eighth Schedule of the National Health Act with effect from 15 October 1974. There are also a number of provisions in the Bill to effect machinery amendments to the National Health Act to delete provisions relating to the payment of handicapped children’s benefits, to clarify the provisions regarding directions by the Minister under section 73b and to enable provisions in the National Health Act relating to the supervision of registered organisations to override State laws where the statutes are inconsistent.

I now turn to the 2 matters provided for in the Bill which fall within the portfolio of my colleague, the Minister for Health (Dr Everingham). As announced in the Treasurer’s Budget Speech, stoma appliances and home dialysis equipment and supplies will be made available free of charge to those who need them. This is yet further evidence of the Government’s determination to provide a high quality health care service and of its acceptance of its special responsibility to assist those members of the community who are sick or disabled. The Bill will allow for the preservation of the existing hearing aid scheme provided for under the repealed section 9a. It also empowers the Minister for Health to arrange for the provision of such medical or surgical aids, appliances and equipment as are prescribed in regulations under the Act on such conditions as the Minister thinks fit. It also provides for the making of modifications to a building, vehicle or equipment necessary for the treatment or rehabilitation of the sick or disabled. It is intended, once the necessary regulations have been made, to distribute stoma appliances free of charge through hospitals and stoma associations and home dialysis equipment through hospital dialysis-transplantation centres. The Government is at present considering extending the range of aids, appliances and equipment to be made available and the Bill, as drafted, will permit the extension of the scheme from time to time as the needs of disabled groups in the community are assessed.

The second matter provided for in the Bill which comes within my colleague’s portfolio relates to pharmaceutical benefits dispensed through friendly societies’ dispensaries. The National Health Act now restricts in some respects the services that can be given to the general public by some dispensaries run by friendly societies. At present the number of friendly society dispensaries with full approval to dispense benefits to the public has been taken up in both Queensland and South Australia and there are currently 7 dispensaries in Queensland and 5 dispensaries in South Australia which have only a limited approval to dispense benefits to members of the society, their wives and dependent children under the age of 1 6 years.

The Bill provides that the number of dispensaries with full approvals in Queensland and South Australia be raised to permit dispensaries with limited approval in those States as at 1 November 1974 to be granted full approval. This amendment will have the effect of improving the pharmaceutical service in those States without increasing the number of pharmacies. The Bill further provides that full-time student dependants of members, up to the maximum age provided for in the rules of the friendly societies concerned, be afforded the same benefits as parent members and children under the age of 1 6 years. I commend the Bill to the House.

Mr Chipp:

– May I have your indulgence, Mr Deputy Speaker, to ask the Minister whether he expects the Parliament to pass this Bill next week.

Mr HAYDEN:

– I am rather hopeful that it will.

Debate (on motion by Mr Chipp) adjourned.

page 4165

HOMELESS PERSONS ASSISTANCE BILL 1974

Bill presented by Mr Hayden and read a first time.

Second Reading

Mr HAYDEN:
Minister for Social Security · Oxley · ALP

– I move:

Honourable members will be well aware of the emphasis placed by the present Australian Government on all aspects of social welfare, especially those involving the more socially disadvantaged people in our society. Accordingly, on 26 February 1973, I established a working party to examine and report on the problems of homeless men and women in Australia. At their first meeting I reminded members of the working party that the problems of homelessness permeated many age groups and areas of the Australian community. I remarked that millions are spent on the enforcement of archaic laws against these casualties of society. But very little government money has been spent on providing facilities for rest, nutrition, treatment, counselling and rehabilitation which would ease the burden on the law enforcement agencies and provide a reasonable standard of support for the homeless. When I released the report of the working party on 17 July 1973, I sought public comment on the recommendations which had been made. I was pleased by the enthusiastic response to this report.

The Government’s decision to adopt the major recommendations of the working party was first announced by the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) in his election policy speech on 29 April 1974. On that occasion he said that the Government had decided to introduce a program to help meet the material needs and raise the dignity of homeless men and women. He went on to indicate that capital grants would be made available over a 3-year period to organisations for projects such as night shelters, hostels, flats, day centres and specialised clinics and centres for homeless people. Furthermore, the Prime Minister stated:

This is a program devised in response to a much neglected need: It will be of benefit to the young as well as the old. It will be of benefit to any person in immediate need: To the permanently homeless, to the deserted or disturbed woman and her children, to the Aboriginal or teenager in want or distress, to the battered woman or the battered child, to the single parent- in short, to anyone without support or an income.

In delivering the Government’s welfare policy speech on 1 May 1 974, 1 gave further details of the policy the Government had endorsed. I said then that this was an area of need to which the social conscience of the Government was being directed. I outlined the basic aim of the program as being to assist, by the provision of funds, counselling and resource expertise, organisations undertaking special programs on behalf of homeless people. I described the homeless men and women we would assist as being in poverty in the sense of having few independent resources and lacking a conventional home with most of the social or economic supports a home normally provides.

The purpose of this Bill is to assist eligible organisations engaged in providing temporary accommodation and personal services for homeless men and women and, in one-parent family situations, their children. It proposes a program of assistance for people who find themselves without what is accepted in Australia as a normal home, through social factors such as alcoholism, inadequacy, domestic conflict or similar reasons. It is not proposed to provide emergency housing for people experiencing financial or similar problems in finding suitable housing. Nor is it proposed by this Bill to intrude into the fields of child care which traditionally have been the responsibility of the States.

The Bill offers eligible organisations an appor.tunity to receive financial assistance to improve and upgrade existing hostels, day attendance centres and detoxification clinics, or to replace them or to establish new facilities. This particular form of assistance will be available for 3 years. These grants may be made to meet the cost of purchasing a building for use as a homeless persons assistance centre or purchasing land and having a centre built. Alternatively, the grant may be made to cover the cost of rent of premises used as a centre. Grants will also be available to improve premises, whether owned or rented, to upgrade the services offered to homeless persons. The purchase of fixtures, furniture, furnishings and equipment used in the operation of a homeless persons assistance centre may also qualify for a grant under these provisions of the Bill. Grants may be up to 100 per cent of the cost of the project. Provision has been made for expenditure of up to $ 1.45m for the remainder of the year 1974-75. These provisions should result in a significant improvement in the standard of accommodation in homeless persons centres.

To protect the Government funds which may be granted for these projects, participating organisations may be required to enter into agreements. These agreements would provide that, in the event of the closing of the centre, the Australian Government’s contribution, based on the proportion of the subsidy paid to the cost of the project, would be recovered. This is similar to provisions in other legislation administered by the Department of Social Security and corresponds with an equivalent provision in the Handicapped Persons Assistance Bill 1974. There will also be subsidies towards other expenses, generally those of a recurrent nature. The 3-year time period mentioned previously in relation to subsidies of a capital nature will not apply to these subsidies for operating expenses.

The Bill offers a subsidy of up to 50 per cent of the salary of a suitably qualified or experienced social welfare worker employed at a homeless persons centre. The term ‘social welfare worker’ includes a social worker, welfare officer, psychologist, occupational therapist or other person providing a service or treatment for homeless people. In special circumstances this subsidy may be paid for more than one staff member at a centre. Provision has been made for expenditure of up to $250,000 for these purposes for the remainder of the year 1974-75. Funds were allocated in Appropriation Act No. 2 for making capital grants and paying salary subsidies. Further amounts will be sought by appropriation as required.

The Bill provides for further subsidies for organisations providing food or accommodation or food only for homeless people, the amounts payable to be fixed by regulation. In accordance with the recommendations of the working party’s report, it is proposed that eligible organisations offering food and accommodation may qualify for a subsidy of up to 75c a day per person accommodated. Similarly, it is proposed that centres providing food only may qualify for a subsidy of up to 20c per meal served or meal ticket issued. The rates of these subsidies will be reviewed from time to time in the light of experience and as part of the on-going evaluation of the program. The funds for these subsidies will be provided from the National Welfare Fund and provision has been made for expenditure of up to $550,000 for the remainder of the year 1974-75. As I have just indicated the whole program of assistance will be subject to a thorough and continuous review. The scope, value and standards of the services provided will be monitored and an assessment of the total program will be made prior to the expiration of the first 3 years of its operation.

Earlier announcements regarding the Government ‘s intention to introduce this worthwhile program, an initiative in a completely new field as far as the Australian Government is concerned, mentioned that statutory authorities would be able to participate. We are mindful of the fact that the main burden in this area has hitherto been carried by voluntary organisations, and their experience and dedication has been long and well established. In view of the interest which the voluntary sector has displayed since the Government’s intentions were made known, and the constraints imposed upon us by the finance available, it seems desirable that in the first instance priority in relation to eligibility for assistance be extended to the voluntary sector. Assistance for voluntary bodies will enable them not only to continue their existing work in this area but also to extend and further develop their activities including innovative projects. Many of the agencies have been anxious to initiate new approaches but have been hamstrung because of financial limitations.

Accordingly, resources available under the program will, in the first instance, be concentrated on voluntary organisations and local governing bodies. As the scheme develops, and as its operations are assessed and evaluated, its scope may be widened in the light of experience to extend eligibility also to State departments and authorities. Many of the men and women who will benefit from the improved services for the homeless are now receiving income security benefits at rates and under conditions which, in accordance with the Government’s enlightened and progressive policy, have been liberalised dramatically since the end of 1972. They could, therefore, be expected to contribute towards the cost of these services. Eligible organisations receiving grants and subsidies will be able to make an appropriate charge for services provided to the homeless.

Through this program, the Government hopes to achieve a steady improvement in the services available to homeless people. We hope that the improved facilities for temporary accommodation and for rest, nutrition, counselling and treatment, will allow many of the homeless to be given the choice and opportunity of returning to what might be regarded as a normal life. The Government’s belief in social justice, which has been demonstrated by massive inputs to our social welfare program, opens up the possibility of programs such as this leading to a diminution of the problem through the rehabilitation of this group of the socially disadvantaged. As a personal observation I say that one must not encourage too much optimism here. This is an area where rescue operations can be carried out successfully but at the same time we must recognise that some of the problems are deepseated and will undoubtedly prove intractable.

Mr Chipp:

– Seemingly intractable.

Mr HAYDEN:

-No. Unfortunately, some of them are intractable. But we have a human obligation in this matter to do as much as we can to assist these people who are often unfortunate casualties of our social system.

This Bill is designed to provide both a reasonable standard of support and increased opportunities for homeless people, enabling them to obtain a place of dignity in the fabric of Australian society. The Bill provides for the establishment of advisory committees to help develop a co-ordinated program of assistance. It is my intention to establish these committees as quickly as possible, ensuring that all involved in the welfare of the homeless participate in the work of the committees.This then is the substance of the Bill. It is, in brief, an expression of this Government’s social conscience and its commitment to assist, in a tangible and practical way, people who have become casualties within our competitive society.

The measures proposed within the Bill are based on a compassionate understanding of the needs and very real problems of homeless men and women and of their alienation, their loneliness and their despair. Many of the pleas directed at the Australian Government are loud and demanding about the needs and rights of particular groups within our society. But there are also voices which have for too long been crying in a wilderness of governmental neglect and social insensitivity- a wilderness in which the assertive voices of those with electoral or economic muscle have drowned out or diverted attention from the needs of groups of people who are not so articulate or who do not have ready access to government. Our Government is determined to end such areas of neglect. This Bill is one expression of that determination. I commend the Bill to the House.

Debate (on motion by Mr Chipp) adjourned.

page 4167

HEALTH INSURANCE LEVY ASSESSMENT BILL 1974 (No. 2)

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

Second Reading

Mr CREAN:
Treasurer · Melbourne Ports · ALP

– I move:

This Bill, and 2 others that I shall shortly introduce, came before this House earlier in the year. The Senate rejected the Bills but we have decided to seek their passage again. If passed, the Bills will impose a health insurance levy of 1.35 per cent of the taxable incomes, as determined for income tax purposes, of people residing in Australia. The Bills complement other measures designed to implement the Government’s universal health insurance scheme. Other basic features of the scheme are, of course, contained in legislation that has been before the Parliament on previous occasions. The levy proposed in the present Bills was discussed in the White Paper on the health insurance program published in November 1973, which was preceded by the report of the Health Insurance Planning Committee. Introduction of the levy is timed to coincide with the coming into operation of the main health insurance legislation. At this stage we would hope to have that legislation effective as from 1 July 1975. However, in the event of some unforseen administrative complexities which may require a slightly later introductory date, the Bills provide for the levy to be payable on taxable income of the 1975-76 income year, but also make provision for the annual rate to be reduced should the scheme not become operative until a little later during that year. In that event, it is intended that the rate applied to 1975-76 taxable incomes will be a proportionate part of the annual rate of 1.35 per cent, determined on a time basis.

The levy of 1.35 per cent of taxable income will not apply to all taxpayers. At the upper end of the income scale, and on the assumption that the levy will apply for the whole of 1975-76, the maximum amount of levy payable by anyone will be $ 1 50. If the commencement date for the levy were not 1 July 1975 but, say, 1 October 1975, then the maximum amount payable for that year would be $1 12.50- three-quarters of the sum. For low-income taxpayers there are provisions to the effect that a person whose taxable income is less than the minimum subject to income tax- now $1,041- is not liable for the levy. There are also relieving provisions in respect of people maintaining dependants. These will apply to anyone who is entitled for a particular year of income to concessional deductions for maintenance of dependants of an amount of $100 or more. In these cases the levy will not be payable where a person’s taxable income is not more than an amount related to the level of the minimum wage and calculated by application of the formula devised by the Planning Committee and explained in its report at pages 44 to 46. If the levy were to be imposed for 1974-75, the threshold for its imposition would in these cases be $2,575 and the legislation specifies this amount as the level below which the levy will not be payable by people with dependants. Provision is also made, however, for the amount to be increased above $2,575 in the light of changes in wage levels that occur before 1 July 1975.

Another relieving provision related to income levels of particular classes of people concerns aged people. An aged person exempt from income tax by reason of the special transitional tax rebate will also be exempt from health levy. The actual levy-free point for 1975-76 will depend on the amount of the age rebate allowed for income tax purposes in that year. The general principle is, however, that whatever the level of the income tax rebate in 1 975-76, an aged person who is exempt from income tax on account of it will also be exempt from health levy. Provision is also being made to give relief from the levy to certain classes of repatriation beneficiaries. The broad principle is that a repatriation beneficiary who is entitled under repatriation arrangements to full medical treatment for himself for all medical conditions, whether or not war-caused, but who has no dependants, will be completely free from payment of levy. If the beneficiary is entitled to full cover for himself, but has a wife or children, he will be entitled to relief from onehalf of the levy that would otherwise be payable. The question as to whether a case for relief may be made for other classes of people in situations broadly corresponding with those of repatriation beneficiaries is being examined. We are considering to what extent, if any, relief ought to go beyond the ranks of repatriation beneficiaries, and the legislation contains a provision authorising the making of regulations to confer such relief as it may be found appropriate to give. In this context we are giving special attention to pensioners who have an entitlement to free medical attention under the pensioner medical scheme and members of the armed forces.

A fundamental objective of the legislation is to integrate collection of the levy with the collection of income tax. This has distinct administrative advantages which I am sure I need not labour. Suffice it to say that it is the most economical and sensible course to follow. It does, however, require a number of provisions of a technical kind. Much of what is in the Bills is concerned with these technicalities and explanations of the various provisions are contained in the explanatory memorandum I have arranged for honourable members to receive. I should mention, however, that while the levy will be administered and collected under the income tax system and PA YE deductions from salaries and wages will be increased in 1975-76 to take account of it, provisions in the legislation require a separate identification of the amount of a taxpayer’s liability that represents health insurance levy. Thus, for example, the amount payable as the levy will be shown separately on pay-slips, group certificates and taxation notices of assessment.

The various provisions of the Bill, including the technical parts that provide for levy to be payable on certain income derived by trustees and for people living in the external territories to be exempt, are, as I have already indicated, explained in a memorandum that is being made available to honourable members. In these circumstances, I think I need say no more at this stage about particular features of the Bills. I commend this Bill, the Health Insurance Levy Assessment Bill, to the House.

Debate (on motion by Mr Lloyd) adjourned.

page 4168

HEALTH INSURANCE LEVY BILL 1974

(No. 2)

Bill presented by Mr Crean and read a first time.

Second Reading

Mr CREAN:
Treasurer · Melbourne Ports · ALP

– I move:

In introducing the Health Insurance Levy Assessment Bill 1974 1 outlined basic features of the proposed health insurance levy. These are contained partly, in that Bill and partly in this Bill-The Health Insurance Levy Bill 1974. This Bill provides the rate of the levy- basically 1.35 per cent of taxable income. It also contains rules for fixing the maximum amount of levy payable and the income points below which some groups of people will not be called on to pay any amount of levy. Explanations of each clause of the Bill are contained in the explanatory memorandum and I commend the Bill to the House.

Debate (on motion by Mr Lloyd) adjourned.

page 4168

INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENTS) BILL 1974 (No. 3)

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

Second Reading

Mr CREAN:
Treasurer · Melbourne Ports · ALP

-Imove:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

In speaking to the Health Insurance Levy Assessment BUI 1974 1 mentioned that the levy is to be imposed on people residing in Australia and that its collection is to be integrated with the collection of income tax. Australia’s double taxation agreements provide, among other things, that Australians who receive income from overseas that is included in their taxable income are to be entitled to a credit for foreign tax on the income. This Bill will ensure that the arrangements for relief of double taxation apply to both income tax and health insurance levy. I commend the Bill to the House.

Debate (on motion by Mr Lloyd) adjourned.

page 4169

STATES GRANTS (DWELLINGS FOR PENSIONERS) BILL 1974

Bill presented by Mr Les Johnson, and read a first time.

Second Reading

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

– I move:

The purpose of this Bill is to implement the Government’s decision, as announced in the Budget Speech, to renew the scheme of assistance to the States for housing pensioners and to widen eligibility for accommodation provided with this assistance. Under the States Grants (Dwellings for Aged Pensioners) Act 1969 which expired on 30 June 1974, non-repayable interest-free grants aggregating $25m were made available to the States at the rate of $5m a year over the period from 1 July 1969 to 30 June 1974 for the provision of self-contained accommodation for single aged pensioners in receipt of supplementary assistance. Building schemes were approved to provide a total of 3,325 units of accommodation of which 3,012 had been completed by 30 June 1974. The new scheme will operate for the period of 3 years from 1 July 1974 to 30 June 1977. A 3-year period has been set because my Department has arranged with the Australian Bureau of Statistics for a survey of the housing situation of aged persons, the results of which should be available in the second half of 1975. Depending on the results of this survey, there may be a need to vary the conditions of the scheme and the suggested period of 3 years is designed to allow us to introduce whatever changes are necessary without undue delay.

The Bill widens the eligibility conditions to include, in addition to the single age pensioners elegible under the previous scheme, the following classes of single pensioners without dependants who are eligible for supplementary assistance: Invalid pensioners, service pensioners who are permanently unemployable or suffering from tuberculosis, and Class B widow pensioners. A Class B widow pension is payable to a widow at least 50 years of age without a child or to a widow at least 45 years of age whose Class A pension has stopped because she no longer has a dependant child. The Bill provides for annual interest-free non-repayable grants to the States of $ 1 0m, making a total of $30m over the 3-year period. This compares with annual grants of $5m under the previous scheme. The grants will be apportioned among the States in proportion to the numbers of single pensioners in receipt of supplementary assistance in each State. The annual amount payable to each State will be: New South Wales, $4,070,000; Victoria, $2,530,000; Queensland, $1,490,000; South Australia, $930,000; Western Australia, $700,000 and Tasmania, $280,000, making a total of $ 10m.

The previous scheme did not specify the rents that should be charged for the accommodation provided and, in some States, weekly rents lower than the amount of supplementary assistance are being charged in some instances. As supplementary assistance is paid for the purpose of helping pensioners to meet their rents, the Bill provides that the rent payable for a unit shall not be less than the amount of supplementary assistance. I commend the Bill to honourable members.

Debate (on motion by Mr Lloyd) adjourned.

page 4169

KING ISLAND SHIPPING SERVICE AGREEMENT BILL 1974

Bill presented by Mr Charles Jones, and read a first time.

Second Reading

Mr CHARLES JONES:
Minister for Transport · Newcastle · ALP

– I move:

The purpose of this Bill is to make available to the Tasmanian State Government a loan of up to $ 1 .4 1 5m. The objective of the legislation is to enable Tasmania to maintain a shipping service to King Island by financing the purchase of the vessel M. V.’Straitsman’.

For some years King Island was serviced by a small 200 dwt vessel ‘King Islander’ owned and operated by R. H. Houfe and Co. Pty Ltd. The service received a Commonwealth subsidy. This subsidy ceased when the company introduced a new larger vessel, the ‘Straitsman’ of 1,036 dwt which operated between Melbourne, King Island and Stanley. The service commenced on 1 May 1 972 but ceased after only 7 weeks because of the company’s acute liquidity problems.

Shortly after taking office we commenced negotiations with the Tasmanian Government. In the course of these discussions the Tasmanians indicated they wished to assume direct responsibility for the operation of the service. In the interests of maintaining this service the Australian Government agreed that a loan would be provided for the purchase of a vessel. The Tasmanian Government, as honourable members will be aware, purchased the ‘Straitsman’ which re-entered the service in September 1973. It was agreed that the earlier undertaking to make a loan available would apply to this vessel.

The Bill before the House gives effect to the agreement contained in the Schedule and thus honours the Government’s undertaking. The agreement provides that a loan be made to Tasmania that shall not exceed in the aggregate $1,415,000. The loan is to be repaid over 15 years. The rate of interest charge on the loan will be the long term bond rate at the time the loan is made.

Honourable members will of course be aware that the ‘Straitsman’ was operating in the King Island service when the tragic accident occurred in March 1973. The Tasmanian Government was immediately advised that approval would be granted for the temporary importation of a vessel should an Australian vessel be unavailable to continue the service. Interim arrangements were made to provide the King Island area with a shipping service whilst an appropriate vessel was sought overseas by the Tasmanian Government. I have recently approved the temporary importation by the Tasmanian Transport Commission of the vessel ‘Rah’ which is due to enter service early in December. The ‘Straitsman’ is presently in Launceston undergoing repairs. These are expected to continue well into 1975.

The Australian Government is concerned that adequate transport links to outlying communities should be maintained. This loan to the Tasmanian Government recognises the needs of the people of King Island. For this reason I commend the Bill to the House.

Debate (on motion by Mr Lloyd) adjourned.

page 4170

STRUCTURAL ADJUSTMENT (LOAN GUARANTEES) BILL 1974

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

Second Reading

Mr ENDERBY:
Minister for Manufacturing Industry · Canberra · ALP

– I move:

This Bill seeks Parliament’s approval for the first legislative expression of the Government’s intention, announced by the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) on 23 April this year, to provide structural adjustment assistance to assist changes in Australian industry. Virtually all features of the Government’s program for structural adjustment assistance are already in operation, including the recently announced measures in relation to non-metropolitan areas which have particular difficulties in adjusting to structural change. There is a need to give the whole program a more defined and permanent form through legislation to establish the Structural Adjustment Board. This will take same time to prepare, but there is, in the meantime, a particular requirement for legislative authority within which loan guarantees may be provided as part of the program. It is for that reason that this Bill is being introduced.

To help progress towards the community’s social and economic goals, the Government sees it as desirable in appropriate cases to promote and make easier the process of structural change in industry. There can be particular times when growth, and even strong growth, of the more viable sectors of industry may not be enough to offset weaknesses that develop in other sectors. . There are undoubtedly rigidities in the structure of industry which it takes time to overcome. The change from existing investments and existing employment patterns to others which would be more productive must be a gradual process. At the same time, there are very great gains to be made from shifting industrial activity at a manageable pace from areas and forms which involve high costs to the community to others where industry needs less support or can stand on its own feet. Greater net value accrues to the community in this way.

The costs of inadequate ability to make these changes can be very high. Estimates have been made- and I stress that the precise figures are very much a matter of debate- which suggest that the total cost of support of Australian industry in its present form may run into hundreds of millions of dollars each year. The encouragement of structural adjustments which will reduce this cost has been one of the central aims of this Government. Over a period, if movement into more viable industries and particular sectors of industries can be encouraged, or indeed even if their growth can be fostered while investment in other less attractive sectors is not encouraged, steady and worthwhile progress can be made towards a more soundly based industrial structure.

It must be remembered that we are not talking about wholesale or overnight changes to industry structure. The larger part of the assistance I have mentioned goes to relatively few industry sectors, and within those areas there is a wide variation in the degree of dependence on that support by particular activities and particular firms. Indeed, in most cases, structural adjustment can be left to occur naturally as a continuing process of adaptation by individual firms.

However, where the Government judges it necessary to facilitate a structural change arising from a decision in the broad national interest, but beyond the normal adaptive capacity of the economy, there is another reason for providing assistance to changes of this sort, and one that is particularly important to this Government. Such a structural change is clearly likely to involve some degree of upset to the lives of particular people and the business operations of particular companies. The industrial structure that we have is partly a product of past policies- perhaps not always policies that have been in the best interests of the community, but nevertheless policies to which business and in turn employment have simply responded as being the policies of the government of the day. In the circumstances I have described the Government recognises that it is for the community generally, through the Australian Government, to bear the burden that these changes involve, and not for those particular businesses and employees which may be more seriously affected.

I have given this background to the Bill to show the general basis for the Government’s structural adjustment programs. Those programs provide for assistance in a number of ways. The Government has made generous arrangements to assist individual employees who may suffer as a result of these changes. It has also provided for assistance in a number of ways to businesses which are affected; through arrangements which the Department of Manufacturing Industry is already operating pending the establishment of the Structural Adjustment Board. Firms which have to cease operation or close a substantial part of their operations, in circumstances where the Government has decided the structural change involved should be assisted, can receive substantial compensation for the loss on realisation of their assets. This compensation can assist the firm, if it chooses, to start a new business with better long-term prospects. Firms can also obtain grants for consultancy studies to provide them with advice on restructuring of their activities.

There is, however, an understandable reluctance on the part of many firms- and also of employees- to leave areas of activity with which they are familiar, even if those activities may be costly to the community or may not be contributing fully to national welfare. Encouragement may be needed to induce these firms to reorient their activities in more productive directions. If their choice of a new activity is wisely made, there is no reason why, in a country with Australia’s undoubted potential for growth, they should not enjoy a prosperous future. If this can be done the community generally will benefit. Loan guarantees can be particularly effective in encouraging firms to adopt such a course, since they assist firms to finance the initial cost of a significant transformation of their activities.

Both the firm and the lender will have, of course, a strong interest in ensuring that the restructured operation will in fact be sufficiently productive to meet the costs of its establishment and to show adequate profits. The loan guarantee essentially primes the pump- to start the process of restructuring which, once it is established, can be self-sustaining. The objective of the legislation providing for loan guarantee for structural adjustment proposals is set out in clause 4 of the Bill, and is consistent with the objective of the structural adjustment program generally.

Since decisions on the provision of structural adjustment assistance will need to take account of the circumstances of particular cases, the Bill provides in clause 5 for the prescription of particular adjustment situations by regulation under the Bill. There is also provision in clauses 5 and 14 for details concerning particular decisions, including the class of firms to receive assistance and the period for which assistance will be available, to be determined by regulation.

Clause 6 authorises the provision of loan guarantees, and is subject to clause 7 which sets out the broad criteria under which a firm may receive a loan guarantee. These criteria are broadly as follows: That the firm has been or is being adversely affected by a prescribed adjustment situation to such an extent as to render a significant and distinct part of its assets incapable of economic use; that the firm itself has taken all reasonable steps to adjust to the situation; and that the loan monies are to be used in a way consistent with the intention of the Government in taking the decision which gave rise to the need for the particular structural change. Clause 7 also provides, in effect, that a firm may not receive both a loan guarantee and closure compensation.

Cases might arise where the Government’s intention is to encourage a particular structural change which would not, without assistance, be likely to occur at a reasonable speed and at a reasonable economic cost to the community.. In these cases the Government may wish to assist and not have the test of adverse effects on the firm applied. It would normally be the case that only one guarantee would be provided to any firm or group of associated firms, however, there is provision for this requirement to be waived where it would have unreasonable effects. This might be the case, for example, if 2 members of a diversified group of firms were affected by reason of adjustment situations affecting entirely different areas of industry.

A further provision is that guarantees may apply to as much as 90 per cent of the loan guarantee, but not more. This provision is intended to ensure that the lender exercises his own responsibility for assessing the viability of the proposal. (Quorum formed). Further clauses of the Bill provide for the application of conditions to guarantees, both to meet normal financial and administrative requirements in relation to the provision of loan guarantees and to ensure that the conditions under which the assistance is provided are complied with.

Other clauses of the Bill provide that payments under guarantees are to be met out of monies appropriated by the Parliament and available for the purpose, and to provide for machinery matters in relation to the operation of the Bill. Penalties are provided for misrepresentation in relation to matters concerning the provision of guarantees, and for breach of the secrecy provisions of the legislation.

The introduction of the legislation provides clear evidence that the Government intends that desirable structural changes in Australian industry should not be impeded by lack of adequate measures. In the past structural change in industry has been largely a matter of chance. This has not been good enough. Structural change effects us all for good and bad and there should be the opportunity for Government to influence change for the good and not the bad. This Bill will assist in that regard. It will enable steady progress to be made towards achieving an industrial structure more attuned to the Australian environment and contributing more fully to the effective use of our human and physical resources. I commend the Bill to the House.

Debate (on motion by Mr Chipp) adjourned.

page 4172

STATES GRANTS (SOIL CONSERVATION) BILL 1974

Bill presented by Dr Cass and read a first time.

Second Reading

Dr CASS:
Minister for the Environment and Conservation · Maribyrnong · ALP

– I move:

This Bill is concerned with the provision of grants to the States over the financial years 1974-75 and 1975-76 as an interim program of financial assistance for soil conservation. The Australian Government is seeking to protect those natural resources upon which the nation’s well-being is founded, in the interests of present and future generations. In particular, this Bill gives tangible expression to the importance which the Government places upon the preservation of the nation’s soil resources. This subject first attracted significant Federal attention in February 1971 when the Australian Agricultural Council received a report from its Standing Committee on Soil Conservation, entitled ‘The Study of Community Benefits of and Finance for Soil Conservation’. The recommendations of this report provided a factual basis for the States to request financial assistance for their soil conservation programs.

The matter was raised at the Premiers’ conference in 1972. However, the Government of the day preferred not to make a decision, and instead referred the question to the Interdepartmental Committee of Australian Government officers. The Interdepartmental Committee reported in July this year, after having discussions with representatives of the State soil conservation organisations, and after having examined the report of the Standing Committee. The Interdepartmental Committee agreed that soil conservation activity should be considerably increased above present levels and that it would be appropriate for the Australian Government to provide financial assistance for this purpose.

The Government has now decided in principle to assist the States with a long term program of soil conservation. At the same time it has recognised that there is an urgent need for a collaborative, nation-wide study of soil conservation in the context of land management, involving the State and Australian Governments, with a view to providing a sound basis for a long term accelerated soil conservation program. This Bill provides for an interim program of financial assistance for the States to step up their soil conservation activities over the duration of the proposed joint study, in preparation for a long-term program. Participation of the States in the proposed study will be a precondition for the provision of financial assistance in the interim program. Agreement to participate in the study has been received from all States except New South Wales. The Australian Government recognises that gearing up for a major long term program of soil conservation will take time. For this reason it regards the interim program as essential so that the results of the joint study can be applied to this most urgent problem without delay.

While the Australian Government’s proposed contribution to each State in this first instance is small in relation to the magnitude of the work which is urgently required, it is a significant first step in dealing with this national problem. With the completion of this essential first program, the government will then assess its responsibilities in the implementation of a national plan to protect and restore Australia’s soil resources- which is perhaps, along with water, the most vital of all our natural resources. The sums to be made available were carefully determined after discussions with State officers and examination of the available human and technical resources. The total Australian Government finance to be made available to the States under this program is $0.5m to June 1975 and $2.5m to June 1976. These funds will supplement the provisions for soil conservation already committed or foreshadowed by the States for this period. I now have pleasure in commending the Bill to the House.

Debate (on motion by Mr Chipp) adjourned.

page 4173

HANDICAPPED PERSONS ASSISTANCE BILL 1974

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 13 November, on motion by Mr Hayden:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr CHIPP:
Hotham

-The Handicapped Persons Assistance Bill repeals 2 Actsthe Sheltered Employment (Assistance) Act and the Handicapped Children’s (Assistance) Actand consolidates and extends the Australian Government’s program of assistance to voluntary organisations. The Opposition commends the Bill and it commends the amendments that are being made but in doing so we have some criticismsI hope constructive ones- to make on the way. This is another area of social reform to which the Government has made a contribution, although we think that it has not been enough and in some ways perhaps it has been made in the wrong direction. Before I get down to the technical aspects of the Bill and my criticisms of it, I wish to put the matter in context. The tragedy of being handicapped or of having a child who has become handicapped, who is born handicapped or who appears to be handicapped after birth is a tragedy that can never be understood unless it is personally experienced by the person who is handicapped or by the parents of that person. Therefore, although we can have much compassion about this form of tragedy, we can never really share it unless it happens to us or someone close to us.

I have done some research on a personal basis about the needs in this field. I have spoken to the parents of handicapped children. I have gone to handicapped people and asked about the crying need requiring government help or assistance or society assistance in this tragedy. I have not received a unanimous view that there should be more money for this purpose or more money for that purpose. Of course, people have put forward suggestions but there was a constant request running through my whole survey. It was that when such a tragedy happens people want full information or someone to tell them exactly what facilities are available to someone who is handicapped. That seems to be a simple request but apparently there is a great need for such a document. I request this Government, which has a passion for publishing documents at taxpayers’ expense, to prepare a simple document explaining to the parents of handicapped children the kind of facilities and help that is available to them. I am not talking only about the help that would be available from the Australian Government. I am talking of a consolidated document that would show the kind of assistance that is available at the Australian Government level, the State government level, the local government level and now, as the Minister for Social Security (Mr Hayden) foreshadows in his second reading speech, at the fourth tier of government which is rapidly being created in this country by the Australian Assistance Plan. This sort of publication would be extraordinarily helpful.

I also join the Opposition with the remarks of the Minister in his thanks and praise for the men and women of the voluntary organisations. We would totally join with the Minister in his comments in that regard. It is not unusual for the Minister to spoil a good speech by an indiscreet remark. He did not let us down on the occasion of making his second reading speech on this Bill. He makes what I regard as being a rather contemptible allegation in his speech as recorded on page 3425 of Hansard of 13 November 1974. He said:

The morality of the social contracts written by past governments for some of these groups -

That is, voluntary organisations- has been very much open to question. All too often it has been a case of those with the most financial and political influence, the most access and the most highly developed sense of their own importance to our economic and social system receiving the most attention. On the other hand the modest, the humble and the handicapped have received only token attention.

There was no need for the Minister to inject that kind of atmosphere into his speech. It is totally untrue. It is totally unworthy. It is a reflection on the previous Minister in charge of social security, the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Wentworth). It is a reflection on the previous Government and it is also a reflection on the organisations that received assistance from the previous Government. We reject that allegation.

I return to the Bill. Without doubt the legislation will give to voluntary and private organisations increased financial assistance that is very much needed. The evidence of this need for increased assistance is obvious to anybody who has some involvement with voluntary welfare organisations. The Minister’s own Department carries out an annual national survey of sheltered workshops. He mentions in his second reading speech that income from sheltered workshops had risen to $ 16m in 1974. What he did not say, however, was that expenditure had exceeded income in 1974 by nearly $2m. In other words, the sheltered workshops ran at a $2m loss last year. Financial assistance will be increased in 2 main ways. Firstly, there will be a wider range of functions or services that will attract a subsidy. Secondly, certain existing subsidies and benefits have been increased. For example, capital and equipment subsidies have been increased by 13 per cent- not doubled as the Minister says. I hope that I make that point very clearly. They have been increased from $2 for $ 1 to $4 for $ 1 . The handicapped children’s benefit has been increased by 50c from $3 to $3.50 a day and the salary subsidy in respect of approved staff will be increased in the majority of cases from a 25 per cent level to a 50 per cent level. As well as this increased level of assistance, the Act will give voluntary and private associations much greater flexibility in initiating new programs.

It could be said that it is highly desirable that the ability of voluntary associations to respond quickly to emerging needs or requests for service for consumers will be enhanced by this Bill. As I see it, this increased flexibility will be mainly fostered by 2 provisions: Firstly, the changes to the rental subsidy which increase the amount of subsidy from 66 per cent to 80 per cent; remove the 3-year limit on the subsidy and sets no maximum limit; and broaden the range of facilities which are eligible to attract rental subsidy. Secondly, the fact that for approved staff of new ventures a salary subsidy of up to 100 per cent for the first 2 years of operation may be approved also increases organisational flexibility. That the Bill does provide additional levels of assistance for a wider range of functions and enhances the ability of voluntary organisations to respond quickly to needs is beyond doubt. However, what is in doubt is that the provisions of the Bill fall far short of providing, in the Minister’s own words, ‘a balanced and integrated program that is intended to serve an area of social need’. I hope that I am being constructively critical. I hope that Government speakers who follow me will not say that I was trying to make small political points. I know the difficulties of the Minister and the Government in this area. I know that this proposal is an attempt to improve an area and that it does improve the facilities and amenities for handicapped persons. But what I am trying to do- as I think an Opposition should- is to paint the counsel of perfection hoping that we may get some unanimous agreement in philosophy and practice on both sides of the House. Both sides aim for that, whoever is sitting on the Treasury bench.

There can be no balance and integration when the activities of State governments in this area are specifically excluded from Australian Government financial assistance. I have a telegram from the Leader of the Opposition in the Tasmanian Parliament. I have written to all my State colleagues in the 6 State parliaments. But the speed with which the Government is putting Bills through, with only a week to consider them, does not leave us, as an Opposition, time for consultation with our State colleagues and with the voluntary organisations. I cannot be too critical of the Government for this because we did exactly the same when we were in Government.

Mr Hayden:

– But it was different then.

Mr CHIPP:

-No, it was not different. I am conceding that it is a wrong practice and does not lead itself to good government. I give a guarantee now to the Minister that when we are back in power, by the middle of next year, I will be more considerate to him than my predecessors were. I hope that makes the Minister happy.

Mr Hayden:

– Be careful what you commit yourself to. If you give general financial allocations they will spear you both ways.

Mr CHIPP:

– I am not used to having that happen to me. I was about to read a telegram from the Tasmanian Leader of the Opposition. It states:

We applaud the provision of funds but urge that it should be made through the States or at least in full consultation with them.

From my reading of the Bill and the Minister’s second reading speech I cannot see that any such guarantees exist.

Mr Berinson:

– Can you say why they should?

Mr CHIPP:

– Yes, I will. I think it is indisputable that the States have both the historical and practical background in broad social welfare functions which is simply not going to be utilised. There are years of experience, know-how and background available from the States and the voluntary organisations that I believe it would be silly to overlook and to take no notice of. Not only have they got that knowledge but they have also got, I think, a greater knowledge of local needs than does a bureaucrat or a Minister in Canberra. The Minister mentioned the Australian Assistance Plan, the Hospitals and Health Services Commission and the Schools Commission as being related to and involved with this area of social need. Yet he failed to state the incongruity of excluding assistance to the States with this Bill when it is provided by two of the others. 1 should like the honourable member for Perth (Mr Berinson), whose contributions on the subject I always respect, to address himself, when he speaks on this Bill, to how he can justify the money not going through the States or at least the States being consulted in this area of social need. As we know, State education departments receive direct financial assistance for education including special education for handicapped through Schools Commission funds and also receive funds for community health and mental health projects through the Hospitals and Health Services Commission.

The AAP, to my knowledge, does not provide financial assistance to State government welfare bodies and this Bill specifically excludes it. It seems to be most incongruous that States should be able to receive financial assistance for education and health programs for handicapped people but not for social welfare programs. That is my reply to the interjection of the honourable member for Perth. In my view the singling out of the States in this legislation is its most serious limitiation in any effort to achieve a balanced and integrated program. I agree with the Minister in his aims. It is quite obvious that voluntary organisations and consumers themselves do not want the vast majority of services to handicapped people to be delivered by a system based on a medical model. I hope that we have unanimity in the House on that. At the last annual general meeting of the Association for the Mentally Retarded it was agreed that the problem of mental retardation- the most common single handicap among handicapped people- was a social problem and not a medical one.

Mr Hayden:

– It is pretty hard to get across to the medical people though, is it not?

Mr CHIPP:

– It is; I concede that point that the Minister just made. I am glad that the Minister and I agree on that. Handicapped people themselves do not want to become part of the ‘white coat syndrome’. They want their services delivered by local welfare organisations. While it is vital to increase the effectiveness of voluntary organisations, it is also important to increase the effectiveness and build on the experience and practical wisdom of the State welfare departments. I know the limitations of State welfare departments. I know the limitations of many State governments, State Ministers and State public servants. But they are there and there to stay. Why should we not take notice of what they do by a form of consultation. I doubt that local government bodies in Australia have the historical or the practical background or framework upon which to build hastily complex welfare service structures. I think practice will bear out my view that it is unrealistic to claim any material involvement of the Australian Assistance Plan in this area of social need. Firstly, both the AAP and this proposed Act will be administered by the one department and the one Minister. Secondly, as I understand it, it is departmental policy to insist that programs for handicapped people be funded by the handicapped persons welfare section of the Department of Social Security and not through AAP funds. There is also an inter-departmental committee which aims to ensure that for these kinds of programs no funds through the Hospitals and Health Services Commission are made available.

Thirdly, in practice there are still a number of very woolly areas where the functions or responsibilities of one government department overlap those of another and this needs to be sorted out. One such area, for example, concerns special schools for handicapped children that were built by voluntary associations with assistance from the Department of Social Security. After many months of discussion there has still been no decision concerning the assumption of responsibility for these educational facilities by State education authorities with the aid of funds from the Schools Commission. One could go on and give a great number of examples of this duplication of services in departments which I believe has been caused by speed. In some cases one can commend the speed of social reform which the Minister and his Government have pursued but certainly we have paid for it in terms of duplication of bundles of muddles, as many examples could indicate.

Fourthly, the Bill also specifically excludes the joint funding of programs, as I understand, the Bill. That is, Australian Government funds either will not be paid to voluntary organisations together with grants from the States, or the amount of the Australian Government contribution will be balanced out against the amount of State government contribution. To me such exclusion hardly fosters balance, integration or coordination. While I support the importance of not having duplication of funding and consistency of approach I think there is a vast difference between duplication and joint or co-ordinated funding of services and programs. The continued and expanded involvement of the States and other government departments with voluntary associations on joint bases is, I believe, essential.

Fifthly, this Bill does not recognise that many areas and groups of people within our community do not have the capacity, for one reason or another, to raise the initial funds required to commence services or facilities for handicapped people. The 2 previously mentioned Acts recognised that to establish health and education welfare services is a major undertaking and too great for some communities to initiate at all or to initiate within a reasonable period. These Acts, as we know, recognise this fact by making initiating grants covering all or nearly all of the total establishment and running costs. To overlook such a provision indicates to me that regrettably this Bill is but another piecemeal approach and does not provide a balanced or integrated program.

In his second reading speech the Minister spoke in most glowing terms about the relationships between the statutory and the private and voluntary sectors in welfare. It is most encouraging to see these kinds of statements being made by Ministers. However, it would be much more encouraging to see such sentiments being put into practice. I suspect and I fear that the provisions of this Bill will not substantially reverse the presence of imbalance in this area where more resources are being channelled into the Government services rather than into the voluntary sector. It is all very well for the Minister to speak for 3 pages of his second reading speech praising the efforts of the voluntary organisations and commending the job they do. The only area in which his sincerity and his belief count is when he administers those views into practice.

I consider that the claimed integrated and program nature of these provisions can be challenged not only on practical grounds, as I have shown, but also on the ground that the apparent underlying philosophies will not be consistently implemented. It seems to me inherent in the Minister’s second reading speech that there are elements which advocate the principles or philosophies of equality of opportunity, normalisation and integration of handicapped people. While we wholeheartedly agree with the importance of these principles, we suspect that this Bill will implement them without any real consistency or without any real definition. This is a question of judgement, I suppose: We would commend the increased subsidies for bricks and mortar, but if one is looking at handicapped persons as a human problem, one would have thought that greater emphasis with the amount of funds that was available for that particular area of need might well have been placed in the subsidy area of salaries.

Mr Berinson:

– It has. . Mr CHIPP- I said a greater need, rather than an emphasis on bricks and mortar. I have already commended the concept of the subsidy of salaries but I am saying that perhaps it is a question of judgment as to how much is given to bricks and mortar and how much is given in subsidising salaries.

Mr Berinson:

– Do you not agree that this Bill will end up sending much more money into the recurrent expense area than into the capital cost area?

Mr CHIPP:

– That is undoubted, and I commend that area. The only thing I am saying is that I am wondering whether there should not have been more in that area rather than in the capital area. It is a question of judgment upon which I could be challenged- while I am talking on the subsidy of salaries to the extent of 50 per cent or 100 per cent, I hope that the Minister, whoever he is, will be diligent in looking after those faithful people in his Department and that when approval is given to approved subjects as far as salaries are concerned, he will ensure that the long hand of the bureaucracy does not extend too far into the administration of those problems of the voluntary organisations which in the past have acted both wisely and well. I understand, if Government expenditure is to be given in the form of subsidy to voluntary organisations, that of course the Government has a responsibility to the taxpayers to oversee the expenditure of that money. But I would hope that the overseeing or the supervision of expenditure is not carried to extreme limits by the civil servants in the Department so as to represent interference.

Some people not currently eligible for hostel accommodation under the Handicapped Persons (Assistance) Act and the Sheltered Employment (Assistance) Act- that is, persons too old to be in handicapped children’s homes and too severely handicapped to be employed in sheltered workshops- will be provided for under the extended provisions of the Aged and Disabled Persons Homes Act 1974. 1 am talking, for example, about the mongoloid son or daughter of an aged person and the provisions of the Handicapped Persons Assistance Bill when it becomes law. It has been indicated that organisations running day activity centres would be eligible for subsidy to provide accommodation for persons attending such centres although this is made by no means clear by the Minister in his second reading speech. I ask the Minister when he replies to this debate whether he would clarify the position concerning that problem I have just raised.

The Opposition does see some factors about this Bill which we would say are not perfect. It does not present a complete and total picture but we do commend what is in it. We have no amendments to move. The amendment which the Minister has foreshadowed to clear up a technical error in drafting will receive the support of the Opposition as well.

Mrs CHILD:
Henty

– I will answer later the points which the honourable member for Hotham (Mr Chipp) has raised. I consider this Bill to be another step forward in the Government’s 15 point program for the welfare of handicapped people. It is with great regret that I look back on the years that this scheme has been operating and that an overall plan for the welfare of handicapped people was not one of the prime objectives of this Parliament when it first sat. As it is, our welfare program for all kinds of handicapped people has been like Topsy; it has just grown. It has grown through the generosity and willingness of voluntary organisations.

Had we had enough thought or enough responsibility many years ago, we would have had a fully integrated and balanced program for handicapped and disabled people. In fact, even as far back as 20 years ago, if we had then thought of meeting the recurrent expenditure of such organisations, they would not be in quite the deplorable financial mess that they are in at the moment. But it is a bit late, I suppose, for recriminations. We start off as a Government of only 2 years standing, picking up a certain amount of the neglect that has been apparent over some 23 years.

The Bill will cater for the needs of both handicapped children and handicapped adults who do need special faculties if we are to help them to rejoin the mainstream of living. I acknowledge that previous governments introduced the Sheltered Employment (Assistance) Act, which of its kind was good, and the Handicapped Children’s (Assistance) Act. But it has been left to this Government to co-ordinate and plan for realism with respect to the needs and wants of handicapped people. It is not enough to introduce a pot-pourri of ideas, fragmented and static, Federal and State, council and voluntary, without following through and expanding the plan to include the needs and wants of the handicapped people. All too often we hear about States rights and Federal rights in this area and community needs. But nobody ever speaks much about the wants of handicapped people themselves. They do have ideas of their own. They do have ideas of self-determination. Their needs do not stand still, and their wants do not stand still.

What was considered necessary for the care of handicapped people 7 years ago is happily not acceptable by the community or by them now. There is a whole new thrust from handicapped people for involvement and self-determination. Sheltered workshop employment, training and sheltered accommodation are no longer enough. Very many handicapped adults want to and indeed are capable of working in the same jobs as are you and I. They want to do that. They are capable of living in hostels, ground floor flats and houses just as we do. They want a garden too. They want more than just to walk from the sheltered hostel accommodation to the sheltered workshop. They too want a bit of light and shade in their lives. For those who are able to be reasonably independent, we have not catered at all. We have put everyone into the one category.

This Bill provides a subsidy of $4 for $1 for establishing sheltered workshops for handicapped adults, training centres for handicapped children and hostels for children and adults. The rental subsidy will enable organisations with limited assets to provide facilities, and I hope among these facilities we will see an upsurge of half-way houses where those who had no alternative but to live in hostels or institutions and who want to live alone, can live in a half-way house for long enough to become rehabilitated to the idea of living independently. There is no reason why we cannot build half-way houses, houses, hostels or flats with grab rails around the sink, the stove and the wash basin. There is no reason why part of rehabilitation cannot be learning to cope with lifting a pot off the stove or hanging washing on the line. It is not enough to featherbed people. We must give them the wherewithal to realise their own potential.

Voluntary organisations in this nation have taken the brunt of the responsibility for handicapped people for years. Without their doing so, I just wonder what would have happened to handicapped people because, as a community, we were very happy to brush them aside. This may be because they have had very little political strength. The load of debt that we owe to such organisations is incalculable. In these days with their overhead rising, it is becoming much more difficult for them to raise funds to meet operational costs. It is easier to get donations for something glamorous or for a new building. When it comes to running costs, money is not attracted quite so easily.

This Bill also introduces a 50 per cent subsidy for approved staff. I do not quite know where the honourable member for Hotham obtained his figure of a 25 per cent subsidy. With this 50 per cent subsidy, hostels and sheltered workshops will be able to double their staff.

Sitting suspended from 6.15 to 8 p.m.

Mrs CHILD:

– Before the suspension of the sitting for dinner I was speaking about the doubled subsidy that is being introduced under this Bill. I think that perhaps the honourable member for Hotham has become a bit confused about it. The doubled subsidy applies not just to the sheltered workshops but to the whole range of prescribed services. It is a huge jump. The Australian Government will also in some cases subsidise 100 per cent of the salaries where new ventures are being established and it will help them to become established.

The Bill will also assist voluntary organisations to set up activity centres for those too disabled to work in a sheltered workshop. It will encourage greater emphasis on the social interests of the disabled. It will allow voluntary organisations to develop recreational centres and the urgently needed rehabilitation centres, which I also mentioned before dinner, complementary to workshops or activity centres. I would hope also that the subsidies would encourage voluntary organisations to expand their seaside and country farms and houses so that those who work in a city can perhaps live out of the city and commute to their workshop just as any other worker commutes to his job in the city. I would hope that with facilities like these, handicapped people might have the relaxation of weekends spent gardening in their own gardens, with their own pets as we do, or weekends spent perhaps on the beach.

In the personal day-to-day care of the mentally and physically handicapped, voluntary organisations have shown the way and are well situated to play their role, with understanding and compassion. But we cannot have them scratching for the money for their extended facilities. To be quite honest with the House, I would prefer the money to go straight to the organisations and not, as the honourable member for Hotham suggested, through the States. The States have not shown in other areas the type of co-operation we would need to work through them. In fact, 95 per cent of the grants they received from the Australian Government for the building of special schools has still not been spent after one year of that program has elapsed. I would be a bit worried about the money being spent by the States within the time-table.

The personal interest and involvement of voluntary organisations is irreplacable. They have the grass roots understanding of the needs of their people. The Australian Government has the financial resources. Working together, we have forged ahead, and with this Bill we will go even further. I make a plea to everyone to understand that all disabled people do not and cannot fall into the one category. Some cannot work at all; some can work in sheltered workshops but many can work just as you and I work. They should have the opportunity to do so. That is why rehabilitation centres are of such tremendous importance. We do not want to go into the 1980s offering to disabled people the same narrow choice that has been theirs during the 1 950s and 1960s. The honourable member for Hotham criticised this Government for some aspects of the Bill that do not quite fall in with his line of thinking. I point out that we have had only 2 years to do what we have done and that he was associated with a government that could have done a lot more for disabled people during the 23 years that it was in office. Our opportunities have expanded and new doors are opening for us; I want the same opportunities for disabled people.

Recently I went to Ballarat and opened Disabled People’s Week. It was quite an innovation for Victoria, and I do not know of such a function being held in Victoria before. It was very well organised and the activities were diversified.

There were film nights, displays and open houses throughout all Ballarat services. It was mainly organised by disabled people themselves. They are not asking for pity or charity. What they are asking for is that not only employers overcome their prejudices against the disabled people, but that the rest of us who make up the community overcome our prejudice towards them. Those people who feel so much pride in their children’s achievements, whether it be their winning a 100 yards dash at primary school or achieving a wellearned Higher School Certificate, will well understand the pride of parents whose mentally handicapped child finally manages to coordinate limbs and brain and climb a few steps. It does not sound much of an achievement, but the pride of his peers and his teachers is something to really share. Those who feel such pride and joy in their children ‘s accomplishments will understand the joy of parents of a handicapped child hearing their child speak for the first time.

I have been helping in a voluntary capacity in a kindergarten for mentally retarded children. One of the little girls who attends the kindergarten suffered brain damage following measles. One day she pointed to a picture in a book and identified a duck. She said ‘duck’. It was the first time in 18 months that she had been able to speak. When everybody in the room heard the child speak, they almost felt as if they had scaled Mount Everest. Because of the activities which take place with the disabled there is a need for more teachers and more buildings. I think we could work together to make sure that eventually the Federal Government picks up the recurrent expenditures for all the disabled people throughout the entire nation. We will not really have come of maturity until we have done so.

Success means many things to many people and some successes are more easily won than others. Believe me, that handicapped child saying the word ‘duck’ was the result of many months of patience, perseverence and persistance by a dedicated band of teachers. We all feel a lot of pride in our family’s achievements, and there is nothing different in the pride of parents of handicapped children, be they physically or mentally handicapped. Each child has to have an opportunity to reach his own potential. Sometimes those who are handicapped need more support to be able to reach their potential. This Bill will open the way for more opportunities.

The voluntary organisations have given this nation a basis for magnificent care for mentally and physically handicapped children and adults. This Bill recognises the value of grass roots work of voluntary organisations. It recognises their understanding, their care and their compassion. But it also recognises that they cannot be left in the 1970s to go it alone. They have to go it with us, and they have to go it with Federal finance.

Mr O’KEEFE:
Paterson

-The Handicapped Persons Assistance Bill, which has the full support of my colleagues in this Parliament, is really a Bill to repeal the Sheltered Employment (Assistance) Act and the Handicapped Children (Assistance) Act. It consolidates and expands the programs of assistance to voluntary organisations that have assumed responsibility for the welfare of handicapped people. The people who form such organisations are providing a magnificent service for handicapped persons. The Minister for Social Security (Mr Hayden) on quite a few occasions during his second reading speech expressed praise and appreciation for the work of these voluntary agencies. He said:

There is a very special role for them to play for there are many people whose needs are best served by these organisations. Although the Australian Government provides for the general economic welfare of the disabled, it is the voluntary organisations that are able to help, in a way not possible for a government department, in the personal day-to-day care of many mentally or physically handicapped people.

It is good to hear such praise being given to these organisations throughout Australia.

In my own electorate of Paterson I have a personal interest in several of these very fine institutions. I feel that there is not a member on either side of this House who would not desire to assist in providing welfare for handicapped people. With assistance and encouragement it is just wonderful how these people can fit into the community and make a useful contribution even to trade and commerce. I refer to the Mai- Wei Industries sheltered workshop at Maitland in my electorate where handicapped persons are taught to make and to restore furniture of all kinds, to repair and to make toys, to make tags and a host of other useful activities. Attached to this handicapped persons’ institution is the MaiWel handicapped children ‘s school. It is wonderful to visit this school and to see the dedication of the teachers and the way in which they encourage handicapped children in various methods of learning.

It is also good to visit the sheltered workshops and to see the dedicated work which is being done there. One sees appreciation on the faces of the handicapped persons who are working under such conditions. They have dedicated tutors helping them on their way. At Muswellbrook in my electorate there is a handicapped children’s school. It has lovely conditions and has the full support of the whole community. I note the Minister’s appreciation. It is pleasing to see communities not only in country areas but also in cities supporting these handicapped persons’ sheltered workshops, homes and schools. Without public contribution and assistance these institutions would not progress and they would not provide the services which they do today. The people working there are dedicated to their job. When we were in government both the Sheltered Employment (Assistance) Act and the Handicapped Children (Assistance) Act were introduced and implemented. We support the action of the present Government in amalgamating both measures in the Handicapped Persons Assistance Bill. It is of great importance to note that the number of persons employed in sheltered workshops in Australia is almost 10,000. From observations made travelling about this great country of ours there is no doubt that these figures will increase as the years go by and greater assistance from the Government will be needed.

Present production from the sheltered workshops is running at $ 1 6m which is quite a considerable contribution to trade and commerce. The honourable member for Hotham (Mr Chipp) cited this figure and he indicated that there was a deficiency. One would expect a deficiency in this field. I do not think anybody on either side of the House would quibble at a deficiency occurring in these institutions for the handicapped. It is no wonder that governments appreciate the need for further financial assistance in this field. The Bill provides for the needs of handicapped children and handicapped adults who do not require constant medical attention but who, nevertheless, need special facilities and encouragement to take their rightful place in the community. When one visits these institutions and expresses encouragement to the people working in them it is wonderful to see the expression on their faces and to see how much they appreciate that citizens go there and offer encouragement. It means so much to these people.

It is noted that the subsidy for the establishment of sheltered workshops, training control for handicapped children and hostels for children and adults has doubled from $2 to $4 for every $1 raised by voluntary organisations. The doubling of the subsidy by the Government should further encourage local organisations to get behind this movement and to provide further amenities and facilities for handicapped persons both in the sheltered workshops and in the schools for handicapped children. It is pleasing to note that in the Bill the benefit for handicapped children has been increased from $3 to $3.50 a day and also that consideration will be given to these children being paid this amount when they are not attending the school but are at home over the weekend with their parents. I have been brief in speaking on the Bill but it has our full support. As I have said, I do not think there is a member on either side of the House who is not impressed with the help and service which handicapped persons are receiving from organisations in this country. I support the Bill.

Mr REYNOLDS:
Barton

– I too have given an undertaking to try to make my comments brief because of the legislative program which has to be gone through tonight. It is good to find such warm accord for what the Handicapped Persons Assistance Bill aims to do. It aims to consolidate and to extend the help which is given to voluntary organisations which undertake the task of looking after the welfare of handicapped people. While we can congratulate ourselves in some measure because about 10,000 people are now being looked after in this way, it is salutary to ask the question: ‘Yes, 10,000 people are being looked after, but how many others are not reaching a source of aid?’ As a matter of fact, recent expert studies in this field have suggested that Australia is probably no different from most other western countries in that between 7 per cent and 10 per cent of the total population comes within the category of being either permanently or for some time disabled. With increasing longevity, medical advances and permanent traumatic injuries resulting from road, industrial and domestic accidents, the figure of 7 per cent cannot be expected to decrease. This is clear when one looks at the road toll each weekend- not to say what happens during the week- and at accidents in factories and so on. In hospitals one sees young men of 2 1 , 20 and younger still who have been injured for life through the simple act of diving into shallow water and breaking their spine. These are salutary experiences for anyone to undergo. It enhances our admiration for those voluntary bodies which are receiving extended help from the Government in this task.

The provisions of the Bill have been referred to in some detail already. I do not think there is any need for me to add unduly to those comments. I am pleased to see that the subsidy extends to sheltered workshops for handicapped adults, training centres for handicapped children and hostels for both children and adults and that it will be doubled, as previous speakers have already mentioned. In other words, from here on as far as the capital expenses are concerned in establishing a centre, four-fifths of the money will be provided by the Australian Government. The honourable member for Hotham (Mr Chipp) took issue with us because we did not consult the States about this matter. Quite frankly, my impression has been that the States are only too glad for the Australian Government to take the responsibility. In many spheres of welfare the States have said that they have had to fill in the gap which, in the past, has been left by Commonwealth legislation. Therefore I think the States will be very pleased to know that we are prepared to provide money and to give help in kind by way of social workers, physiotherapists and the other personnel who will be necessary for the satisfactory implementation of this program.

The extension of the rental subsidy will be a big help to the various bodies. Again four-fifths of the money will be provided by the Commonwealth. I hope that this rental subsidy will be an incentive to people who may not be able to provide even one-fifth of the money to build institutions, sheltered workshops, activity centres or recreational centres for handicapped people but who would be capable of raising a lesser amount of money to rent existing premises. Therefore, the rental subsidy will be a great help. There is already a rental subsidy for sheltered workshops but it is limited to 3 years, as has already been mentioned. Under this Bill there will be no limitation of time. People who undertake to rent premises and equipment will be able to receive this subsidy without limitation of time.

Similarly, the subsidy will be extended to the maintenance of the centres. That also is an important point. One of the things about which I am particularly happy is that the subsidy will be extended to those centres which hitherto have not been designated approved sheltered workshops. I had something to say about this when the former Minister for Social Services, the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Wentworth) introduced a Bill in about 1970 or a little before that, by which the subsidy was extended to approved sheltered workshops. Approval was based on the average weekly earnings of the persons in the sheltered workshops. Until this date they could earn $4 a week. Now it has been extended to $10 a week. But those centres that do not qualify on the basis of earnings to be designated sheltered workshops will not be debarred from help under this Bill. This Bill will give them exactly the same kind of help as it gives to sheltered workshops.

I am thinking here of those centres that are attached to schools for physically and mentally handicapped children. Children who have turned 16 years of age no longer qualify for aid from the State. Under this Bill centres which are often located adjacent to subnormal schools, as they are often called, will attract the subsidy. There will be a continuity. The very schools that train the children while they are of compulsory school attendance age or up to the age of 16 when they become invalid pensioners, have attached to them a training centre but in the past they have not been able to qualify for approval as sheltered workshops. That will not matter from now on. They will receive the help that is offered to sheltered workshops. I have two such centres in my electorate, one is the Southaven Sub-Normal School and the other is the Sunnyhurst Sub-Normal Children’s School at Penshurst in Sydney. I am pleased to say that they will be assisted by this Bill. I hope that they may graduate to sheltered workshops in due course.

A salary subsidy is to be provided in respect of approved officers. Whilst the remarks of the honourable member for Hotham were fairly generous about this Bill they were somewhat misguided on this matter. The salary subsidy is in my view one of the most important features of this Bill. A very substantial subsidy is provided. I have read articles by the Sub-Normal Children’s Welfare Association which state that it is all very well to subsidise the establishment of buildings but it is another matter to keep up with the running costs of those institutions. That is exactly what this Bill does. It provides up to 50 per cent of the salary of approved staff. Unlike the restrictions on approved staff that applied in the earlier Bill, in this Bill approved staff can include, for instance, domestics in hostels and other staff in sheltered workshops, activity centres, hostels or recreation or rehabilitation centres. All of these people will qualify to have up to 50 per cent of their salary provided by the Commonwealth. This to my mind is a very important feature of this Bill. I understand that it has been very warmly welcomed by the workshops, the other centres and the ancillary services to which I have referred.

Under this Bill up to 100 per cent of the salary of staff in newly established centres will be provided by the Commonwealth, and that will continue for 2 years during the establishment period. These are all very important features. As the Minister for Social Security (Mr Hayden) said, this Bill consolidates and extends- to my view it extends very considerably- the help we are giving to these centres. Other measures deal with reequipment. This applies to activity centres that do not qualify as sheltered workshops. There is provision under legislation that has already been before the House for an incentive allowance of $5 a week, without any means test, for people who work in sheltered workshops. There is provision for the rental subsidy, under the means test as we have known it in the past, for the activity centres which do not qualify as sheltered workshops. There is $500 bonus given to sheltered workshops which act as a kind of training institution and which help young people or not so young people to graduate back into normal employment. This Government does not take the whole credit for that proposal. It was pioneered by the previous Government. We acknowledge that. It is interesting to note that so far 209 people have graduated from such sheltered workshops, 78 of them in the last financial year. Our hope is that, with the extension of the service, more people will ultimately graduate back into normal employment.

This Bill does not just set out to help people earn a living in terms of finance. One of the greatest features of these centres- I acknowledge the remarks of the previous speaker, the honourable member for Paterson (Mr O’Keefe)- is what they do for the people who are employed in them. It gives them companionship which they cannot necessarily find in their own homes. It also gives relief to the parents and the other members of the family for at least part of the day while these people are away and being cared for by professional and well meaning people. I hear the Government Whip talking about the gag so I shall curtail my remarks at this stage. I strongly support the Bill. I hope that in the days to come when we are not so hard pressed for time we will be able to look at what is being done in some other countries that is somewhat in advance of what we are doing in this Bill. For instance, in Sweden, where the government provides up to 40 per cent- (Quorum formed).

Mr HODGES:
Petrie

-Mr SpeakerMotion (by Mr Nicholls) put:

That the question be now put. The House divided. (Mr Speaker- Hon. J. F. Cope)

AYES: 60

NOES: 50

Majority……. 10

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative. Original question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time.

In Committee

The Bill.

Mr HAYDEN:
Minister for Social Security · Oxley · ALP

– I refer honourable members to clause 23 which reads:

An eligible organisation that provides approved residential accommodation for handicapped children is entitled to receive benefit in respect of each such handicapped child at the rate of $3.50 for each day after the commencement of this Pan on which the approved residential accommodation is provided Tor the child.

I move:

The simple reason for moving this amendment is that there is an amendment before the House to the National Health Act which will ensure that benefits are not paid under both that Act and under the Handicapped Persons Assistance Act to the same child. The volume of business is such that it may be some weeks or even longer- one cannot anticipate this with any complete sense of confidence- before the amendment to the National Health Act is passed by both Houses of the Parliament. It is not the intention that benefits should be paid for the one child under both Acts. Accordingly, to avoid double payment it is necessary, at least in the interim, to amend this Bill to ensure that this does not occur. That in the long and short of it is exactly why the amendment has been moved. The honourable member for Hotham (Mr Chipp), who is the Opposition spokesman in these matters, has indicated to me that the Opposition supports the amendment. I will not delay the business of the Committee by speaking any further on this matter.

Mr MacKELLAR:
Warringah

-As the Minister for Social Security (Mr Hayden) said, the Opposition has considered the amendment moved by the Minister on behalf of the Government and agrees with it.

Amendment agreed to.

Bill, as amended, agreed to.

Bill reported with an amendment; report- by leave- adopted.

Third Reading

Motion (by Mr Hayden)- by leaveproposed:

That the Bill be now read a third time.

Mr HODGES:
Petrie

– It is indeed a pleasant occasion to be speaking to the Bill-

Motion (by Mr Nicholls) put:

That the question be now put.

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

AYES: 60

NOES: 51

Majority……. 9

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Original question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a third time.

page 4183

DEFENCE SERVICE HOMES BILL 1974

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 20 November, on motion by Mr Les Johnson:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr McLEAY:
Boothby

-In general terms the Opposition supports the provisions of this legislation as they apply to ex:servicemen who served in the Second World War. We acknowledge that discrimination did exist against single men and widowers. Honourable members on this side of the House are pleased that the Government has recognised this deficiency in the old Act and has taken steps to rectify it. We also support the provisions in the Bill which make it possible for mortgages to be transferred from one home to another in the special circumstances described in the second reading speech of the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr Les Johnson). No doubt all honourable members have seen cases involving medical or other hardships such as the transfer of a mortgagee from one State to another or from one part of a State to another part of a State through circumstances, to quote the Minister, ‘beyond his control’. These new provisions will ensure that such persons will not lose the very real benefit of a defence service homes loan. They will also continue to protect the legislation from abuse. The Opposition believes that there must never be any trading in property flowing from this legislation. This is purely and simply a repatriation benefit for services rendered to the nation.

We also support the hardship clauses which empower the Minister to grant a measure of relief to persons in difficulty as a result of a higher rate of interest applying to the increased mortgage limit. We note, in passing, that the Labor Party seems to hold a different view in government to some of the views that it held in Opposition. The power of the Minister to intervene in such matters is a typical example. I should like to quote from the Hansard debates of November 1971. I should like, in particular, to refer to some of the remarks of the present Minister for Housing and Construction when in Opposition. On page 3830 of the Hansard of November 1971, when discussing the War Services Homes Bill, the present Minister is reported as follows:

People do not want to be subjected to the bureacracy -

I am sure he will remember making these comments

Or the goodwill of a Minister or anybody else, and here I believe there is an obligation on the pan of the Government to look at the basic requirement of these people who can be in most distressing circumstances.

His colleague, the present Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) had something similar to say on this issue. At page 3813 of Hansard of the same date he is reported as having said:

There have been many restrictions on eligibility for war service homes. These restrictions were brought in by administrative action. The first lot were introduced in the credit squeeze of 1951. The second lot were brought in during the credit squeeze of 1 96 1 . Both rationing schemes are still there.

As an aside I think I must say that they are still here now. The present Prime Minister then referred to an amendment that was moved by the honourable member for Reid who is now the Minister for Urban and Regional Development (Mr Uren) which was seconded by the present Minister for Housing and Construction. The Prime Minister said further

The amendments that the honourable member for Reid has proposed are designed to see that restrictions on the entitlement to war service homes are not brought in by Ministerial action and that at least the Parliament can pass upon restrictions which are imposed.

He went on to say- and I agree with him:

Surely we have reached the stage where we can enlarge the entitlement to war service homes.

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– We have done that.

Mr McLEAY:

– The Minister interjects, fairly, that the Government has done that. Earlier in my speech I paid a tribute to the Government which has done a great deal in this legislation. But members of the Government, when in Opposition, said they would do a great deal more. Now that they have the power to do these things, they are not happening. I do not know how much one should labour the point but on the same date the present Minister for Urban and Regional Development moved an amendment to our legislation which incorporated the remarks that I have just quoted. I do not wish to waste the time of the House by reading them again. I wonder why it is that the present Government does not enlarge the entitlement to war service homes. In this particular Bill we have seen other examples of ministerial powers introduced and sponsored by the Minister which are in absolute contradiction to views expressed by members of the Government when in Opposition.

The Government also proposes to lift the upper limit of a war service loan or a defence service home loan from $12,000 to $15,000 and charge a higher rate of interest on the $3,000 increase. The rate of interest will be 7!4 per cent. I understand- the Minister might care to confirm this although I believe that it is a fact- that it is the intention of the Government to reduce the term of the loans from 45 to 32 years. Although the Minister confirms this, I do not think that I can find it anywhere in the second reading speech or in the Bill. But I understand that that is the intention of the Government. The combination of the higher interest rates and a shorter term will obviously mean higher monthly repayments. I have worked out that on a loan of $12,000 at the old rate of 3% per cent over 32 years, the monthly repayment would be $53.70 a month. Using the additional $3,000-1 would think just about everybody will be doing that- at the rate of TA per cent, an extra payment will be required of $20.12. According to my calculations this will mean a total repayment of $73.82 a month. Certainly those who are making additions will use the additional $3,000.

We on this side of the House have mixed feelings about the increased rate of interest which is to apply to the upper limits of ex-service loans as a result of this legislation. I believe that my colleague, the honourable member for Lilley (Mr Kevin Cairns) will be moving an amendment, on his own behalf, in the committee stage of the debate. We recognise that 7% per cent is definitely a concessional rate of interest. In fact, the defence services homes mortgagor on the maximum loan is being subsidised by as much as 8V4 per cent on most of the advance and by 4% per cent on the balance, which I believe is a saving of about $1,000 a year when compared to most others in the community- perhaps to people buying a home through a bank of through a co-operative permanent building society.

The problem is that every time the Government tinkers with interest rates it creates anomalies. We saw that happen last week in the debate on the concessional rate for what is called the ‘low income earner’ in relation to the welfare housing agreement. I should like to mention at this stage- I have mentioned it before- that there is becoming a real jungle of interest rates. At the moment we have a concessional rate of 5V6 per cent on the Commonwealth State Housing Agreement -

Dr Jenkins:

– Three and a half per cent.

Mr McLEAY:

– The recipient is being charged 5 lh per cent. On the second concessional rate, at least through the Savings Bank of South Australia, there is a 6% per cent interest rate and the private banks are charging 10 to 11 ‘A per cent.

Mr Kevin Cairns:
LILLEY, QUEENSLAND · LP

– It is a real mess.

Mr McLEAY:

– As my colleague said, it is a real mess. I believe that the interest structure in Australia can only be described as a jungle. One is lucky to borrow from the banks at 10 per cent or 1 1 Vi per cent, according to whether one is going to live in the home and according to the value of the home. The Commonwealth Bank, at its most favoured rate, lends at 9V** per cent. The co-operatives lend at 1 *W** per cent to 12 per cent, depending on the State in which one lives. It is less than that in South Australia. Bridging finance ranges at the moment- if one can get hold of it- from *9Yi per cent to 24 per cent.

Mr Cohen:

– What is the point that the honourable member is trying to make?

Mr McLEAY:

– The point I am trying to make is that every time we introduce a new interest rate into the interest structure we only add to the jungle and to the discrimination.

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Why should not there be varying interest rates? Do you think that everybody should pay the same?

Mr McLEAY:

– I was drawing the attention of the House to the fact that we have 7 or 8 different rates in the market place. Now we have 9 or 10 different rates, whichever way one counts, by introducing this new rate of 714 per cent. I am not denying that it is a concessional rate. I am saying that it is. But it is interfering with the whole rate structure that we have in the country at the moment. In the present legislation the Government is really saying that the old war service homes rate of 3% per cent is never likely to move past an advance of $12,000. A modest home, I suggest, in 5 or 6 years time, at the present rate of inflation will cost $100,000- or some astronomical figure. The maximum first mortgage available to ex-servicemen will still be only $ 12,000 at 3% per cent. Presumably, the balance will be payable at this concessional rate which is 2 per cent below the most favoured rate. The point that I make here is that at some time in the future exservicemen will be disadvantaged to the extent that the biggest amount of money they will have to find will not be for the mortgage, first or second, but for the deposit. They will not be in any different situation-

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– You would expect something to happen about -

Mr McLEAY:

– Something will happen, I am sure, because we will be re-elected as the Government and we will put some common sense back into the interest rate structure. I believe that in a neat way this is how the Government is working up to kill its obligation to exservicemen. It is an absolute repudiation -

Mr Nixon:

– This Minister has always been against ex-servicemen.

Mr McLEAY:

– I have no evidence of that.

Mr Nixon:

– When he was on this side of the House he used to make speeches against them.

Mr McLEAY:

– I propose to quote from some of his speeches in a moment but they do not show that he discriminates against ex-servicemen. They do show that he believed in certain things when in Opposition and now, when he has the power in government, he has suddenly forgotten all the things that he believed in when in Opposition.

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Well, roll them up and we will have a look at them.

Mr McLEAY:

-I turn to page 3809 of Hansard of 30 November 1971. At this time, the equivalent Bill to this Bill- then the War Service Homes Bill- was being debated in the Parliament. In fact, the Minister at the table was at that time the honourable member for Hughes.

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I still am.

Mr McLEAY:

-He still is. Referring to the Australian Labor Party policy he said that a Labor Government would:

Enable the Commonwealth Bank and the War Service Homes Division to lend up to 100 per cent of the value of properties against which their advances are made.

He then said a few other things which I will not waste the time of the House quoting. He went on to say that the Labor Party policies would: extend the purpose for which additional and supplementary war service homes advances can be made. He then said in the debate:

If what I have read out to the Committee is our policy, surely it means that it is our primary intention to extend the scheme to additional categories of servicemen; surely it must mean that it is our primary intention-

I hope that the Minister has not retreated from that position because not even the Minister for Housing and Construction could believe that $15,000 or even $20,000 represents anywhere near 100 per cent of the cost of buying or building a house today. The director of the Defence Service Homes Division noted in his annual report that the cost of building a house for the Division had increased by more than $5,000 in the last year. This is in just one year. This indicates to me that the cost could be quite substantially more than that in the current year. I also want to remind the Minister of the amendment that he supported in regard to similar legislation when he was the honourable member for Hughes in Opposition. He actually seconded the motion moved by the present Minister for Urban and Regional Development (Mr Uren). It happened exactly 3 years ago this week. It is reported on page 3819 of Hansard of 30 November 1971 that the honourable member for Reid (Mr Uren) moved at that time what amounted to an increase in the value of an advance from $8,000, not to $9,000 as we in Government were legislating for, but to $15,000. I will quote what the present Minister for Urban and Regional Development had to say about that because we have an amendment to move along those lines ourselves. It is entirely consistent with what we did in government. The present Minister for Urban and Regional Development said at that time:

We are asking honourable members opposite to vote for our amendment to increase the loan from $9,000 to $ 1 5,000. This is not simply something that has been pulled out of a hat. This is the policy of our Party. This was accepted by the last Labor Party conference, held at Launceston, and this action was taken after an evaluation of the whole situation in regard to housing costs with a view to finding a realistic level of costs.

He went on to make a few remarks that are entirely relevant in today’s conditions. He said, and I remind honourable members that he was then in Opposition:

This Government has allowed inflation to run rampant, has allowed the price of land to increase and the cost of housing to increase.

Mr Hunt:

– What year was that?

Mr McLEAY:

– This was said on 30 November 1971 when inflation was running at about 4 per cent per annum. I believe that the inflation rate today is approximately 25 per cent.

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– You should not have started it off.

Mr McLEAY:

– I am inclined to agree with the then honourable member and I say that this Government is responsible for this problem. Mr Uren also said:

The rising cost of dwellings and of land is one of the greatest of the crimes that can be attributed to this Government.

On behalf of the Opposition I now throw that statement back at the present Government. The honourable member for Reid then referred to some figures- he was spokesman on housing matters at that time- prepared by the Parliamentary Library to show that the average cost of a dwelling in New South Wales was almost $15,000. He stated that the amount of the mortgage should be $15,000-not $12,000-because the Labor Party believed in financing 100 per cent of the mortgage. I have obtained from the same source, the Parliamentary Library, a continuation of these figures. They show that the average cost of a dwelling in New South Walesthis was the case cited by the honourable member then- has increased by almost 50 per cent.

Mr Lusher:

– How much?

Mr McLEAY:

-By half, from $15,000 at the time he was talking about in 1971 to nearly $22,000 today. The Opposition therefore intends to move an amendment which will be consistent with our responsible view in government, that is, that the amount of the advance should be increased to $ 1 8,000. At least this will retain the value of the money available to ex-servicemen. With the agreement of the Minister, I would like to have this chart incorporated in the Hansard record. It shows the continuation of the position cited by the honourable member for Reid in 1971.

Mr SPEAKER:

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

Mr McLEAY:

– At this stage I wish to read the amendment that we propose to move to the motion that the Bill be read a second time. I move:

We certainly do not want to delay the passage of the Bill- and whilst welcoming the measure of relief provided by the Bill, the House is of the opinion that (a) the maximum loan or advance proposed should be increased to a more realistic figure in view of spiralling inflation -

We are suggesting, although it is not in the amendment, that the amount should be $18,000 and I am sure that the Government will end up doing that at some stage in the near future- and (b) all former members of the forces with an honourable discharge should be entitled to Defence Service Loans.

I have amalgamated 2 amendments. The Opposition also intends to extend the eligibility for war service home loans to all those ex-servicemen and women who served in the defence forces in World War II irrespective of whether they served in a theatre of war. We hold the view that the Government altered the whole philosophy of the war service homes legislation when it introduced the Defence Service Homes Act. No longer is overseas service the key for eligibility. It is now enlistment and enlistment alone which achieves eligibility for this greatly subsidised housing loan. Many people who served within Australia during World War II, some at very great personal risk and discomfort, have been ineligible for a war service loan. The numbers are not great. I admit that I do not know what the numbers are but they cannot be great and the cost of providing finance would not be high. We on this side of the House believe strongly, and I believe honourable members on the other side of the House believe, that the overwhelming majority of these men and women served their country well and it was not their fault that they did not serve outside Australia. For example, every servicewoman was a volunteer.

Many of them rendered tremendous service on anti-aircraft guns, on searchlight units and units of that type. They served in all sorts of capacities. The strength and the capacity of our front-line combat units were helped immensely, in our view, as a result of their war service. Similarly there were instructors- I believe one honourable member on our side of the House was one- who were considered more valuable by the powers that be at that time performing their highly dangerous work than serving overseas. I have in mind people who were training air cadets, who were flying instructors. I could not think of anything more dangerous and arduous than being a flying instructor teaching people, people such as the Minister and I know well, to fly. None of these people, unless they serve outside Australia, is eligible for a war service loan. Our amendment seeks to have that remedied.

I suggest that the Minister give serious consideration to agreeing to our amendment. On page 3808 of the 1971 Hansard the present Minister for Housing and Construction, who was then in Opposition, said the sorts of things, in a sense, that we are saying. I shall use his words to strengthen our case.

Mr Garrick:

– But you would not accept them then.

Mr McLEAY:

– I accept that interjection and I agree with it. Society is changing. Standards are changing. Values are changing. What altered our view- certainly my own view- of this was the legislation the Government introduced which changed the basis for the loan to be granted from one of service to one of enlistment. It seems to us that people who were willing to serve in World War II and who just did not get outside Australia are as entitled to a war service loan as those who are now enlisting with very little likelihood of ever being shot at. The present Minister for Housing, when in opposition, had this to say:

The first amendment was to provide that former members of the forces who had been honourably discharged should be entitled to war service homes.

I am sure the Minister will remember saying that. We agree with him. We ask him to set aside any partisan political point of view and to accept our amendment to include those people as being eligible for a war service loan.

I wish to refer to another matter. Unfortunately time will not permit us to cover all the matters that we wish to cover in this legislation. The Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) himself, speaking in the same debate, supported the view that we are now putting and which was put by the present Minister for Housing and Construction. I shall not read the passage from Hansard but I am willing to provide the Hansard reference and those interested enough to check the debates- I am sure the Minister will be one of them- will be able to see that the Prime Minister believes that these men and women should be included under the legislation.

I should like briefly to bring another matter to the Minister’s attention. I know that he has received representations- I think the honourable member for Wakefield (Mr Kelly) and others have made representations- about certain exservicemen, national servicemen, who had served in Vietnam, who are living in rural areas and who have been excluded from the benefits of this legislation. There are two in South Australia in particular that have come to my attention. One is from Yumali and one is from Manoora, one in the electorate of Barker and one in the electorate of Wakefield. I have also heard of others who have been refused a defence service home loan on grounds which I think are basically quite reasonable. Section 24 (c) of the principal Act, which the Minister might like to have a look at, states: having regard to the locality in which the dwelling house is erected, or proposed to be erected, the risk is a reasonable risk for him to undertake.

This simply means that ex-servicemen living in certain country areas are frequently denied the advantage of this loan. The Director has to make what amounts to a commercial judgment. I am sure that the honourable member for Wakefield will give us more details of the case in his area.

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– We all know the position because it has been like that since 1918.

Mr McLEAY:

– Once again, I am not saying that it was different when we were in government, although the Minister in his second reading speech said that the application of the loan grant will be much more liberal. That really is a reflection on the administration of the Department. I do not think it is any different now from what it was when we were in government and I do not really think that the Minister meant to intrude that political atmosphere into his second reading speech, but he did. I am saying that we have to see that the Commonwealth is protected, but after all these 2 cases are classic examples. These were young men sent to a theatre of war. I believe both of them were conscripted, so they were not enlisted of their own free choice. Both went back to their home towns or districts, both had freehold land and both sought a loan through the war service homes scheme to build and both were excluded.

I can understand the position of the Director. Presumably he puts such cases to the Minister and says: ‘Here is a grey area. Will you rule on it?’ I cannot think of any form of words- the Opposition had a very careful look at this- whereby this could be changed. But what we believe could and should happen is that the Minister, if he has the opportunity to make a judgment, should be lenient and lean over backwards to help the applicants. The departmental officers should be encouraged to give the applicant the benefit of the loan. In one case- I am not sure which one because there is not time to check- the war service loan was not allowed and yet within weeks the State Bank of South Australia had granted this ex-serviceman a loan from its own funds. So the defence service homes section thought the case was a risk and the State Bank thought it was not a risk.

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– It was probably at overdraft rates.

Mr McLEAY:

– No, it was at 814 per cent, a different one, the eleventh differential concessional rate. Australia has an obligation to these young men to find some way of accommodating them. If there is a risk, let us remember that they put their lives at risk day after day. I believed that in some way, either through the Housing Loans Insurance Corporation underwriting the loans or in some way which I am sure the human brain can devise, we should clear up this grey area and make it possible for these men to get the loans.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Dr Jenkins)Order! The honourable member’s time has expired. Is the amendment seconded?

Mr Kevin Cairns:
LILLEY, QUEENSLAND · LP

– I second the amendment.

Mr COHEN:
Robertson

– It really is quite staggering to listen to the honourable member for Boothby (Mr McLeay), who has suddenly discovered the ex-serviceman. The Liberal Party is always the diggers’ friend, but when the Opposition had 23 years to do something for the diggers it ignored them completely. (Quorum formed) I thank the honourable member for Barker for providing me with an audience. I do not know what it is about calling for quorums that amuses the honourable member for Barker. But I suppose we can understand that the only thing that a man of such small* capacity is capable of doing with any expertise is calling for a quorum. It is incredible to sit here and to listen to the friends of the diggers- those opposite who ignored the needs of ex-servicemen for 23 years. We had to suffer listening to them carrying on as the grand hawks of this world, the friends of the diggers, but who did nothing for them. The present Government was attacked constantly because supposedly it was anti-army, antiexservicemen; attacked particularly by the Liberal and Country Parties and the upper echelons of the Returned Servicemen’s League. But this is the Government that has done more for exservicemen in respect of pensions, defence forces retirement benefits and housing than any government in our history. Here we have the hypocrisy of the honourable member for Boothby (Mr McLeay), a gentle fellow, who had the utter gall to -

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Dr Jenkins:
SCULLIN, VICTORIA

Order! The word ‘hypocrisy’ is unparliamentary. I ask the honourable member to withdraw it.

Mr COHEN:

– Is it really unparliamentary?

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– Yes.

Mr COHEN:

– In that case, I withdraw it. We have the incredible situation that Liberal Party spokesmen are moving around the countryside telling the people of Australia that the real problem with this Labor Government is that it is spending too much public money and that it is a wasteful Government. They say that what they will do is cut out all this largesse, this distribution of public funds. It is in that broad sense that they make those sorts of speeches. But when we listen to them in the House, we find that on every Bill rather than suggest cuts in expenditure, they propose to increase every single expenditure one can think of. They do not want to spend less or, as the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Lynch) said, cut expenditure across the board by 8 per cent.

In this House they pander to every little interest group by saying that they will spend more. Today with respect to this legislation the Opposition has moved an amendment seeking to increase the loan from $15,000 to $18,000. When honourable members opposite were in government, a short while ago- it is not 2 years yet- $9,000 was considered sufficient. This Government by this legislation increases the loan to $15,000. 1 cannot figure out the exact percentage increase off the top of my head, but the increase is fairly substantial. Now the Opposition, which is going to prune Government expenditure, seeks to increase that sum to $18,000.

The honourable member for Boothby also said that housing costs had increased, as a result of inflation, by 50 per cent from 1 97 1 to 1 974, as he neatly put it. I hate to remind honourable members opposite, but 1971 and 1972 were the years of a Liberal Government. Today, I thought, would have reminded them of those years of government. It is most nostalgic to see leadership changes proposed on the hour every hour. What the honourable member for Boothby did not mention was the fact that this Government has probably done more to keep the price of land down than has any other governmnent in recent years.

Mr Lusher:

– You have to be kidding. . Mr COHEN- The honourable member is noted for his brilliant contributions in this place in the short time that he has been here. I remind him of what has happened in my electorate of Robertson on the central coast of New South Wales. When I was campaigning there in 1969, the price of land in that area was approximately $2,500 a block. Last year in the middle of the boom inspired by the generosity of the former government in allowing foreign capital and funds to pour into this country, the price of an average block of land in that area, 50 miles from Sydney and about the same distance from Newcastle, had risen to $ 12,500.

Mr Lusher:

– How many acres did you have?

Mr COHEN:

– That was the cost of just one small block of land, a single building block. That was the cost of a block of land to people who must travel two or three hours to work in the city. Today the price of that land has at least stabilised and in many instances has fallen by some hundreds of dollars and even up to $1,000 or $2,000 in value. While it is true that - (Quorum formed)

Mr COHEN:

-I thank the honourable member for Barker for maintaining the audience for me. I wish to go over the provisions of the Bill. The fundamental purpose of the Bill is to increase the amount of loan in respect of defence service homes. That amount was increased initially from $9,000 to $12,000. By this legislation, the Government seeks to raise that sum to $15,000. There are some important and significant parts of this Bill. I refer first to the liberalisation of the legislation for single men and widows. Last year, we amended the legislation to make single and widowed females eligible for the benefit. This Bill provides a further extension to single men and widowers. I quote from the second reading speech of the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr Les Johnson), who said:

The Bill contains limited provisions which will enable the balance of an existing loan to be made available for the acquisition of another property in special circumstances.

All members of Parliament have had considerable experience of this particular problem, but probably none more than myself or those honourable members who represent electorates such as mine. A number of people on reaching 60 years of age or that age group decide for health reasons that they would like to retire to another area, be it the central coast of New South Wales, the Blue Mountains, the Gold Coast or some other region. They find their income has diminished, they are near the age when they will become eligible to receive a pension, and they find it extremely difficult to get a second loan, certainly under the conditions that prevail under the defence service home loans scheme.

I think this Bill provides a tremendous improvement on existing legislation. I know over the years I have represented the electorate of Robertson I have been able to get only 2 people a second loan under the harsh provisions of the legislation introduced by the previous LiberalCountry Party Administration. I am assured by the Minister for Housing and Construction that a second loan will become easier to obtain. However it will still be given only in special circumstances, but nevertheless it will give a greater opportunity to people who, through ill-health or reasons of hardship, require a second loan to shift to areas such as the Central Coast and acquire another property by taking up the balance of an existing loan. I think it ought to be understood by honourable members that these people will not receive a completely new loan, but only the balance of an existing loan. I shall quote another portion of the Minister’s second reading speech in which he said:

An application for approval must be made before the first home is sold and the amount of assistance will ordinarily not exceed the balance of the existing loan.

I listened to the honourable member for Boothby, who made quite a Fuss about special interest rates. He was concerned that all sorts of varying interest rates exist in the community at the moment. I noticed that the honourable member for Lilley (Mr Kevin Cairns) nodded his head in agreement with him.

Mr McKENZIE:
Diamond Valley · ALP

– He was not in agreement.

Mr COHEN:

-I heard him nod his head from here. But I found this quite surprising because I cannot find anything strange in the fact that interest rates vary. I think that is a desirable thing. Those honourable members who have business experience- there are very few on the other side of the House- know that it is desirable that there should be varying interest rates because of the risks involved in lending money, the social objective in the money being lent, the term of the loan and so on. This is quite clearly a matter in which there is a social objective to reward those ex-servicemen who served their country overseas and in more recent times those who enlisted in the Services but did not necessarily serve overseas. That is the objective of this Bill. I cannot quite understand what the honourable member for Boothby was on about when he expressed surprise that there are varying interest rates. There always will be because of the varying price for money. The price varies for money as it does for any other commodity in our community, and so it should do.

Mr McLeay:

– How can you justify the difference between 3% per cent and 1 2 per cent?

Mr COHEN:

-The point that needs to be made is that the present rate of 3% per cent has existed since 1946. Since then the long term bond rate has risen from 3% per cent to 9Vi per cent per annum. I shall quote again from the Minister’s second reading speech in which he said:

It is proposed that the prescribed rate shall be 2 per cent below the most favourable rate charged by the Commonwealth Savings Bank on housing loans. The most favourable rate at present is 9’A per cent and accordingly the Bill provides that the prescribed rate of interest shall be TA per cent per annum or such other rate as may be prescribed.

Mr King:

– How does that compare with the old rates?

Mr COHEN:

-As I understand it-I think the Minister may be able to clarify this for me- the higher rate is applicable only to the amount over $12,000, up to the maximum total loan of $15,000.

Mr McLeay:

– You have not studied the Bill too closely.

Mr COHEN:

– As I understand it on the one hand the shadow Minister for Housing and Construction complains that there is a privileged section of the community getting money very cheaply. On the other hand he now claims that they should get money cheaply.

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– They are getting more at 3% per cent now than they ever had before.

Mr COHEN:

-The Minister just made the point that they are now getting $ 1 2,000 at 3% per cent. Under the previous Liberal-Country Party Government they got $9,000 at 3)i per cent. They are now able to get the other $3,000 at *TV** per cent. I can assure honourable members that this is still a very handsome interest rate. It is a balance, if you like, between a special reward for service and economic responsibility.

Mr King:

– You are doubling the rate, are you not?

Mr COHEN:

-We are doubling the rate for the last $3,000. 1 am really quite staggered that a Country Party member could manage to work out that it is double the rate. It did not occur to me that the honourable member for Wimmera (Mr King) had these skills. Finally, I would like to refer to the figures provided by the Minister with regard to Labor’s achievements in housing. In the comparisons of expenditure, the Minister points out that in the year 1972-73, which was the year of the last Liberal Budget, $74.3m was provided for defence service homes. In 1973-74, this amount was increased to $102m. In 1 974-75- for our Country Party friends, that is the year we are now in- the amount provided is $115m.

Mr Sullivan:

-That is 115,000 homes. Where are they?

Mr COHEN:

– I will cite the figures again for the honourable member for Riverina. They are $74.3m, $102m and $U5m. I compliment the Government, and the Minister in particular for the magnificent job he has done in regard to defence service homes. It is a credit to him and a credit to the Government that at last exservicemen are no longer listening to the waffle from the hawks on the other side- the great defenders of the old diggers. At last they have a Government that will stop talking about exservicemen and what a wonderful job they have done for the country and start doing something for them. I support the Bill and reject the amendment.

Mr Kevin Cairns:
LILLEY, QUEENSLAND · LP

-Mr Deputy Speaker -

Motion (by Mr Nicholls) put:

That the question be now put.

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

AYES: 59

NOES: 53

Majority……. 6

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Question put:

That the words proposed to be omitted (Mr McLeay’s amendment) stand part of the question.

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

AYES: 59

NOES: 52

Majority……. 7

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Amendment negatived.

Original question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.

In Committee

The CHAIRMAN (Mr Scholes:
CORIO, VICTORIA

-Is it the wish of the Committee to take the Bill as a whole?

Mr Wentworth:

– No, we will take the clauses one at a time.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! The honourable gentleman will resume his seat.

Mr Wentworth:

– I am only trying to help you.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! The honourable gentleman will resume his seat. I ask other honourable gentlemen to resume their seats. The question is: That clause 1 be agreed to.

Mr Wentworth:

– Clause 6 is the first one.

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

- Mr Chairman, may I seek clarification for the purpose of ascertaining whether the Opposition members of the Committee intend tediously to take the clauses one by one? I doubt whether it is their intention to do that and to tie up the Committee.

Mr Wentworth:

– I have already suggested to the Chairman that he take clauses 1 to 5 together.

Mr McLeay:

- Mr Chairman we do not intend to delay the Committee unduly but there are members on our side who wish to speak in the Committee stage of debate. I believe that the first clause we want to speak to is clause 6.

The CHAIRMAN:

– The question is: That clauses 1 to 5 be agreed to.

Mr McVEIGH:
Darling Downs

-Mr Scholes -

Motion ( by Mr Nicholls) proposed:

That the question be now put. (The bells being rung) -

Mr Cohen:

- Mr Chairman, I point out that the honourable member for Barker just referred to the Government Whip as a mongrel.

The CHAIRMAN:

– I did not hear any remark of that nature. I cannot take cognisance of any remark that I do not hear.

Question put. The Committee divided. (The Chairman-Mr G. G. D. Scholes)

AYES: 59

NOES: 52

Majority……. 7

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Original question resolved in the affirmative.

Clauses 1 to 5 agreed to.

Clause 6 (Sale of dwelling houses).

Mr KELLY:
Wakefield

-Mr Chairman

Motion ( by Mr Nicholls ) put:

That the question be now put.

The Committee divided. (The Chairman-Mr G. G. D. Scholes)

AYES: 59

NOES: 52

Majority 7

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Clause agreed to.

Mr Wentworth-On Clause 6?

The CHAIRMAN:

– On Clause 6. The question now is that clause 7 be agreed to.

Clause 7 (maximum advances).

Mr McLEAY:
Boothby

-Mr Chairman, I crave your indulgence to expedite the passage of this Bill. The Opposition has facilitated the passage of the Bill by agreeing to take the first 5 clauses together. We had two or three speakers who wished to take part in the debate. I suggest that the reason we are being involved in this tedious delay is no fault of the Opposition but the sheer bloodymindedness of the Leader of the House (Mr Daly). I do not wish to -

Motion (by Mr Nicholls) proposed:

That the question be now put.

Mr McLeay:

– The Committee does not have a question before it yet.

The CHAIRMAN:

– I have put a question.

Mr McLeay:

– Can I finish?

The CHAIRMAN:

– No, you cannot. The question is that the question be put.

Mr Wentworth:

– What clause are we on, Mr Chairman?

The CHAIRMAN:

– The question before the Chair is that clause 7 be agreed to. The immediate question now before the Chair is that the question be now put.

Dr Forbes:

– What question is that?

The CHAIRMAN:

– The question that clause 7 be agreed to.

Mr Nixon:

– We have had no discussion. What are you talking about?

The CHAIRMAN:

– I suggest if the honourable member for Gippsland wants to run the Committee he move a dissent motion; otherwise I will do something about him. The question is:

That the question be now put.

Question put.

The Committee divided. (The Chairman-Mr G. G. D. Scholes)

AYES: 59

NOES: 52

Majority……. 7

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Mr Wentworth- Mr Chairman-

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! The question that the question be now put has been carried. I must put the question without further debate.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 8 (Discretion of Director as to making of advances, etc.).

Mr WENTWORTH:
Mackellar

-Mr Chairman -

Motion (by Mr Nicholls) proposed:

That the question be now put.

The CHAIRMAN (Mr Scholes:

-The question is:

That the question be now put

Mr Wentworth:

-Under standing order 61 I require you, Mr Chairman, to put the motion that the honourable member for Parramatta be now heard. Under standing order 6 1 -

Mr CHAIRMAN:

– Order! The honourable member will resume his seat.

Mr Wentworth:

– I have my rights under standing order 6 1 which reads:

When two or more -

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! The honourable member will resume his seat or I will name him. I shall rule on the point of order. If the honourable member will read standing order 93 he will find that the motion ‘that the question be now put’ shall be put forthwith.

Mr Wentworth:

- Mr Chairman, I draw your attention to a point of order. Under standing order 6 1 , which I will now read, it is provided:

When two or more Members rise together to speak the Speaker shall call upon the member who, in his opinion, first rose in his place; but it shall be in order to move, that any Member who has risen ‘be now heard’, or ‘do now speak’ and the question shall be put forthwith and determined without amendment or debate.

I require you to do that before you put the motion that the question be now put.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! The honourable gentleman will resume his seat.

Mr Wentworth:

- Mr Chairman, you have misbehaved yourself -

The CHAIRMAN:

-Order! If the Opposition wishes to make a fool of the House that is its business. I have ruled on this question. I would suggest that the honourable member knows the standing orders as well as I do-

Mr Wentworth:

- Mr Chairman, I move dissent from your ruling.

The CHAIRMAN:

– The honourable member will be named if he does not resume his seat.

Mr Wentworth:

– I move dissent from your ruling.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! I name the honourable member for Mackellar.

Mr Wentworth:

– How can you do that? I moved dissent from your ruling.

Mr Killen:

- Mr Chairman, I rise to order. Whatever view you may take, Sir, of what was offered by the honourable member for

Mackellar, he is entitled, I submit, to move dissent from your ruling.

THE CHAIRMAN- Order! I will rule on the honourable member’s point of order.

Mr Killen:

– I have not finished. May I finish my point of order? Once someone has moved dissent from your ruling, Mr Chairman, I submit that you must consider that. I think that it is completely wrong for you not to do so.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! I suggest that members on my right should remain silent. I point out to the House that the question before the Chair was that the question be now put. No other motion can be entertained until such time as that question is put. No honourable member has a right to move a motion without getting the call.

Mr Wentworth:

– I moved dissent from your ruling.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! The honourable member for Mackellar refused repeatedly to obey my rulings. I was on my feet giving a ruling at the time at which without obtaining the call the honourable member for Mackellar sought to move a motion of dissent from a ruling which I was in the process of giving. I think -

Mr McLeay:

– I do not think you were on your feet.

The CHAIRMAN:

– I was standing on my feet giving a ruling. I did it deliberately in order to have that opportunity. The honourable member for Mackellar refused to obey my ruling. I have named him and I will report the circumstances to the Speaker whom I will leave to deal with the matter. It is now the responsibility of the House.

In the House:

The CHAIRMAN:

- Mr Speaker, I have to report that I have named the honourable member for Mackellar for disobeying the Chair.

Mr Daly:

– I move:

That the honourable member for Mackellar be suspended from the service of the House. (The bells being rung)-

Mr Killen:

-Mr Speaker -

Mr Garland:

– It is against all the forms of the

House.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member will resume his seat.

Mr Wentworth:

– It is contrary to all the rules of the House. This is an outrage. I was only trying to exercise my right to speak in this House. What Red fascists.

Mr Killen:

– On a point of order - (The bells having ceased to ring) - Mr SPEAKER- Order! The question is:

That the honourable member Tor Mackellar be suspended from the service of the House.

The ayes will pass to the right of the chair and the noes to the left. I appoint the honourable members for Bonython and Hunter tellers for the ayes and the honourable members for Curtin and Calare tellers for the noes.

Mr Garland:

– I refuse to act because of the behaviour of the Chairman and the Government.

Mr SPEAKER:

– I appoint the honourable member for Ryan as a teller for the noes.

Question put:

That the honourable member for Mackellar be suspended from the service of the House.

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

AYES: 60

NOES: 50

Majority……. 10

In division:

AYES

NOES

Mr Killen- The second ground upon which I raise a point of order is that it is customary, I would submit, that before a member is named and before the person who moves his suspension from the House - (Honourable members interjecting)-

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

page 4198

ADJOURNMENT

Mr SPEAKER:

– It being after 10.30 p.m., in accordance with the order of the House I propose the question:

That the House do now adjourn.

Mr Daly:

– I require that the motion be put forthwith without debate.

Question put:

That the House do now adjourn.

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

AYES: 46

NOES: 60

Majority……. 14

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

page 4199

DEFENCE SERVICE HOMES BILL 1974

In Committee

Consideration resumed.

The CHAIRMAN (Mr Scholes:

-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. The question now is that clause 8 be agreed to.

Mr McLeay:

– Just to clear up this point, Mr Chairman, what are we about to vote on, the clause or the gag?

The CHAIRMAN:

– The gag.

Mr McLeay:

– We oppose the gag at every opportunity. We do not oppose the clause.

The CHAIRMAN:

– I said: “The question is: That the question be now put. ‘ I was asked on what clause and I made that clear. I will put the question again.

Question put:

The Committee divided. (The Chairman-Mr G. G. D. Scholes)

AYES: 60

NOES: 44

Majority……. 16

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative. The CHAIRMAN- The question now is:

That clause 8 be agreed to. Mr Ruddock- Mr Chairman -

Mr Ruddock- Mr Chairman -

Mr CHAIRMAN:

– I point out to the Committee that once a motion, that the question be now put, has been carried the original question must be put forthwith. It is not proper for me to call or to recognise any honourable member at that time.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 9 (Payment of purchase money and repayment of advance).

Mr McVeigh (Darling Downs) (10.58)-Mr Chairman -

Motion (by Mr Nicholls) put:

That the question be now put.

The Committee divided. (The Chairman-Mr G. G. D. Scholes)

AYES: 60

NOES: 45

Majority …….. 15

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Clause agreed to,

Clause 10 (Relief for widows, etc.)

Mr Kelly (Wakefield) (11.3)-Mr Chairman

Motion ( by Mr Nicholls) put:

That the question be now put.

The Committee divided. (The Chairman-Mr G. G. D. Scholes)

AYES: 59

NOES: 44

Majority….. 15

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 11 (Relief for persons paying higher rate of interest)

Mr SULLIVAN:
Riverina

-Mr Chairman -

Motion ( by Mr Nicholls) put:

That the question be now put.

The Committee divided. (The Chairman-Mr G. G. D. Scholes)

AYES: 60

NOES: 47

Majority……. 13

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 12 (Rates of interest chargeable on purchases or advances).

Mr KELLY:
Wakefield

-Mr Chairman

Motion (by Mr Nicholls) put:

That the question be now put.

The Committee divided. (The Chairman-Mr G. G. D. Scholes)

AYES: 59

NOES: 46

Majority……. 13

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Clause agreed to.

Motion (by Mr Killen) put:

That progress be reported.

The Committee divided. (The Chairman-Mr G. G. D. Scholes)

AYES: 41

NOES: 58

Majority……. 17

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Clause 13 (Storage of Goods Found in Dwelling-houses).

Mr LUSHER:
Hume

-Mr Chairman

Motion (by Mr Nicholls) put:

That the question be now put

The Committee divided. (The Chairman-Mr G. G. D. Scholes)

.

AYES: 57

NOES: 40

Majority…… 17

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 14 (Property to be kept in repair until payment in full)

Mr KILLEN:
Moreton

– I move:

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! The question of progress has been resolved. I believe the motion is obstruction. I am not prepared to accept it. The question is the clause 14 be agreed to. I call the honourable member for Wimmera.

Mr Killen:

- Mr Chairman, I moved that progress be reported.

The CHAIRMAN:

– I did not accept the motion.

Mr Killen:

– Upon what grounds, may I ask?

The CHAIRMAN:

– On the grounds contained in the Standing Orders, that the motion is obstruction.

Mr Peacock:

– What about the obstruction over there when the Government is gagging every Bill through?

Mr KING:
Wimmera

-Mr Chairman, 1 want to speak to clause 14 in relation to interest ratesMr Nicholls- I move:

Consideration interrupted.

That the question be now put. Consideration interrupted.

page 4203

OBJECTION TO RULING

Mr KILLEN:
Moreton

-I move: That the Chairman’s ruling be dissented from.

Mr Nicholls:

– I have moved that the question be put. You have that motion before you, Mr Chairman.

Mr McLeay:

– That will have to be dealt with after this one.

The CHAIRMAN:

– The motion of dissent has been moved on a ruling which was given before the honourable member’s motion that the question be now put was moved. (The honourable member for Moreton having submitted his objection in writing) -

The CHAIRMAN:

– Is the motion seconded?

Mr McLeay:

– I second the motion.

Question put:

That the Chairman’s ruling be dissented from.

The Committee divided. (The Chairman-Mr G. G. D. Scholes)

AYES: 45

NOES: 59

Majority……. 14

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

page 4204

DEFENCE SERVICE HOMES BILL 1974

Consideration resumed.

Mr KILLEN:
Moreton

-Mr Chairman, I move:

That the Committee no longer has confidence in the Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! The motion cannot be accepted by the Chair because such a motion cannot be moved in Committee. Notice must be given of such a motion.

Mr KILLEN:

– I give notice, Mr Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN:

– It must be given in the House.

Mr KILLEN:

-In that case, I move:

That progress be reported.

The CHAIRMAN:

– In the circumstances, I have to accept that motion.

Motion (by Mr Killen) put:

That progress be reported.

The Committee divided. (The Chairman-Mr G. G. D. Scholes)

AYES: 41

NOES: 58

Majority……. 17

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative. Original question resolved in the affirmative. Progress reported. Mr SPEAKER- The question is:

That the House will at a later hour this day again resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole.

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

AYES: 58

NOES: 42

Majority…….. 16

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative. Thursday, 28 November 1974)

In division:

Mr SPEAKER:

– I do not quite understand what the point of order is about.

Mr Killen:

– I asked: Is the time that this division was called and the time of counting that is now taking place noted?

Mr SPEAKER:

– It is always noted, I think, by Hansard.

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Declaration of Urgency

Mr DALY:
Leader of the House · Grayndler · ALP

– I move:

Mr Fairbairn:

- Mr Speaker, I rise to order. The question was put at 11.58 p.m. that ‘the House will at a later hour this day again resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole’. It is not a later hour this day. It is tomorrow.

Mr DALY:

– I move -

Mr Fairbairn:

-On the point of order, I submit that the question must be put again.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Why do you confuse me with facts?

Mr DALY:

– I move -

Mr Killen:

– I rise to order. The point taken by the honourable and gallant member for Farrer (Mr Fairbairn) is, I submit, a valid one, I ask you to rule whether the point taken is in fact in order.

Mr SPEAKER:

– It was in the same sitting. That is the point.

Mr Daly:

– I move:

Question put:

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

AYES: 58

NOES: 45

Majority……. 13

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Allotment of Time

Mr DALY:
Leader of the House · Grayndler · ALP

-I move:

Mr SPEAKER:

-The question is that the motion be agreed to. I call the honourable member for Moreton.

Mr KILLEN:
Moreton

-Mr Speaker -

Motion (by Mr Daly) proposed:

That the question be now put.

Mr Killen:

- Mr Speaker, I rise to order. My submission is a short one. The Standing Orders provide that 20 minutes shall be given over to consideration of a motion of this character. I refer you, Mr Speaker, to standing orders 92 (g) and 93. My submission is that there is no basis upon which the Leader of the House can move the motion that he has moved.

Mr SPEAKER:

– This is a matter for the House to decide. Once a motion, that the question be now put, is moved the Chair is forced to put that question. The motion now before the Chair is, that the question be now put.

Mr Anthony:

– I rise on a point of order, Mr Speaker. If I can refer you to standing order 92 (g)-

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! There is no point of order involved. The Chair has no alternative but to put the question that the question be put.

Mr Anthony:

- Mr Speaker -

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The Chair has no alternative but to put the question that the question be now put. The motion before the Chair now, as moved by the Leader of the House, is that the question be now put. All those of that opinion say ‘ aye ‘, to the contrary ‘ no M think the ayes have it.

Mr Anthony:

– I rise on a point of order, Mr Speaker. Your ruling is in defiance of Standing Orders.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member will resume his seat. The motion is carried. (Opposition members interjecting).

Mr SPEAKER:

– Are honourable members calling for a division?

Opposition members- Yes.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Ring the bells.

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

AYES: 58

NOES: 42

Majority……. 16

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Mr Killen- Mr Speaker -

Mr SPEAKER:

-Is a division required?

Mr Killen:

– Well, I have 1 5 seconds to talk.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Is a division required?

Mr Killen:
Mr SPEAKER:

-Ring the bells.

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

AYES: 58

NOES: 44

Majority

14

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

In Committee

Consideration resumed.

Mr Killen- Mr Chairman -

The CHAIRMAN (Mr Scholes:

-Order! The time allotted for the remaining stages of the Bill has expired.

Question put:

That the remaining clauses of the Bill be agreed to and that the Bill be reported without amendment.

The Committee divided. (The Chairman-Mr G. G. D. Scholes)

AYES: 58

NOES: 43

Majority……. 15

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Bill reported without amendment.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The time allotted for the remaining stages of the Bill has expired. The question is that the report be adopted and that the Bill be now read a third time.

Mr McLeay:

-Mr Speaker -

Mr SPEAKER:

-The time allotted has expired.

Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a third time. House adjourned at 12.37 a.m.

page 4209

TREATIES

The following treaties were deemed to have been presented on 27 November 1974, by command of His Excellency the Governor-General:

Treaties which have entered into force and to which Australia has become a party by signature:

Second Nam Ngum Development Fund Agreement, 1974, done at Manila 26 June 1974 and signed for Australia S July 1974, and Protocol to the second Nam Ngum Development Fund Agreement, 1974, relating to an additional Australian Contribution, signed for Australia at Manila 26 July 1974.

Exchange of Notes between Australia and the Federal Republic of Germany constituting an Agreement amending the Agreement relating to Air Transport of 22 May 1 957 signed at Canberra 21 August 1974.

Exchange of Notes between Australia and the United States of America constituting an Agreement concerning a Co-operative Scientific Program designated Hi Star South, signed at Canberra 23 August 1 974. 4. (a) General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade Proto col for the accession of Hungary to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade done at Geneva 8 August 1973 and signed for Australia 9 October 1974.

Declaration of Provisional Accession of the Philippines to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, done at Geneva 9 August 1973 and signed for Australia 9 October 1974.

Trade Agreement between Australia and the Hungarian People’s Republic signed at Budapest 30 September 1974.

Exchange of Notes constituting an Agreement with the People’s Republic of China concerning the Reciprocal Registration of Trade Marks, signed at Peking 12 October 1974.

Exchange of Letters constituting an Agreement extending the Agreement between Australia and New Zealand on Tariffs and Trade Preferences of 7 May 1973 signed at Canberra and at Wellington 26 September 1974.

Treaty which has been ratified by Australia and which has entered into force:

Protocol instituting a Conciliation and Good Offices Commission to be responsible for seeking a settlement of any disputes which may arise between States Parties to the Convention against Discrimination in Education, 1962 Australia ratified the Protocol 22 August 1974 and it entered into force for Australia 22 November 1 974.

Treaties which Australia has signed and which will enter into force by an Exchange of Notes:

Cultural Agreement between Australia and Iran signed at Canberra 25 September 1974.

Trade Agreement between Australia and Iran signed at Canberra 25 September 1974.

Treaties which have not yet entered into force and to which Australia has become a Contracting State:

By Ratification

Convention concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage, 1972, drawn up at Paris 23 November 1972. Australia ratified the Convention 22 August 1974.

By Accession

Strasbourg Agreement Concerning the International Patent Classification drawn up at Strasbourg 24 March 1971. Australia ratified the Agreement 7 November 1974.

Treaties to which Australia is considering becoming a party by ratification or accession:

By Ratification

Cultural Agreement between Australia and Japan signed at Canberra 1 November 1974.

By Accession

International Convention on the Simplification and Harmonization of Customs Procedures drawn up at Kyoto 18 May 1973.

Convention on the Political Rights of Women, opened for signature at New York 31 March 1953.

page 4210

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS UPON NOTICE

The following answers to questions upon notice were circulated:

Bureau of Environmental Studies (Question No. 37)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for the Environment and Conservation, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) How many positions will be provided in the Bureau of Environmental Studies.
  2. What will be the classification and function of each position.
  3. How many of the positions have been filled, and by whom.
  4. When is it expected that all positions will be filled.
Dr Cass:
ALP

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

  1. 1 ) The number of core positions under the Public Service Act which have been provided is 28. As appropriate for particular investigations it is expected officers may be seconded from other Departments and Instrumentalities or from the States or from industry or academic institutions. Consultants may also be employed within the Bureau from time to time when it is functioning fully.
  2. The classification and functions of the Public Service positions are :

Director, Level 3, Second Division- Head of the Bureau.

Assistant Director, Level 1, Second Division (3 positions) In charge of the following BranchesRequirements and Programmes Studies Management Environment Forecasting

Clerk Class 10, Third Division and Clerk Class 8, Third Division (2 positions)- Located in the Studies Requirements Section of the Requirements and Programmes Branch. The functions are to analyse data and develop proposals for the formulation of a studies program.

Clerk Class 10, Third Division, and Clerk Class 8, Third Division (2 positions)- Located in the Programme Analysis Section of Requirements and Programmes Branch. The functions are to collect and collate data on environmental investigations to identify gaps in research and to assess their environmental importance.

Clerk Class 10, Third Division, and Clerk Class 8, Third Division- Located in the Consultant Studies Section of Studies Management Branch. The functions are to develop and plan programs of studies to be carried out by external consultants and specialists and to oversee the research work concerned.

Clerk Class 10, Third Division (2 positions) and Clerk Class 8, Third Division (3 positions)-Located in the Internal Studies Section of Studies Management Branch. The functions are to control and undertake research and studies into environmental problems and investigate and advise on the Bureau’s capacity to handle proposed areas of research.

Clerk Class 10, Third Division and Clerk Class 8, Third Division (2 positions)- Located in the Data Collection Section of the Environmental Forecasting Branch. The functions are to review arrangements for the continuous collection and collation of data on the Australian environment and develop means of ready access to the data.

Clerk Class 10, Third Division, and Clerk Class 8, Third Division (2 positions)- Located in the Indices Development Section of the Environmental Forecasting Branch. The functions are to develop indices methodology and undertake the initial evaluation of the indices to assess their utility.

Steno-Secretary Grade 2, Fourth Division and StenoSecretary Grade 1, Fourth Division, (3 positions)The functions are to provide typing and secretarial services to Second Division officers of the Bureau.

Clerical Assistant Grade 3, Fourth Division- The functions are to establish and maintain records and provide general assistance within the Bureau.

  1. Mr K. E. Thompson formerly Assistant Director, Bureau of Transport Economics, has commenced duty as Director of the Bureau, Mr J. R. Sands has been transferred from the Water and Soils Resources Division of the Department to the position of Assistant Director, Requirements and Programmes Branch. Five other officers (a Clerk Class 8, a Senior Research Officer Grade 2, a Research Officer Grade 2 and two Graduate Clerks) have also been transferred to positions in the Bureau.
  2. Interviews have been conducted for the other positions in the Bureau except one of Clerical Assistant Grade 3. It is anticipated that a number of appointments will be made at an early date. Some positions have recently been readvertised. The total number of positions to be filled at this stage will be considerably less than the approved establishment of 28 because of staff ceilings.

Department of Health- Consumer Protection Activities (Question No. 256)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) With reference to the answer to question No. 7 1 7 of 3 1 May 1973 in which the Minister for Science indicated that the Department of Health undertakes activities which bear directly or indirectly on consumer protection, which section or sections of his Department are involved in such activities.
  2. What are those activities.
  3. How many officers of his Department are involved in this work.
Dr Everingham:
Minister for Health · CAPRICORNIA, QUEENSLAND · ALP

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

  1. and (3) The following areas of the Department of Health are involved in activities which bear directly or indirectly on consumer protection:
  1. The following is a summary of consumer protection activities of my Department (Detailed information on any of these activities can be made available to the right honourable member upon request.)

Therapeutic Goods and Substances Administration of Government controls over drugs and other therapeutic goods.

Evaluation of the quality, safety and efficacy of new drugs (including clinical trials), the review of old drug reactions, testing and analysis of marketed drugs, the development of a code of good manufacturing practice, and adequate drug recall procedures.

Advertising on Radio and Television of Proprietary

Medicines and Therapeutic Appliances The National Health and Medical Research Council provides guidelines on the advertising of proprietary medicines and therapeutic appliances which are used in approving texts of advertisements in accordance with the Broadcasting and Television Act 1 942- 1 973.

Food Administration The food committees of the National Health and Medical Research Council are responsible for drafting food standards for consideration by Governments.

Nutrition

Advice is given by telephone, by correspondence, by distribution of literature to consumer bodies, and in talks and discussions with interested groups on the practical application of scientific knowledge to food consumption.

Agricultural Chemicals Evaluations are carried out on the toxicity characteristics of agricultural chemicals.

Sub-committees of the National Health and Medical Research Council are responsible for the determination of a poisons schedule classification and acceptable residue limits of agricultural chemicals in food for human consumption.

Environmental Hygiene Sub-committees of the NH & MRC are involved in determining stadards and drafting documents relating to protection of human health.

Recent activities include formulation of standards for air pollutants; emissions from motor vehicles; lead content in pencils, toys, crayons, etc; mercury, zinc, and cadmium in seafoods.

Dental Standards Determination of quality and standards of dental equipment and materials used in Australia.

National Acoustic Laboratories

Testing of ear protectors. Radiation

Formulation and checking of standards for equipment used with radioactive materials.

Checks on individuals working with radioactive materials.

Checks on environmental radiation.

A.C.T. and NX Health Services Duties of A.C.T. and N.T. Health Services personnel involved in cosumer protection relate to environmental control, food hygiene, hygiene of service establishments and personnel, occupational health and control of drug prescribing and sale of scheduled poisons.

Australian Film Development Corporation (Question No. 516)

Mr Giles:
ANGAS, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister representing the Minister for the Media, upon notice:

  1. Will the Minister make available a comprehensive breakdown of administrative costs and other expenses incurred by the Australian Film Development Corporation in each financial year.
  2. In what profitable ventures has the corporation been involved.
  3. In these instances, what investment has the Corporation made, and what proportion is this investment to total investment from other sources.
  4. Will the Minister name these other sources.
Mr Morrison:
ALP

– The Minister for the Media has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question:

  1. 1 refer the honourable member to the Annual Reports of the Australian Film Development Corporation.
  2. and (3) The Corporation receives confidential information on the profitability, or otherwise, of individual projects in its normal course of business. It would be improper for the Corporation to disclose individual cases without the express consent of each of the other parties involved.

As to 30 June 1974 the Corporation has fully recovered its investment in one feature film and four documentaries, including profits: this amounts to $466,972. At the same date, the Corporation has had fully repaid, loans totalling $533,505 on four feature films, six television series and two animated television series.

The Corporation has functioned for approximately four (4) years and, I am informed, at a total cost to the Australian community of $261,528. The Corporation is not merely concerned with financial profits, and the fact that some film producers are now sufficiently established to obtain finance totally from private sources is, in another sense, another measure of profitability of the Corporation.

The Corporation has published its investment criteria in the Annual Report for 1 974, and in this regard, I would refer the honourable member to the paragraphs dealing with the Selection of Projects, Pre-production Finance and Financial Policy and Terms of Assistance.

  1. This information comes to the Corporation on a confidential basis and therefore must be so treated by the Corporation.

Electoral: Result of Federal Election (Question No. 818)

Dr Klugman:
PROSPECT, NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Minister for Services and Property, upon notice:

What was the result in each sub-division in the State of New South Wales in the election for the House of Representatives held on 18 May 1974.

Mr Daly:
ALP

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

I refer the honourable member to the answer supplied to Question No. 713. The answer to Question No. 7 1 3 was too lengthy to be published in Hansard, however, copies are available at the Table Office of the House of Representatives.

The result for each Division has been sent previously to the member in a statement prepared by the Chief Australian Electoral Officer.

Gidgealpa -Sydney Pipeline (Question No. 911)

Mr Anthony:

asked the Minister for Minerals and Energy, upon notice:

  1. What is the estimated (a) annual volume of gas expected to be carried by the Gidgealpa to Sydney pipeline in the first full year of operation and (b) annual market growth for natural gas so transmitted to Sydney over the decade following the first full year of pipeline construction.
  2. If these estimates are available, will he table the basis for them.
Mr Connor:
Minister for Minerals and Energy · CUNNINGHAM, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

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

Whilst the Gidgealpa- Sydney pipeline will form pan of the national pipeline grid the initial carriage of gas through the pipeline will be for the Australian Gas Light Company. Estimates of the volumes to be carried in the early years of the life of the pipeline are therefore related to the AGL’s estimates of sales in the Sydney Region which it would not be proper for me to disclose. Details could be sought from the Company by the right honourable member.

Physiotherapy: Increased Government Benefits (Question No. 1124)

Mr Hodges:

asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice:

  1. Does the Government support the view that physiotherapy is an important form of medical treatment which is recommended by the medical profession in a frequency which is increasing as the Australian public rightly seeks to obtain the best quality of medical care.
  2. If so, does the Government propose to provide worthwhile Commonwealth benefits for this service provided by private physiotherapists, as the distance to public hospitals makes travel to them prohibitive for many patients by virtue of the condition requiring treatment.
Mr Hayden:
ALP

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

  1. The medical profession refers patients for physiotherapy treatment presumably in the belief that the quality of medical care is enhanced.
  2. The Government accepts this belief, however, as was the case with previous Liberal/Country Party Governments, it sees real difficulties in providing Government health insurance benefits for physiotherapy provided on a feeforservice basis by private physiotherapists.

The incidence of insuring members of the population and the consequential high rate of utilization under private feeforservice arrangements would undoubtedly impose prohibitive costs on a Government subsidised physiotherapy insurance benefits scheme. To enable such a scheme to remain financially viable, contribution rates would need to be increased steeply.

For the purposes of the Australian Health Insurance Program, the Government has accepted the Health Insurance Planning Committee’s recommendation that Government support for physiotherapy services be directed to organizations which provide services on other than a fee-for-service basis.

The Government will be prepared to consider contractual, sessional salaried or similar arrangements for the provision of physiotherapy services and under the Health Insurance Program will offer health services agreements to allow such services to be developed on a community basis. In this regard it will be guided by the advice of the Hospitals and Health Services Commission in allocating such grants.

Additionally, private health insurance organizations will be permitted to offer benefits coverage towards the costs of ancillary and allied health services of the nature of physiotherapy provided by private practitioners where they demonstrate that such arrangements will be financially viable.

Standard Insulin Syringe (Question No. 1164)

Mr Lloyd:
MURRAY, VICTORIA

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice:

What progress has been made with the development and acceptance of a standard insulin syringe.

Dr Everingham:
ALP

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

The Australian standard insulin syringe (AS T29) was approved on behalf of the Council of the Standards Association of Australia in 1963 and revised in 1968. Because of criticism of the standard, the Association’s Committee MD/2- Hypodermic Equipment for Insulin Injection, in December 1973, undertook a survey, in the form of a questionnaire posted to a comprehensive range of interested bodies throughout Australia, regarding a review of existing standards. The results of the Survey were presented to a meeting of Committee MD/2, held in May 1974 to consider the standard. The Committee, which includes representatives of the Diabetes Federation of Australia, the Australian Diabetes Society, the Australian Medical Association and physicians in charge of diabetic clinics resolved not to alter the present Australian standard insulin syringe (AS T29).

The AS T29 is a re-usable syringe which must be sterilised before use. Insulin dependent diabetics in their own homes normally boil the re-usable syringe to ensure sterility.

The equivalent to the AS T29 in a disposable syringe is the single use syringe (sterile) for insulin injection (AS 1077) which was approved on behalf of the Council of the Standards Association of Australia in 1973. Because of cost advantages, disposable single use. syringes and disposable needles have been introduced into Australian hospitals where new diabetics are trained to use them. Because of their practical advantages, the demand for single use syringes and needles by insulin dependent diabetics is increasing.

The Working Party on Medical and Surgical Aids and Appliances is currently examining insulin syringes and needles with a view to recommending that they be made available to insulin dependent diabetics. However, it is important that before such a recommendation is made, appropriate standards for both single use and re-usable insulin syringes and needles be agreed to for adoption as official Australian standards under the Therapeutic Goods Act. It will then be possible to ensure that all insulin syringes and needles imported into Australia, as well as those manufactured locally, will conform to the standards laid down. An investigation of standards for this purpose is at present being undertaken in the Department of Health.

Tasmania’s Chief Electoral Officer (Question No. 1193)

Mr Hunt:

asked the Minister for Services and Property, upon notice:

When may I expect an answer to question No. 479 which I placed on the Notice Paper on 17 July 1974.

Mr Daly:
ALP

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

I refer the honourable member to the answer supplied to question No. 479 which appeared in Hansard 31 October 1974, pages 3247-8.

Regional Employment Development Scheme (Question No. 1272)

Mr Malcolm Fraser:

asked the Minister for Labor and Immigration, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) What projects have been approved in each Electoral Division under the Regional Employment Development Scheme.
  2. What is the cost of each project.
  3. 3 ) Who proposed it.
  4. Who is administering it.
Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: ( 1 ), (2), (3) & (4) The detailed information requested is not readily available. It would take considerable time to obtain and I would not deem it proper at this stage to divert the officers concerned with the Regional Employment Development Scheme from their important task of getting the unemployment into employment. However, I am able to say that at 22 November, 68 Commonwealth Employment Service areas and 19 individual local government areas were declared as eligible for assistance under the Regional Employment Development Scheme in view of the level of unemployment in these districts. At the same date projects costing a total of around $ 1 4.5m had been approved or provisionally approved.

In further general response to the honourable member’s question I can say that the majority of proposals received so ar have been put up by local government authorities. A small number has been proposed by community organisations such as Rotary and various sporting clubs and by State Government departments and instrumentalities.

Each sponsoring organisation is required to administer its own project and to furnish my Department with regular statements of expenditure and brief progress reports. In the case of community organisations they are encouraged to arrange for the local government authority in their area to exercise oversight of their projects.

Unemployment (Question No. 1367)

Mr Lynch:

asked the Minister for Labor and Immigration, upon notice:

Will he provide statistics calculated on the same basis to compare the levels of unemployment for each month of (a) 1972 and(b) 1974 to September.

Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– I am informed that the answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:

The following table provides statistics of unemployed persons registered with the Commonwealth Employment Service for each month of 1972 and for the first 9 months of 1974. The figures for 1974 are based on the definition of registered unemployed which applied prior to the introduction in July 1973 of a new definition of unemployed school leavers and are therefore comparable with the 1972 figures.

The practice introduced on an interim basis in July 1 973 of compiling statistics on the old definition of unemployed school leavers was discontinued in October 1 974 when the Commonwealth Statistician made available seasonal adjustment factors for the new series.

Minerals and Energy Policy (Question No. 1420)

Mr Connolly:
BRADFIELD, NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Minister for Minerals and Energy, upon notice:

Will the recent Government decision to conduct regular discussions with the European Economic Community on a range of issues of common interest, including the export of Australian mineral and energy resources, assist him in framing a comprehensive minerals and energy policy which the Australian people have been awaiting for some 19 months.

Mr Connor:
ALP

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

A national minerals and energy policy was adopted at the National Conference of the Australian Labor Party in 1969 and confirmed at the National Conference in 1973. This policy has been published in the Labor Party’s Platform, Constitution and Rules which I commend to the honourable member’s attention. Thus the Australian people have not been awaiting a statement of policy for the last 1 9 months. In giving effect to its policy, the Australian Government is, of course, willing to hold discussions with interested parties, including the European Economic Community, on specific issues as the need arises. ‘Investigator’s’ Anchor (Question No. 1479)

Mr Bungey:
CANNING, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Has the Western Australian Government been advised that the stream-anchor from Matthew Flinders’ ship ‘Investigator’, recovered in 1973 in Goose Island Bay, may be placed on public display in Western Australia until late in 1975, but that it is then to be permanently located in Canberra.
  2. If so, have representations been received from the Western Australian Government for a review of this decision, with a request that the stream-anchor be placed in the Fremantle Maritime Museum; if so, what decision has been made.

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

  1. Yes. The anchor was recovered by the Department of Transport in 1 973 and was subsequently restored at the Con.servation Laboratory of the Western Australian Museum on behalf of the Australian Government. Because of the importance of Flinders’ voyages and the interest of all Australians in the work of the navigator, it was decided that the anchor should be retained by the Australian Government. Following representations from the Western Australian Government seeking to have the anchor displayed permanently in Western Australia I advised the Premier on 7 August 1974 that, while the anchor is to remain the property of the Australian Government, it would be made available for display in Western Australia until the end of 1 975 when it is to be brought to Canberra for display in the National Capital. This decision was taken as a gesture in response to the State ‘s cooperation in restoring the anchor.
  2. The Premier of Western Australia wrote to me again on 18 September 1974 noting the. Australian Government’s wish to display the anchor in Canberra after 1975. Also, he expressed the hope that in the meantime the Australian Government may be persuaded that the Fremantle Maritime Museum, is a suitable permanent repository for the anchor. I informed the Premier that his remarks have been noted.

Murray Valley Encephalitis (Question No. 1505)

Mr Lloyd:

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Has he received any requests from State Ministers for Health, medical bodies or private individuals to rename Murray Valley Encephalitis.
  2. Has he or any medical body under his. control discussed this matter and/or made any recommendations to change the name.
Dr Everingham:
ALP

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

  1. 1 ) Several such requests have been received.
  2. The matter has been discussed by the National Health and Medical Research Council which has recommended that the name of the disease be changed to Australian arbo encephalitis. 1 have accepted this recommendation. The change has now been referred to the World Health Organization for consideration.

Port Augusta, South Australia: Establishment of Office of the Department of Social Security (Question No. 1514)

Mr Wallis:

asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice:

Are there any plans for the establishment of an office of his Department in Port Augusta, South Australia. If so, when is it anticipated that the office will be operational.

Mr Hayden:
ALP

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

There has been no approval given for the establishment of an office of the Department of Social Security in Port Augusta, South Australia.

Bruce: Unemployment (Question No. 1714)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for Labor and Immigration, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) How many people in each subdivision of the Electoral Division of Bruce are unemployed at the present time.
  2. How many of those unemployed are registered for unemployment.
  3. ) How many are receiving unemployment benefits.
Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

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

  1. and (2) The right honourable member should be aware that the Department of Labor and Immigration statistics of unemployed are not compiled according to electoral divisions. However, lam informed that the number of unemployed registered at the end of October in the 3 Employment Office areas of Waverley, Boronia and Box Hill, only parts of which comprise the electoral division of Bruce, is as follows:

Waverley 309; Boronia 687; Box Hill 777.

Thus the number of registered unemployed in the Bruce electoral division would be less than the sum of the above 3 figures. There is no basis, however, for quantifying it.

  1. The information in the form requested by the right honourable member is not available.

Ministerial Councils: Contact with States (Question No. 61)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice:

  1. Will he provide a list of all formal committees, councils, etc, that have been established which enable him or officers of his Department to maintain contact with State Government Ministers or State Government officers.
  2. When was each body established and by whom.
  3. What is the (a) composition and (b) function of each body.
  4. On what occasions has each body met in the last 2 years and for what purpose.
Mr Charles Jones:
ALP

– The answer to the right honourable member’s question is as follows: (1), (2), (3) and (4) I refer the right honourable member to the Prime Minister’s answer to Question No. 41 on the 1974 notice paper (Hansard, 3 October 1974, page 2233-2239).

Department of Transport: Appointment of Women (Question No. 117)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice:

  1. How many women have been appointed to senior positions in his Department since 2 December 1972.
  2. Who are they.
  3. To what position has each been appointed and what is the function of the position.
Mr Charles Jones:
ALP

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

I refer the right honourable member’s attention to the answer provided by the Prime Minister to Parliamentary Question No. 97 (Hansard, page 625, of 24 July 1974).

Solar Energy Research Projects (Question No. 447)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for Science, upon notice:

  1. Will he provide a list of all solar energy research projects being undertaken in Australia which are receiving financial support from the Government.
  2. 2 ) What proportion does this represent of funds allocated by all sources in Australia to research projects into the applied use of solar energy.
  3. 3 ) What is the purpose of each project.
  4. How many people are involved in each project.
  5. 5 ) Where is the research being undertaken.
  6. What support is the Government providing for each project, and how is it provided.
Mr Morrison:
ALP

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

  1. 1 ) to (6) A complete answer to the question is not possible because of difficulties in denning the limits of solar energy research, and because of the mechanisms by which some research funds are allocated. Such information as is available, relating to projects supported by the Australian Research Grants Committee, by CSIRO and in some of the Universities, is attached.

In addition to the support listed, it is recognised that some part of the research funds allocated by the Australian Universities Commission and the Australian Industrial Research and Development Grants Board are used to support solar energy research, however the way in which those funds are allocated does not permit identification of projects directed to particular areas.

RESEARCH UNDERTAKEN BY CS1RO IN SOLAR ENERGY DURING 1974

CSIRO Division of Mechanical EngineeringSolar cell applications Solar drying and dehydration Building heating and cooling with solar energy Solar steam generation Solar heat production simulation Thermal rating of plate collectors Solar water heating Selective surfaces

CSIRO Solar Energy Studies UnitEnergy usage in Australian industry

CSIRO Division of Atmospheric PhysicsSolar radiation statistics for Australia

Information on the number of people involved in each project is not readily available. Research projects in CSIRO are normally undertaken by teams, with team membership overlapping in many cases. The costs associated with each project is difficult to determine since facilities and staff may serve a number of projects. In 1973-74 CSIRO estimated expenditure on Solar Energy research was $327,000. That figure is expected to be substantially increased in 1974-75.

In addition to the above, the following projects are known to be currently underway in Universities:

University of QueenslandRoof pools as climate control devices Thermal design of buildings

Solar energy system to produce both power and thermal energy

Solar energy for electric power production

James Cook UniversityOptimisation of solar drying systems incorporating absorbing energy storages

University of Sydney-

Development of selective surfaces and associated heat transfer problems

University of Melbourne-

Directional selective solar surfaces Design studies of solar equipment Solar housing

University of New South WalesSilicon cells as solar radiometers with particular application to inclined surfaces Solar radiation records

Standard tests for thermal performance of cladding.

National Companies Legislation (Question No. 460)

Mr Jacobi:

asked the Minister representing the Attorney-General, upon notice:

  1. What stage has the proposed national companies legislation reached, and when can its introduction be expected.

  2. What safeguards will the legislation contain to ensure

    1. that shareholders and prospective investors are adequately protected from managements and promoters and
    2. that the operations and activities of major corporations are such as to promote the interests of their employees and the public.
  3. Will the proposed Superior Court have a companies division with adequate powers and judges skilled enough in this part of the law to ensure that such safeguards are fully and speedily enforced.
Mr Enderby:
ALP

– The Attorney-General has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question:

  1. 1 ) and (2)1 expect that a Bill dealing with a wide range of companies matters will be introduced in this session of Parliament. The Bill will be primarily concerned with matters of concern to the investing public and will take into account, amongst other things, the report of the Senate Select Committee on Securities and Exchange. A further Bill will follow and deal with matters concerning the structures of companies such as their incorporation, voting rights and winding up.
  2. I would expect that the safeguards the honourable member has in mind would be fully and speedily enforceable through the Commercial Division of the proposed Superior Court, and that the Court would have adequate powers and Judges skilled in this part of the law to enable this to be achieved.

Ravensthorpe: Television Reception (Question No. 947)

Mr Bungey:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for the Media, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Have plans been approved for provision of television in the Ravensthorpe area?
  2. ) If not, when will investigation and planning begin?
  3. 3 ) When can residents of Ravensthorpe expect to be able to receive reasonable reception of ABC television programs?
Mr Morrison:
ALP

-The Minister for the Media has supplied the following answers to the honourable member’s question: (1)No.

  1. I am advised by the Australian Broadcasting Control Board which is the independent statutory body established by Parliament under the Broadcasting and Television Act that Ravensthorpe is on the Board’s program for investigation, but having regard to existing commitments it is not expected that investigation and planning will commence before 1976.
  2. I am also informed that there is some doubt that a service could be provided to the Ravensthorpe area at an acceptable cost, bearing in mind that there are only 225 people in the Ravensthorpe rural area and it is 100 miles from Esperance and 150 miles from Mount Barker. If a service was approved, it would probably be installed some three years after the investigations.

Baltic States (Question No. 1120)

Mr Scholes:
CORIO, VICTORIA

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice:

  1. Prior to the recognition of the U.S.S.R. as the effective government of Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania, what arrangements existed between those countries and Australia for (a) extradition, (b) travel to those countries by Australian citizens and (c) application for residence in Australia.
  2. Does recognition by Australia mean support of the particular government.
  3. Which Government was recognised as the government of the Baltic States prior to the recognition of the U.S.S.R. as the effective government.
Mr Whitlam:
ALP

– The Foreign Minister has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question:

  1. Prior to the recognition of the incorporation of Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania into the Soviet Union as de jure incorporation, there was no extradition treaty in force between Australia and the U.S.S.R. Australian citizens wishing to visit the three Baltic States had to apply to a Soviet Embassy or Consulate for a visa, and a person residing in one of the three Baltic States who wished to enter Australia as a migrant had to comply with the relevant provisions of Soviet law regarding exit permits and had to apply to the Australian Embassy in Moscow for a migrant visa. Before 1940, Australia had succeeded to extradition treaties with the Governments which controlled the Baltic States up to the time of the incorporation. After the Soviet Union seized control of the States, these treaties remained in force in theory, but in practice ceased to have any effect. The Leader of the Opposition, when Attorney-General, clearly accepted this situation in the debate on the Extradition (Foreign States) Bill 1966. The recognition of the incorporation as incorporation de jure thus simply accepts what has been a reality for over thirty years.
  2. Recognition does not necessarily imply either approval of the way in which governmental control was established or of the controlling government’s policies; it is rather an acknowledgement of existing realities.
  3. During the period before Australia’s recognition of the incorporation of the area into the U.S.S.R. Australia had no formal governmental relations with the three governments which as members of the Soviet Union were effectively administering the Baltic States. Nor did Australia have effective relations with governments in exile. Australia accepted, however, the de facto situation that the Soviet Government was in effective control of Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia.

Civil Defence Exercises (Question No. 1153)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for Manufacturing Industry, upon notice:

  1. With reference to the answer to question No. 548 (Hansard, 19 September 1974, page 1621) in which the Prime Minister indicated that the form and frequency of exercises in Government Departments in civil defence preparedness are as determined by individual Departments, on what dates in the last 1 8 months have exercises of this nature been conducted in his Department.
  2. ) Which officers and employees took pan.
  3. How many officers and employees took pan.
  4. What was the purpose of each of the exercises.
  5. Does he accept that this is an area where the Australian Government can give a lead to other employers.
Mr Enderby:
ALP

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

  1. to (4) The Department of Manufacturing Industry attaches considerable importance to civil defence preparedness, which is closely linked with the safety programmes and procedures of the Government factories operated by the Department Each establishment has developed plans to be put into effect in emergency situations. Staff are trained to man the plans, including in such aspects as fire prevention, fire fighting, equipment maintenance, first aid and demolition and rescue operations. Departmental fire crews co-operate with and back up local authorities. Selected staff attend the civil defence training centre at Mt Macedon. Exercises, which vary from the occasional evacuation of buildings to frequent drilling in particular activities, are carried out as considered necessary by each establishment. As examples, the Explosives Factories conduct exercises at least quartlerly in relation to the particular nature of their operations and the fire teams at Aircraft Factories carry out exercises at least monthly. It is not practicable to separate civil defence from general safety exercises in the establishments. As a rough estimate, the number of specific exercises carried out by the Department as a whole over the past 18 months would exceed 100, including 3 major evacuation of buildings.
  2. Yes.

Gurindji Tribe (Question No. 1305)

Mr Hunt:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice:

  1. In view of the report from the Woodward Commission of Inquiry into Land Rights for Aborigines, has the Government now determined on what basis it will proceed to provide land for the Gurindji at Wattie Creek (Daguragu).
  2. Will people of tribal origins, other than Gurindji, living at Wattie Creek be able to share in the land obtained by the Gurindji.
  3. Can the Minister indicate when he will make a firm announcement on this matter.
Mr Bryant:
ALP

– The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has provided the following reply to the honourable member’s question:

  1. 1 ) Yes. Negotiations are proceeding in relation to the granting of a pastoral lease for the Aboriginal community.
  2. This will be a decision for the traditional owners of the land, the Gurindji. (3)1 expect to be in a position to make an announcement in the near future.

Defence: Establishment Strength (Question No. 1366)

Mr Lynch:

asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice:

What is the (a) establishment strength and (b) actual strength of (i) Task Force, (ii) 3 Task Force, (iii) 6 Task Force, (iv) 1 Armoured Regiment, (v) 3 RAR and (vi) Special Air Service Regiment for each (A) noncommissioned and (B) commissioned rank.

Mr Barnard:
ALP

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

  1. and (b) The consolidation of the information sought would reveal an operational capability which I feel would not be appropriate for me to release.

Department of Science: Requests from Voluntary Organisations (Question No. 1454)

Mr Lloyd:

asked the Minister for Science, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) What voluntary organisations have requested financial assistance from his Department for the establishment or maintenance of a federal headquarters
  2. ) What has been the response to the requests?
Mr Morrison:
ALP

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

  1. 1 ) During the last two years the only request was one from the Ecological Society of Australia.
  2. No support could be provided.

Defence Legal Services Committee of Review: Report (Question No. 1463)

Dr Forbes:

asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Did paragraph 1 95 of the Report of the Defence Legal Services Committee of Review say that there is not even one lawyer in the Attorney-General’s Department or in any of the Defence Group of Departments who has specialised knowledge of the United States procurement law.
  2. If so, has this deficiency since been remedied.
Mr Barnard:
ALP

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

  1. 1 ) Paragraph 195 of the Report said: ‘So far as the Committee can ascertain there is not even one lawyer in the Attorney-General’s Department or in any of the Defence Group of Departments who has specialised knowledge of United States procurement law ‘.
  2. There are officers in the Department of Defence and in the Attorney-General’s Department who are knowledgeable in United States procurement law.

Island Lagoon Tracking Station (Question No. 1478)

Mr Street:
CORANGAMITE, VICTORIA

asked the Minister for Science, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Could the Island Lagoon Tracking Station have been used to receive ‘real time’ data from the ERTS Satellite?
Mr Morrison:
ALP

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

  1. The possibility of using the Island Lagoon Tracking Station to receive ‘real time’ data from the ERTS was considered last year. It was found that considerable modification and additional equipment would have been necessary. The cost of these alterations would have been prohibitive. Members of a team of Australian scientists have recently visited the United States, Brazil and Canada to study ERTS technology and shortly will report on its application to Australia. I envisage that, when these reports are available, the fullest discussion will be encouraged with those agencies likely to be concerned with any application of ERTS data so that a sound basis will be available for decision on any future involvement in ERTS programs.
  2. The Island Lagoon Tracking Station was dismantled in late 1 973 as the interest shown by the scientific community did not warrant its retention.

Weather Forecasts (Question No. 1499)

Mr Street:

asked the Minister for Science, upon notice:

  1. What alterations will be made to existing arrangements relating to the issue of weather forecasts as foreshadowed by his reply to my question without notice of 17 October 1974.
  2. Will there be any reduction in the number and/or type of weather forecasts for the aviation industry.
  3. Is there any intention to make a financial charge to any users of weather forecasts.
Mr Morrison:
ALP

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

  1. 1 ) The Bureau of Meteorology provides a complex and costly range of services for the community, public authorities and commercial organisations. Since its budget, manpower and operations have increased markedly in recent years, I want to be assured that its services are timely and efficient, that they meet contemporary needs and that they represent the most effective utilisation of the funds provided.

I have therefore arranged for a comprehensive review of the Bureau’s operations and services to be carried out, starting with an assessment of community needs. Arrangements with the States for the provision of forecasts and warnings will be closely examined, as will arrangements for services to Australian Government departments including Transport, Defence and the Australian Post Office. Also coming under scrutiny will be special arrangements with particular bodies, e.g., that with the Australian Water Resources Council in respect of hydrometeorology. The circumstances under which the Bureau provides special forecasts, data and advice to industry, other commercial organisations and private consultants, will be reviewed as will the scale of charges for those services.

The reviews which I have called for will not be limited to consideration of the expressed needs of those requiring meteorological services, but will also encompass examination of the Bureau’s more costly operations. Three particular items for study are:

  1. the international commitments associated with membership of the World Meteorological Organisation and the running of a World Meteorological Centre in Melbourne;

    1. the extensive weather observational infrastructure supported by the Bureau including the weather watch radar and the automatic weather station networks, conventional Bureau-manned stations and the use of non-Bureau observers for rainfall, river heights, etc.; and
    2. the large data bank which is maintained on meteorological and climatological variables.
    1. I would not wish to pre-empt the results of the review to which I have referred. However, if there are changes of any son in the number and/or type of weather forecasts for the aviation industry, and I have no reason to believe there would be, this would come about solely because a more efficient and economical service could be provided with no detriment to safety.
    2. Some changes are already made, as they have been for many years. For example the Department of Transport finances the Bureau’s services to aviation and makes recoveries from airline operators to offset these charges. Total revenue for meteorological services for 1974-73 has been estimated at a little over $ 10m of which approximately $8. 5m will come from the Department of Transport. We will be reviewing, with Australian Government Agencies, the costs that should be recovered for services provided to them. Such agencies include the Department of Transport, the Department of Defence, and the Department of the Environment and Conservation. We will also be reviewing the scale of charges for services to commercial organisations to align them with commercial rates.

Patents (Question No. 1507)

Mr Giles:

asked the Minister for Science, upon notice:

  1. Are the methods adopted to protect those who invent, and apply for patent rights over that invention, considered to be satisfactory.
  2. Whose responsibility is it to search patents, both in Australia and overseas, with a view to establishing sole rights to that patent.
  3. Does this responsibility lie with individual patent attorneys.
  4. Is it a fact that up to 40 per cent of all patents taken out recently will eventually be found to be invalid
  5. If so, can he propose a better method to protect those people who apply for patent rights, and pay many hundreds of dollars to seek sole patent rights, only then to discover that the process is inefficient enough to fail to establish sole rights in a particular field.
Mr Morrison:
ALP

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

  1. 1 ) The Australian patent system, like all overseas patent systems, does not guarantee the validity of patents granted under it. However, by conducting searches of material published in Australia and by requiring amendments to be made to applications and complete specifications, the Patent Office is able to reject applications for clearly invalid patents or amend invalid claims in appropriate cases. A system of opposition proceedings by interested persons before grant, with the oportunity of appealing to the High Court, further reduces the number of invalid patents granted. The question of the validity of a patent is ultimately a matter to be determined by the High Court but there is strong evidence that the validity of a patent is rarely attacked once the patent has been granted. It is estimated from Patent Office records that since 1901 there have been only about 20 instances where the validity of a granted patent has been successfully attacked, in whole or in pan, in the COUrt. This would indicate that there is a general acceptance of a patent by the public once it has been granted. In view of the opportunites that exist to prevent the grant of invalid patents and the general acceptance by the public of patents that are granted, the present system is considered to be satisfactory.
  2. and (3) Under the Patents Act, Examiners of Patents, who are specially trained in patent law and searching techniques by the Patent Office, are required to conduct a search of Australian specifications and, when directed by the Commissioner of Patents, other documents published in Australia. No search is required to be made of overseas specifications or documents not published in Australia. Individual patent attorneys may, and I understand frequently do, conduct wider searches and often invoke the services of overseas searching organisations. Australia is one of the few countries in the world that provides searching facilities at sub-offices for use by applicants and patent attorneys. The sub-offices are located in each of the various States.
  3. and (5) It is not possible to estimate the validity of patents recently granted. It is unlikely, judging by past experience, that the validity of many of the patents will ever be tested in the Court. Of the patents that are tested, it is unlikely that many would be held to be invalid in their entirety, although one or more claims of the complete specification of a patent may be held invalid. It is not considered that the Australian patent system is inefficient in providing adequate protection to the Australian inventor.

Low Fat Butter (Question No. 1518)

Mr Lloyd:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Agriculture, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) What research or commercial trials are being conducted into a low fat butter of about 40 per cent butterfat with milk protein added.
  2. Can the Minister say what countries other than West Germany have introduced a low fat butter, and what success all of these countries have had with it.
Dr Patterson:
ALP

– The Minister for Agriculture has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question:

  1. 1 ) Several years ago, a low fat butter was manufactured and sold in South Australia under the name of ‘Mingle’. The product was withdrawn from the market after a short period. Recently some experiments in the production of low-fat butter were conducted by the Victorian Department of Agriculture at the Gilbert Chandler Institute of Dairy Technology, Werribee. A spread containing about 40 per cent milkfat was prepared and had good consumer acceptance in the Werribee district. No further development work is planned, since it is known that independent research and commercial development of a similar product is being undertaken by a large dairy company in Melbourne (Petersville). The company hopes to be able to place the product on the market in the near future.
  2. Low fat butter-like products have been introduced in the following countries:

United States of America: where a spread based on about 30 per cent butterfat was made, but was not widely accepted.

Czechoslovakia: where a butter containing 56 per cent butterfat, has been introduced, but no further details are known.

Sweden: where a spread (Latt and Lagom) based on a 2 : 3 blend of soy bean oil and butterfat with a total oil and fat content of about 40 per cent has been introduced recently.

It is probably too early to consider the success or failure of this product.

United Kingdom: where a spread made of vegetable oil and skim milk solids, with an oil content of about 40 per cent has been introduced and is enjoying some success.

Minister for Customs and Excise: Press Releases (Question No. 1634)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Customs and Excise, upon notice:

  1. How are copies of Ministerial press releases circulated.
  2. To whom are they circulated.
  3. How many copies are circulated in total.
  4. What is the total annual cost, including salary and administration charges, in producing and distributing Ministerial press releases.
  5. How many public servants in the Department of Customs and Excise are involved with the distribution of press releases.
Dr J F CAIRNS:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

– The Minister for Customs and Excise has provided the following answer to the right honourable member’s question:

  1. 1 ) Copies for press releases issued by the Minister for Customs and Excise are distributed by hand to the Press Gallery and by mail to 690 addresses on the departmental mailing list.
  2. Broadly, the copies are distributed to media organisations, Government Departments, embassies, political party organisations, business organisations, libraries, Customs agents, overseas representatives of the Department of Customs and Excise and individuals from whom requests are received.
  3. Generally about 760 but the number may vary in particular cases.
  4. The costs attributable to Ministerial press releases have not been separately identified and it is therefore not possible to give a precise answer to this pan of the right honourable member’s question.
  5. 5 ) One officer is involved on a pan time basis only.

Foreign Minister: Press Releases (Question No. 1635)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) How are copies of Ministerial press releases circulated.
  2. To whom are they circulated.
  3. How many copies are circulated in total.
  4. What is the total annual cost, including salary and administration charges, in producing and distributing Ministerial press releases.
  5. How many public servants in the Department of Foreign Affairs are involved with the distribution of press releases.
Mr Whitlam:
ALP

– The Foreign Minister has provided the following answer to the right honourable member’s question:

  1. 1 ) Press releases issued by the Foreign Minister are distributed by hand to the press gallery, by mail from the Information branch of the Department of Foreign Affairs and by publication in the Australian Government Digest.
  2. The Department maintains a mailing list of people and organisations that regularly receive copies of the Minister’s press releases, and this is reviewed regularly. The list includes people who have indicated in writing or otherwise their desire to receive these releases, on a casual or permanent basis. Broadly however press releases are issued to Members and Senators, media organisations, Government Departments, Embassies, political party organisations, business organisations, libraries and interested individuals.
  3. The number of copies circulated depends to an extent upon the particular subject matter of the statement, but in general, statements are sent regularly to approximately 600 recipients.
  4. The production and distribution costs for press releases are not separately identifiable from administration costs generally. It is therefore not possible to give a precise answer to this part of the question.
  5. One officer in the Information branch has as one of his duties the responsibility of arranging distribution of press releases. Other officers assist from time to time as the occasion warrants.

Population Policy: Minister Responsible (Question No. 1677)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice:

Which Minister is responsible for population policy.

Mr Whitlam:
ALP

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

While a number of Ministers have an interest in aspects of population policy, the Minister for Labor and Immigration has formal responsibility in this matter.

Biological Weapons Convention (Question No. 1703)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) With reference to the answer to question No. 1227 (Hansard, 31 October 1974, page 3264) in which he informed me that Australia is not yet a full party to the Biological

Weapons Convention, what domestic legislation needs to be enacted before Australia can ratify the Convention.

  1. When is it expected that this legislation will be enacted.
  2. When is it expected that Australia will ratify the Convention.
Mr Whitlam:
ALP

– The Foreign Minister has provided the following answer to the right honourable member’s question:

  1. 1 ) Legislation will be necessary in order to give the force of law in Australia to the provisions of the Convention. For example, Article IV requires states to prohibit within their territory the development, production, stockpiling, acquisition or retention of microbial or other biological agents or toxins of types and in quantities that have no justification for prophylactic, protective or other peaceful purposes.
  2. The form and substance of such legislation is currently under consideration by departments and will not be ready to be introduced in the current session of Parliament. I hope to be in a position to present a bill to honourable members in the next session of Parliament.
  3. 3 ) The Convention will be ratified by Australia as soon as the necessary domestic legislation has been enacted.

Priorities Review Staff (Question No. 1708)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for the Media, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Which community broadcasting groups did the Priorities Review Staff consult in the preparation of its report on the expansion of radio services in Australia.
  2. When were they consulted.
  3. What form did the consultations take.
Mr Morrison:
ALP

– The Minister for the Media has supplied the following answer to the right honourable member’s question: ( I ), (2) and (3) The investigation by the Priorities Review Staff into all aspects of the allocation of FM and AM channels was commissioned by the Prime Minister. Ministerial responsibility for the Priorities Review Staff rests with the Deputy Prime Minister and any inquiries on its report should be directed to Dr Cairns.

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 27 November 1974, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1974/19741127_reps_29_hor92/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant