Senate
13 June 1956

22nd Parliament · 1st Session



The President (Senator the Hon. A. M. McMullin) took the chair at 2.30 p.m., and read prayers.

page 1459

QUESTION

IMPORT LICENSING

Senator HENDRICKSON:
VICTORIA

– I preface a question to the Minister for the Navy by saying that recently I made representations to the appropriate department regarding import licences, in order to save some businesses from closing their doors and so putting men out of employment. I was told that the applications must be refused because of the necessity to conserve overseas exchange, and in view of the directions that have been issued by the Government to reduce import expenditure. A couple of days ago, I saw in a Melbourne newspaper a photograph of the wife of the Minister for External Affairs alighting from her new, shimmering American aeroplane at a Melbourne airport. This aircraft cost at least £7,000. In view of the necessity to conserve overseas exchange, will the Minister obtain a report explaining why dollars were made available to purchase this aircraft for pleasure purposes at a time when urgent and important requests for import licences are being refused?

Senator O’SULLIVAN:
Minister for the Navy · QUEENSLAND · LP

– It is not unusual for Senator Hendrickson to base a question on premises that are entirely false. No dollars were made available for the purchase of the aircraft to which he has referred.

page 1459

QUESTION

ALICE SPRINGS

Senator MAHER:
QUEENSLAND

– Has the Minister representing the Minister for the Interior and Minister for Works seen a statement in the Brisbane Telegraph of the 5th June to the effect that some contractors have refused to tender for road work, electricity, water and construction schemes, and other projects at Alice Springs because of alleged lengthy delays in effecting settlements? It was stated that, in some instances, settlements involving the payment of amounts up to £10,000 have been delayed for six months. The correspondent points out that contractors are unable to wait so long for payment, owing to the restriction of finance and increased interest rates. Can the Minister say whether there is any truth in these complaints? If there is, will he undertake to expedite payments to contractors when contractual jobs have been completed to the satisfaction of the Director of “Works at Alice Springs?

Senator PALTRIDGE:
Minister for Shipping and Transport · WESTERN AUSTRALIA · LP

– I have not seen the statement to which the honorable senator has referred. In any event, 1 think that he will appreciate that I, myself, would not, have available any information in this connexion. However, I shall refer the whole matter to my colleague, the Minister for the Interior who, I am sure, will be only too pleased to supply the honorable senator with an answer.

page 1459

QUESTION

ATOMIC RESEARCH

Senator SEWARD:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– In a statement that he made during last week-end, the Minister for Supply said that the Australian Atomic Energy Commission had awarded twelve new research contracts to Australian universities. The recipients of the contracts were the universities in Australia, including the New South Wales University of Technology, but excluding the University of Western Australia. Is the Minister representing the Minister for Supply able to say why that university was excluded?

Senator COOPER:
Minister for Repatriation · QUEENSLAND · CP

– I cannot give the honorable senator, offhand, the information he seeks, but I shall obtain a reply for him from the Minister for Supply.

page 1459

QUESTION

OFFICE ACCOMMODATION

Senator HENTY:
TASMANIA

– Is the Minister representing the Minister for the Interior aware that a building known as Queen’s Gate in Melbourne has been purchased by the Commonwealth at a cost of £120,000, for the purpose of providing office accommodation for members of the Public Service in Melbourne? Does this indicate a departure from the policy of centralizing all Commonwealth activities at a Commonwealth centre in new premises to be erected in Spring-street, Melbourne, as recommended by the Public Works Committee and accepted by the Parliament, with a view to vacating a number of privately owned buildings at present occupied by federal departments? Will any such buildings be vacated when this new purchase is occupied?

Senator PALTRIDGE:
LP

– I am happy to be able to assure Senator Henty that the purchase of Queen’s Gate for office accommodation in Melbourne does not indicate the postponement, or abandonment, of the proposal to establish a Commonwealth administrative centre in Melbourne. Senator Henty mentioned this matter to me and I took the opportunity to discuss it with my colleague, the Minister for the Interior. I am aware of his department’s concern to rationalize the administration of Commonwealth departments in Melbourne, some of which at the moment are split, and operating under conditions of extreme difficulty. The purchase of the Queen’s Gate building will provide accommodation for the Department of Trade in a governmentowned building. The space vacated. by the Department of Trade in Reliance House will be occupied by the Department of Social Services, allowing the return to private ownership of some office space which the Government is under constant pressure to vacate. As some years must elapse before adequate space is available in the Government’s new administrative centre, pressure on space would not permit a standstill until, that time. So, the present move must be regarded as an interim measure only.

page 1460

QUESTION

SOUTH AUSTRALIAN’ REPATRIATION HOSTEL

Senator CRITCHLEY:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– Can the Minister for Repatriation inform the Senate whether- there is any truth in the rumour that it is proposed to close in Adelaide a home for burnt out returned men? The institution is known as Kapara, and is similar to the institution in Victoria which the Minister visited the other day and. for humane considerations decided to keep open. Because of what happened in Victoria I ask the Minister whether there is any truth in the rumour I ha.ve mentioned. Will he give the same humane- consideration in respect of Kapara as was given to the institution in Melbourne?

Senator COOPER:
CP

– I assure the honorable senator that I have heard no such rumours, nor has any decision been made to close the hospital that he has mentioned. As a matter of fact, I have not heard that institution even mentioned. I will go into the matter and let the honorable senator know the facts.

page 1460

QUESTION

FOREIGN AFFAIRS COMMITTEE

Senator GORTON:
VICTORIA

– My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for External Affairs. Has the Minister seen an announcement in the Western Australian press of the 11th June that Senator Agnes Robertson has been appointed to the Parliamentary Joint. Committee o« Foreign Affairs? Since no appointment is made to that committee except by parliamentary resolution, and since no such resolution has been passed in the case of Senator Robertson, will the Minister place it on record that Senator Robertson has not been appointed a member of that committee? I feel that in that way Senator Robertson will be saved some embarrassment as, being aware of this position, she no doubt would not have authorized such a statement.

Senator SPICER:
Attorney-General · VICTORIA · LP

– I have not seen the report. It is clearly an inaccurate report and I accede to the honorable senatorsrequest to place it on record that Senator Agnes Robertson is- not a member of that committee.

page 1460

QUESTION

POSTAL DEPARTMENT

Senator HENDRICKSON:

– I should like to ask a question of the Minister representing the Postmaster-General. Is it a fact that yesterday,, at Canberra,, a sixteen, year-old postman pleaded guilty to the illegal possession of 1,496 letters instead of delivering them to the addressees in Canberra? Is the Minister aware that the employment of immature, inexperienced, juvenile labour on the important and responsible job of postman is contrary to the efficiency of lie department and against the public interest? Does- the employment of postboys and other1 juvenile labour suggest that because of poor conditions and low wages’ in the- lower’ ranks of postal workers, recruitment of suitable adults’ for this work is difficult? Will the Minister take steps to see that wages and conditions in the Postmaster-General’s Department are such as will eliminate the use of juveniles on jobs with big responsibilities and temptations?

Senator COOPER:
CP

– I did see the report in the press that this young lad was found to have a bag of letters at his house and, as far as I can understand, the Postmaster-General’s Department is investigating the matter of his misconduct. Many thousands of juveniles are employed in the Postmaster-General’s Department, and from what I can gather the wages they receive are such as to exclude the department from censure on the ground that poor wages are being paid for the work clone. The average wage for a lad of this type is in the vicinity of fS or more a week. I shall bring this matter to the notice of the Postmaster-General, and ascertain hitviews on it.

page 1461

QUESTION

BASS STRAIT PERRY SERVICE

Senator MARRIOTT:
TASMANIA · LP

– I ask the Minister for Shipping and Transport whether his attention has been directed to the published criticism by Mr. White, Chief Secretary in the Tasmanian Labour Government, of the decision to have the new Bass Strait ferry built in Australia, instead of overseas. Is it not the policy of the Menzies Government to encourage the Australian shipbuilding industry 4 Does the Minister agree that, taking all factors into account, this ship can bo built a,s quickly and as well in Australia as elsewhere?

Senator PALTRIDGE:
LP

– I have not yet seen the press report to which Senator Marriott refers, but it was mentioned to me this afternoon before I came into the House. I am somewhat surprised to hear that Mr. White should show preference for placing the order for this ship overseas, more particularly as there are no valid grounds for assuming that it could be built sooner there. Indeed, from inquiries which, of necessity, I have had to make in recent days, it is clear that overseas shipyards at this moment are more fully committed than they have been for many years past. It is obvious, therefore, that it would probably take longer to build the ship overseas than in Australia. The policy of this Government is to encourage the Australian shipbuilding industry, and in recent days there lias been ample evidence of that. An increase of the subsidy for Australianbuilt ships, the placement of orders by this Government with Australian firms, and the announcement that the Taroona replacement will be built here, all are an earnest of the Government’s interest and encouragement of this industry. I assure Senator Marriott that 1 am very confident that a ship constructed in Australian yards will be built as quickly and as well as a similar ship could be built overseas. The Bass Strait ferry will be the first ship of its kind to be built in Australia. Consequently, great care will have to be exercised, and the Australian Shipbuilding Board is aware of that. No doubt, it will be necessary for the board to keep in close consultation with the builders during the construction of this vessel, and that is already contemplated. I have no hesitation in saying that the Government is confident that this ship will be the equal of any vessel that can be produced overseas.

page 1461

QUESTION

REPORT OF SENATE SELECT COMMITTEE ON CANBERRA

Senator VINCENT:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– Some weeks ago, I asked the Minister representing the Minister for the Interior when the report of the Senate Select Committee appointed to consider the development of Canberra would be available, and the Minister subsequently said that he was not prepared to give an answer until the debate on this matter had concluded. As the debate has now been concluded, I ask the Minister to approach again the Minister for the Interior, and to ensure that an answer is given to my question before the Parliament goes into recess.

Senator PALTRIDGE:
LP

– I remember answering the honorable senator to the effect that my colleague, the Minister for the Interior, might wish to wait for the completion of the Senate debate before he made a statement, about the matter. I shall take an early opportunity to bring to my colleague’s notice the fact that the Senate debate has now concluded, and I shall ask him for a reply to the question of the honorable senator.

page 1462

QUESTION

AIR TRANSPORT OF BEEF

Senator BROWN:
QUEENSLAND

– I direct to the Minister for National Development a question relative to the promise he made some weeks ago in regard to the report furnished by the committee which was appointed to inquire into the matter of the air lift of beef in Queensland. Has the report been issued, and if not will the Minister ensure that honorable senators receive copies of it before long ?

Senator SPOONER:
Minister for National Development · NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– The position in relation to the report mentioned by the honorable senator is that it is awaiting consideration by the Cabinet. Until the report has been considered by Cabinet a decision cannot be reached as to whether or not it will be made a public document. It has been awaiting the consideration of Cabinet for two or three weeks, and immediately it reaches its turn on the Cabinet business paper a decision will be made about it.

page 1462

QUESTION

CHAIRMAN OF THE PUBLIC SERVICE BOARD

Senator WRIGHT:
TASMANIA

– I ask the Minister representing the Prime Minister whether it is a fact that the chairman of the Public Service Board is at present overseas. If it is a fact, what is the business that he is engaged on, and how many such overseas trips have been undertaken by that officer since the last war?

Senator O’SULLIVAN:
LP

– I am able to answer only part of the honorable senator’s question. It is true that at the present time the chairman of the Public Service Board is overseas. I suggest that the honorable senator should place the remainder of his question on the noticepaper, and I shall have an answer supplied to him.

page 1462

QUESTION

MALAYA

Senator HENDRICKSON:

– My question is directed to the Minister for the Navy. Before the Senate adjourns, will he present to the Senate a considered, up-to-the-minute statement regarding the retention of Australian forces in Malaya ; especially whether the withdrawal of our men from that country could be arranged at an early date in view of the fact that local Communist disorders have greatly diminished, the campaign against terrorism is on the way to success, and Malayan self-government should be completed this year with a probability that Malaya will choose to stay outside Seato?

Senator O’SULLIVAN:
LP

– I am not. prepared to give the honorable senator the assurance that he has asked for. He knows, as the Senate and, indeed, the whole country knows, that the subjectmatter of his question is receiving the continuous, careful and studied consideration of the Government. He may rest assured that the right thing will be done in all the circumstances.

page 1462

QUESTION

SHEARING INDUSTRY DISPUTE

Senator WRIGHT:

– My question to the Minister representing the Minister for Labour and National Service refers to a statement which emanated yesterday from the latter gentleman to the effect that the Commonwealth had decided to take no steps at this stage to intervene in the current shearing dispute. I ask the Minister whether any steps are being taken, to the knowledge of the Minister, in the Arbitration Court or before any federal conciliation commissioner, designed to terminate that dispute.

Senator SPICER:
LP

– My understanding of the position is that steps are being taken to bring the matter back to the consideration of a conciliation commissioner - Mr. Commissioner Donovan, I think. I gather from something that I heard to-day, that it is likely that the matter may be considered by the commissioner in the near future.

page 1462

QUESTION

PREFABRICATED ALUMINIUM SCHOOLS

Senator HENTY:

asked the Minister representing the Minister acting for the Minister for Trade, upon notice -

  1. Is it a fact that the State Government of New South Wales has been gran tod import licences to the value of £500,000 for the importation of aluminium prefabricated schools?
  2. If so, and in view of the shortage of overseas exchange, will the Acting Minister review the decision so that these schools csm be built with Australian materials and by Australian workmen ‘!
Senator SPOONER:
LP

– The Minister, acting for the Minister for Trade, has supplied the following answer: -

  1. It is a fact that, during 1955, licences were granted for the importation of aluminium prefabricated components for schools for the New South Wales Government. The total value of the licences, however, falls well short of the figure mentioned by the honorable senator.
  2. The decision to grant these licences was made in view of the urgent need of accommodation for the increasing school population and because of the fact that this accommodation could not be provided in a reasonable period wholly from Australian materials. It may be of interest to the honorable senator to know that the value of these imported components represents only about 40 per cent, of the total value of the completed schools, the balance being made up of the cost of Australian materials and labour.

page 1463

QUESTION

HOSPITAL ACCOMMODATION AND FEES

Senator CAMERON:
Minister for Health · VICTORIA · LP

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health, upon notice -

  1. What proportion of beds in hospitals erected since the Hospital Commission of Victoria assumed control in that State is required to bc public, and what proportions are intermediate and private?
  2. What fees have been fixed by the commission for patients in intermediate and private wards ?
Senator COOPER:
CP

– The Minister for Health has now furnished the following reply :-

The first matter raised by the honorable senator is one concerning the policy of the Victorian Government in relation to its hospital services, and the Commonwealth is not in a position to provide the answer. It is suggested that representations should be made to the Victorian Minister for Health who should be in a position to supply the information. Regarding the second matter, it can be stated that fees charged to patients in intermediate and private wards in public hospitals in Victoria are not uniform but vary from hospital to hospital.

page 1463

QUESTION

OLYMPIC GAMES

Senator PALTRIDGE:
LP

– On the 30th May. Senator Marriott asked mc whether I would discuss with the Minister for the Interior the possibility and the advisability of making the film unit of the News and Information Bureau available to the Victorian Government or of taking such action with the Victorian Government as would ensure the making of a full-length feature film of the Melbourne Olympic Games. I have discussed the matter with the Minister, who has supplied the following advice : -

If a request is made to the Government by the Government of Victoria for the use of the services of the Commonwealth Film Unit to make a full-length feature film of the Melbourne Olympic Games, it will receive consideration. The Victorian Government will, however, be aware that the Organizing Committee of the Melbourne Olympic Games is responsible to the International Olympic Committee for the making of a film of record of the Olympic Games finals. It is a rule of the International Olympic Committee that the Organizing Committee of each Olympic Games shall make “ a complete record of the final competitions of the Game3 by means of photography and moving pictures “. Apart from this record film, there is the question of the day-to-day reporting of the games on film which is the particular concern of local and overseas newsreel and television interests.

Adequate day-to-day coverage of the games in the newsreels and on television would severely limit the demand and market for any feature film of the games which could only be completed after the games had ended, with consequent loss of interest on the part of the public at home and abroad. Accordingly, the Government does not consider that the making of such a film would be warranted either on financial or national publicity grounds. In any event, the whole question of the availability of the games for filming has yet to be decided. The Olympic Organizing Committee, not the Commonwealth Government, is responsible for all aspects of the games and is at present considering the question of payment for the right to film the games, or to use film coverage of the games. Until this matter is decided, it is difficult to see how any plans can be made for film coverage of any description. However, the Commonwealth Government has taken positive action to publicize the games through the Film Division, Editorial Section and overseas organization of the News and Information Bureau.

It has brought frequent progress reports on games preparations to television audiences in Britain, Europe and the United States. It has made a colour film in Cinemascope called Melbourne, Olympio City, which is now showing in hundreds of cinemas in the United States, Australia and other countries and will ultimately bc screened in 7,500 cinemas throughout the world, including 4,500 in the United States. Other short films designed to focus attention on Melbourne and the games are nearing completion. Film Division officers have also given technical advice to the Olympic Organizing Committee on the problems of filming the games.

On the editorial and still photographic side, i hu .News and Information Bureau has made available to the Organizing Committee the full-time, services of three journalists and the services of its photographers as required. Through its overseas organization, it is contantly supplying to the1 press of the world in words and pictures the story of the progress of the Melbourne games. The cost of these services runs into many thousands of pounds.

page 1464

QUESTION

TELEPHONE SERVICES

Senator COOPER:
CP

– On the 30th May, Senator Seward asked the following questions : -

In view of the Postmaster-General’s statement that he has authorized the immediate disconnexion of 46 telephones in a block of (late in St. Kilda, will he take similar action in connexion with the 23 telephones found in a building in Racing Club-lane, Melbourne, as reported in the Melbourne Herald of the 20th, instant? In view of the fact that intending subscribers are unable to secure telephone instruments in some cases, will the PostmasterGeneral have a check made on all buildings serviced by multiple telephones in order to establish their necessity?

The Postmaster-General has now supplied the following answer to the honor.able senator’s questions : -

As I have already explained to the honorable senator, the disconnexion of the 40 telephones referred to was effected because the telephones were interfered with by unauthorized persons. This action was taken under the power conferred by telephone regulations S and 47. Similar circumstances do- not apply to the 23 telephones mentioned, and any further action in this case will need to await the outcome of any court proceedings which may be instituted by the police authorities.

Generally, supplies of telephone instruments are adequate, the lag in providing telephone services being due mainly to the heavy demand outstripping the department’s resources in buildings, exchange equipment, line plant and staff. It would not be- practicable to check the purpose for which all multiple telephones are used because of the large numbers involved, nor would such an investigation by the Post Office into the affairs of subscribers be justified.

page 1464

ROYAL AUSTRALIAN NAVAL COLLEGE

Format, MOTION tor Adjournment.

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. A. M. McMullin) - I have received from Senator McKenna an intimation that he desires to move the adjournment of the

Senate for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely -

The proposed transfer of the Royal Australian Naval College from Flinders, Victoria, to Jervis Bay, in the Australian Capital Territory.

Senator McKENNA:
TasmaniaLeader of the Opposition

– 1 move -

That the Senate, at its rising, adjourn to 10.15 a.m. on Thursday, the 14th June.

The PRESIDENT:

– Is the motion supported ?

Four honorable senators having risen in support of the motion,

Senator McKENNA:

– I raise this matter on behalf of the Opposition primarily to voice criticism that has been levelled at the proposal of the Government to transfer the Royal Australian Naval College from Flinders to Jervis Bay, and secondly, to give to the Minister for the Navy (Senator O’sullivan), who is the leader of the Government in this chamber, an opportunity to make a full reply to the various, criticisms.

The college was established, originally, at Geelong. It was transferred to Jervis Bay in 1915, where wooden buildings were erected, including, I understand, approximately 51 houses. In 1930, or fifteen years later, the college was transferred from Jervis Bay to the Flinders Naval Depot at Crib Point, in Victoria, about 42 miles south of Melbourne. The reason for the transfer assigned by the Naval Board at the time, and accepted by the Government, was that, owing to its isolation at Jervis Bay, the cost of conducting the college was altogether too high. The Naval Board pointed out that the cost ran to the order of £65,000 per annum, which could be reduced to approximately £15,000 per annum if the college were to function at Flinders. As the Senate will recognize, that would be an enormous reduction in cost, and even if the amount had been only halved, it still would have been an enormous saving. From that day to this, during a period of 26 years - from 1930 until the present time - the college has functioned, and as far as I know has functioned efficiently and successfully, at Flinders.

The Flinders Naval Depot was established, to my personal knowledge, in the 1930’s. It so happened that I audited the accounts of the Public Works Department that was engaged in building the base, and later, I was concerned with the audit of the accounts of the Navy, and I made frequent and lengthy visits to the Flinders Naval Depot. Very modern and substantial buildings were erected, and there were great playgrounds and facilities, all of a permanent nature.

In short, in those- days it was an exceedingly well-developed depot of permanent buildings, training facilities, playing fields-, and the rest. Certainly, it has an odd situation in that it has been built adjacent to the mud flats of the area. The tide runs out at the rate of approximately 14 knots, T understand, and when the tide recedes the sea disappears from sight for miles, so that from the base one lias a vista of mud flats, with a very narrow channel like a ribbon running up to the depot. I do not know who was responsible for the choice of the original site and I marvel that it ever should have been chosen. However, the depot has functioned there, apparently successfully, from the early 1920’s until now.

Senator SPICER:
LP

– They picked the site fit high tide.

Senator McKENNA:

– Perhaps that is the explanation.

During the whole of the 26 years that the college has been established at Flinders, all the buildings and facilities in the Jervis Bay area have been let to private persons who have developed Jervis Bay as a very attractive tourist urea. All the big buildings have been converted into hotels, guest houses, cafes and shops, and some of the buildings are being used as a rehabilitation centre for the Commonwealth Department of Social Services. Presently, they will be transferred to new quarters at Hornsby,, in New South Wales, where I understand that a new centre is being developed. There are many homes in the area at Jervis Bay, including 51 that were built for the original staff of the college 30 or 40 years ago. At Jervis Bay there is a community of some 400 people, approximately half of whom, T’ understand, are permanent residents of the area. Their main business is to cater for the tourists who flock to the place in thousands - I am told about 13,500 per annum: - during the season which extends from about October until May of each year. I am informed that, but for the threat of the return of the Naval College to take over the buildings, that rate might well have been increased to 20,000 or 30,000 persons a. year. The figure I cite relates to tourists who spend extended holiday periods in the area. It takes no account of overnight visitors, and day and casual visitors to Jervis Bay. It wa3 intended that the bay should bc, amongst other things, the seaboard outlet for the residents of Canberra, and it has, I understand, been used very extensively for that purpose.

The proposal to re-establish the college at Jervis Bay has been mooted now for quite a number of years, but each time that it has been raised it has been rejected by the government of the day. I shall recount its recent history: On the 3rd April, 1953, the Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies) promised the member for the Australian Capital Territory (Mr. J. R. Fraser) that there would be no retransfer of the college unless an opportunity was given to the residents of Jervis Bay to present their viewpoint to the Government or to the Cabinet. Then, on the 28th July, 1953, the then Minister for the Navy, Mr. McMahon, indicated in ai statement, which was repeated, by th: Australian Broadcasting Commission in a news broadcast over the national network, that nothing would be done to transfer the Naval College from Flinders to Jervis Bay during that financial yean. He said that the proposal to do 30 presented many difficulties at a time when, defence expenditure could not be increased. Two years later, on the 25th May, 1955, Mr. Francis, who succeeded Mr. McMahon as Minister for the Navy, said in the House of Representatives that no decision on the transfer had yet been made. The. next development was on the 17th April, this year, when the present Minister for the Navy (Senator O’sullivan) announced that the transfer would be made as from the first term - I assume he meant the first college term - in 1957. The only explanation given at that time was that the Naval Board had been, concerned for some years about the unsuitability of the college at Flinders. The honorable member for the Australian Capital Territory immediately, in the House of Representatives, reminded the Prime Minister of the promise that he had made earlier, in 1953. The right honorable gentleman acknowledged his promise, and said that no action would be taken at once; that he was not aware of the decision that had been made to effect the transfer, and that he would receive a deputation, as promised, and the whole matter would be resubmitted to the Cabinet.

Pursuant to that promise, the Prime Minister met a deputation of Jervis Bay residents on the 24th April, when he promised that the whole position would be examined by the Cabinet before a final decision was made. The next development was on the 25th May, when the Minister for the Navy announced that the Cabinet had confirmed its previous decision. He said that the Navy would take over at Jervis Bay as soon as possible after the 31st March next.

Senator O’sullivan:

– On the 25th May - a month after the deputation.

Senator McKENNA:

– By the calendar, a month and a day. He also said that the growing difficulties and inadequate facilities for the training of naval officers at Flinders had made the transfer necessary.

Having given the history of this matter, I should now like to analyse the merits of the proposal, according to the submissions that have been presented from all sides against it. First of all, I want to deal with the question of cost. A week ago, the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr. McMahon), who represents the Minister for the Navy in the House of Representatives, dealt with that aspect. He claimed that if the college were to be retained at Flinders, there would have to be an expenditure of £265,000, and that, if the recruit training centre also stayed there, the total cost would be £515j000. He indicated that the cost of transferring the college to Jervis Bay would be £340,000, made up of an initial outlay of £172,000, and expenditure over five years of £150,000 to put the Jervis Bay establishment in proper order, and for the purchase of small craft, some £18,760, making a total of approximately £340,000.

I should like the Minister for the Navy to indicate whether he confirms those figures given by his representative and, if he does, whether he will give to the Senate the broad particulars, if not complete details, of how this expenditure, especially the amount of £172,000, will be incurred. I suggest that these estimates ignore quite a number of facts. The first is the state of the buildings at Jervis Bay. They are mainly wooden, built on wooden piles, and are from 40 to 50 years old. They have had a considerable amount of use, and I am informed by the member for the Australian Capital Territory, who has personally inspected them, that many of the hotels and guest houses, which represent major Navy buildings, are affected seriously with dry rot, and by white ants, and that quite a number of the buildings, including the homes, have paper as the only protection when these pests have been making attacks and depredations upon the buildings. In other words, the buildings to be taken over for the college have not only reached what might be expected to be nearly the end of their normal life, but they have been also adversely affected in quite a number of instances by pests.

I understand, too, that there would be need for a complete renewal of the sewerage and the electricity installations if the college is to go back. Many of the buildings have been altered to suit business and private purposes, and they would have to be restored to their original condition. It will be necessary to construct playing areas and parade grounds, and to provide sporting facilities and all of the thing3 that the naval cadets would require. I have no hesitation, in affirming` this on what I have been told : That if the college does go back, even if the buildings are put in repair, it is quite certain that, in the very near future, they will have to be demolished and new, permanent buildings constructed. If that is right - and I am putting it to the Minister «n that basis - it is quite certain that the estimate of £340,000 for the overall cost of this transfer is utterly wrong. I ask the Minister to consider a criticism that has been voiced, that these buildings would have to be replaced in the very near future by buildings of brick or some other durable material.

I suggest to him, also, that the estimate of cost ignores such compensation as may be payable to tenants who are disturbed and ousted. Some tenancies have five or six years to run and, thanks to the activity of the Senate itself, when a recent bill to deal with the payment of compensation for the resumption of leases in the Australian Capital Territory was before it, whatever compensation is paid will now have to be paid upon just terms. The Senate will remember there was a position excepting leases in the Territory - including Jervis Bay - from the requirement that just compensation should be paid upon resumption. Mr. McMahon indicated in the House of Representatives just eight days ago that the Government would consider the payment of compensation. It has no option but to pay compensation to those lessees with reasonable terms unexpired. Many of the tenants have been given notice during the last few years. They are on short-term tenures. I interpret Mr. McMahon’s statement to mean that, although there may be no legal obligation on the Government, regard will have to be paid to those cases in which business activities are terminated as a result of the dispossession of the tenants upon the return of the naval college. I am informed that on a reasonable basis of compensation a sum of at least £150,000 would be involved. I ask the Minister for the Navy whether that factor was taken into account in determining the estimate of £340,000. On the face of it, it was not. I have been supplied with the details and presently, if necessary, I shall supply the Minister with the details of that estimate.

I put another proposition. The Government should go further than to say that the question of compensation to all the people in Jervis Bay who will be dispossessed will be considered. I ask the Minister, during the course of his reply, to give an assurance to these people, not on the basis of consideration but on the basis that compensation will be paid and that their claims will be looked at sympathetically. If he is in a position to indicate that consideration has already been given, in that respect, can he indicate the basis upon which that compensation will be assessed? Will it be left purely to legal claims or will there be a sympathetic approach to the matter? When the representative of the Minister in another place made his initial announcement, in April last, I understood him to say that the people living at Jervis Bay were really the guests of the Government because the whole of the rents received, and more, was expended to keep the buildings in repair and to keep the place functioning. A wrong impresssion might be gathered on that point. The tenants at Jervis Bay have been paying fair rentals. I instance the cas, of the Naval Lodge Hotel, the lease of which is running from 1948 to 1961. lt still has a long unexpired period. The rent fixed originally was £12 a week, a very low figure, because the tenant undertook to make extensive alterations to the building. That rental was subsequently increased by the Government to £65’ a week. An appeal to the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory upheld the Government’s action, but a further appeal to the High Court resulted in the rental being reduced to £40 a week. It should be stated that public tenders are called for all leases at Jervis Bay and, I understand, the highest tenderer in every instance receives the lease. So, it is not proper for anybody to suggest that those people at Jervis Bay have been paying less than fair rentals.

I also put it to the Minister that if this transfer takes place there will have to be a duplication at Jervis Bay of facilities that at the moment are available to college students at Flinders. In other words there will be a duplication of hospital and dental facilities in both places. Those in the college, of course, are able to have recourse to all those facilities that are provided at Flinders at the moment. Another factor that will increase the cost of this transfer is that a number of age pensioners now living at Jervis Bay will be ejected completely from the area. That problem rests on the Government’s doorstep, lt cannot ignore the need to provide alternative accommodation for those people. Is the Government prepared to do that not only for those pensioners but also for all the people who will be dispossessed at Jervis Bay? The Government accepted that responsibility when the entire community at Glen Davis was shifted. So, the principle has been established, and those at Jervis Bay aTe waiting to hear from the Minister just what alternative accommodation is to be provided for those who, under the proposal, must very soon be dispossessed.

I should like to ask a few questions about Flinders. First, in what respect are the facilities at Flinders inadequate or defective for the purposes of the college ?

Senator Kendall:

– There is no water.

Senator McKENNA:

– I want the Minister to tell me. After all is said and done, the college has survived at Flinders for 86 years. To suggest there is no water there, does not seem to be the right answer. I further ask the Minister: Where is the need for expansion at the Flinders Naval Depot in the light of the falling-off in recruitment both for the college and the depot? I understand that there has been a most serious diminution in the rate of recruitment both for the college and for the depot at Flinders, that whereas the depot accommodated f>,000 ratings and 250 officers during the war period, at the present moment it accommodates only 2,000 ratings and 130 officers. There seems to be no need to extend Flinders in those circumstances. After all is said and done, the college has been operating for 26 years. During that period, it has turned out magnificent officers, who have been able to lead the Navy throughout the years and also during the last war. All their traditions nave been, built at Flinders, not at Jervis Bay. If there is any need to extend either .the college or the depot at Flinders, there is ample room to do so. That is one proposition in this matter which 1 can affirm of my own knowledge.

Let me return to Jervis Bay. I repeat the criticism that has been posed that there will have to be duplication of many facilities. The college will either be cut off from the gunnery, torpedo and signal departments at Flinders, or those services will have to be duplicated. I ask the Minister whether that is so. If it is so, what will be the cost? Nowra, where the Fleet Air Arm operates, will have no real impact upon the college, because it is 22 miles away and there is no real link physically between the Fleet Air Arm and the Naval College. Tinisolation at Jervis Bay .will be bad for the cadets and their masters. I understand that the cadets at Flinders have constant contact with their opposite numbers in the various schools in Melbourne in sporting, social and other activities. That link will be severed at Jervis Bay. Further, the ten masters, or more, who instruct these boys have bought homes at Flinders and they will be disturbed in getting away. Again, it is probably more important for them than it is for most teachers to have contact with other teachers, because no public examinations are held for these boys. It rests upon the masters to bring them rip to the standard required by the Navy. So, it is important for the boys and the masters to have the broader contacts that are available at Flinders hut not at, Jervis Bay.

One other element that cannot be overlooked, is the grave risk of fire. The buildings at Jervis Bay are wooden and are old. That is all I need to say to pose the risk that arises, both to the buildings themselves and to those who inhabit them. It is a very real risk. I am informed that there are 117 cadets at present at Flinders and that they can be accommodated quite adequately. The breakdown of that number indicates there are four in. the matriculation group; 52 in fourth year; fifteen in intermediate, including four from New Zealand; 28 in the third year; and eighteen in the second year. The boys now enter at between the ages of fifteen and sixteen instead of at thirteen years as formerly. An analysis of those figures shows that by 1959 the college will consist of three classes entering at the age of from fifteen to sixteen years, plus the matriculation group. On last year’s recruitment, only fifteen intermediate students, including four from New Zealand, and four matriculation students were obtained. This would mean that in 1959, on the basis of the present recruitment, there would be approximately 49 cadets in the college. I am presenting the facts as they have been given to me, and on the face of them an extraordinary expenditure appears to be contemplated for a diminishing number of students at the college at Jervis Bay, with all its dangers and difficulties.

When I mentioned dangers, I understand that the anchorage there is not safe. According to reports, men have great difficulty in getting from shore to ship when the seas are a little bit rough, particularly when a north-west wind is blowing. I am told that two or three years ago, when the New Zealand Navy was there, 2,000 of its ratings had to stay ashore overnight because they could not go on to their ships owing to the condition of the water. Moreover, several drownings have occurred, when men have been proceeding from the shore to their ships in rough weather. This is an important factor to be considered.

On the 17th April last, the Minister, in his statement, indicated that there was an extensive lagoon where boating practice could tale place. I am told that that was true 26 years ago, but it is not the case now because the lagoon has been breached. I refer the Minister to an article which appeared in Truth on the 3rd June last. In reference to the lagoon it said -

It is a pitiful little puddle behind Jervis Bay beach, and hardly big enough to sail model yachts in.

I do not know how true is that statement, but I present to the Minister what has been said by way of criticism in order to give him an opportunity to reply to it. But after all is said and done, there is not much difference, if the college has to be overhauled, between spending £265,000 at Flinders - if the Minister’s calculation is correct - and £340,000 at Jervis Bay. What does the difference matter, compared with the human element involved in (his situation? I invite honorable senators to consider the consequences of the complete destruction of Jervis Bay as a tourist centre, and the eviction of workers and their families now resident there. T put it to the Minister that the hardship and heartbreak which will be caused to those people far outweighs any good that may fallow. Their welfare ought to he considered as of far greater importance than any benefit which the Minister thinks might come from the transfer of the Flinders college to that area. The Minister’s representative in another place said that, a new place would be established: at Huskisson. Huskisson is 12 miles away from Jervis Bay, and is not even, within the Australian Capital Territory. It is right outside in New South Wales.

To sum up, I ask the Minister what, exactly, is wrong with Flinders, physically, morally, or in any other way. What, is wrong, after 26 years, with the college’s remaining there? What is the Minister’s estimate of the cost? Does it include compensation? Does the estimate envisage the need for the complete rebuilding of the Jervis Bay settlement in the reasonably near future? What does the Minister say about the difficulties associated with Jervis Bay, which have been alleged, and which I have outlined?’ Does he repudiate them ? Finally, why is this projected expenditure contemplated at a time when the Government is insisting upon economy on the part of the general public, and is imposing severe burdens upon individual members of the community? As I have intimated to the Minister already, I do not speak from personal knowledge, but I am placing before him statements that have appeared in the press, and which have been mad’e by members of the Parliament, by deputations and by many individual persons. So far, the Minister has not given a full, considered reply to those allegations,

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. A. D. REID).- Order ! The honorable senator’s time has expired.

Senator O’SULLIVAN:
Minister for the Navy · Queensland · LP

– The crux of the matter is summarized in Senator McKenna’s concluding remarks when he asked what is wrong with Flinders as a site for a naval college? The fact of the matter is that there is> nothing right with it. The AttorneyGeneral (Senator Spicer) was entirely correct when he said that whoever bought that site - although it must be remembered that it was not bought for a naval college or even for a naval depot - musthave done so when the tide was in, because one can scarcely see the sea from the shore when the tide is out. It is altogether unsuitable as a site for a naval college.

So far as I have been able to ascertain, it is the only place where a naval college is associated with a rating depot. That is an important feature, because in order to maintain the best traditions of our Navy, it is essential that young officers should be trained in the most encouraging and suitable atmosphere. Having a naval college attached to a training depot is much the same as having a university college as an adjunct to a primary school. There is no possibility at all of creating the atmosphere or background or tradition which is essential to the proper training of a naval officer.

I shall answer, specifically, the points raised by Senator McKenna. He outlined the history of the college and its movements fairly, but there was one inconsistency, when the honorable senator was depicting the state of the buildings at Jervis Bay at the present time, and his comment on their” age and state of dilapidation. After all, they are the Commonwealth’s buildings, and without agreeing that their state of repair is as suggested by Senator McKenna - ‘because the information given to me is quite the contrary, with the exception of two, which are in a state of bad repair - it would be necessary for the Government to spend a considerable sum of money to restore them. At the present time, the Australian Government is spending more on the maintenance of those buildings than it is receiving by way of rent for them. That makes no allowance for the services which are supplied there - the school, the police, and the officers of the Department of Works and of the Department of the Interior. The actual expenditure on physical repairs and maintenance amounts to some hundreds of pounds a year more than the rents received. That fact has a bearing on the question of compensation to which I shall refer later.

Senator McKenna referred to the fact that after an announcement in the press, by myself that Cabinet had decided to transfer the college to Jervis Bay, the Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies), pursuant to a promise which he had made to the honorable member for the Australian Capital Territory (Mr. J. E. Fraser) some time in April, 1953 - that is three years before - had the position reviewed after he had received a deputation. The Prime Minister made that promise, and he kept it. The deputation was led by the honorable member for the Australian Capital Territory, and in the light of its representations the whole position was reviewed again by Cabinet. This is not a new matter. Obviously, it had been considered some time prior to 1953, because it was in that year that the Prime Minister made the promise to the honorable member for the Australian Capital Territory that before any finality was reached, a deputation representing the citizens in the Jervis Bay area would be received. All aspects of the matter mentioned by that deputation were very carefully considered by the Cabinet, and in the light of that, Cabinet came to the decision, or re-affirmed the decision, that the Commonwealth’s interest would be best served by bringing the college back to Jervis Bay.

On the question of the expense involved in the transfer, I am not prepared to doubt Senator McKenna’s statement that during the last war there were 5,000 ratings and 250 officers at Flinders depot, and at the present time there are about 2,000 ratings and 130 officers there. I believe that those figures are correct, but I ask whether Senator McKenna is suggesting that in a time of peace we should continue to crowd young ratings under conditions that of necessity prevailed in time of war when the whole of our resources of man-power and material were mobilized to defend this country. Of course, at that time, sacrifices had to be made, and there was crowded accommodation at Flinders depot. But it should be remembered that many of the men at Flinders at that time were merely there for a short time and then went ofl to meet the enemy wherever he was to be met.

It is because of the temporary buildings that were erected during the last war, chat it is now necessary that we should give our young naval men better living conditions. Many such buildings . must be dismantled and new, suitable ones erected. In March last I was at Flinders naval depot and, quite frankly, I was amazed at the conditions under which both ratings and cadets had to exist. The accommodation was in a shocking condition. If the Australian Naval College remains at Flinders depot, it will be necessary to expend about £265,000 at that place. If the college is moved away from there and what is now used as part of the college is taken over by the depot, a saving of £250,000 in respect of the depot will be made. The figures mentioned by Senator McKenna are correct, so whether the college remains at Flinders or is moved to Jervis Bay we are faced with an expenditure of £515,000 within the next five years.

It is anticipated that the additional expenditure on the removal of the college to Jervis Bay will be about £172,000 and, 11 Ot unreasonably, particulars have been asked about that sum. I shall give the major items of cost involved. The estimated cost of erection, repair and alteration of buildings, electrical services, and installation of necessary mechanical equipment and hot water services to permit occupation of the premises by the college, including 15 per cent, contingency, is £52,000. The estimated cost of rebuilding toilet blocks at Jervis Bay and Westward Ho guest houses is £30,000. The estimated cost of external painting and repair is £27,000. Then there is the amount being provided as a contingency for compensation - not to the order of £150,000, but about half that sum.

With regard to the condition of the buildings, a report received in the last month from the representatives of the Navy and the representatives of the Department of Works is that the buildings, with the exception of the two ablution blocks attached to Westward Ho and Jervis Bay guest houses, are all in a reasonably good state of repair, and that they have a calculated life of 25 to 40 years. It is not suggested that in time those buildings will not be replaced by permanent brick or stone buildings - T hope that they will be - but that will not be in the foreseeable future. The advice given by the tradesmen and experts of the department is to the effect that the buildings at Jervis Bay should have a life of from 25 to 40 years.

I shall deal now with the question of compensation. With the exception of two hotels and four boarding houses, most of the other buildings are let on weekly or monthly notice, and most of the tenants have received notification or have signed acknowledgements that they are there as weekly tenants or tenants at will holding their tenancies from the Government. They will leave without claiming compensation in the event of the Commonwealth requiring possession.

Senator MCKENNA:

– Will nothing be given to them ?

Senator O’SULLIVAN:

– I understand that it is not the attitude of the Government to stand strictly on its formal legal rights. Each case will be dealt with on its merits, but, after all, it should be remembered that the money ‘comes from the taxpayers, and I do not suggest that the Government will lavishly distribute largesse. However, in the event of hardship being established, whether or not there is a legal case for compensation, I am confident that the Minister for the Interior (Mr. Fairhall) will take a sympathetic, if not generous, view of all such claims.

Senator Wright:

– Such persons will have to justify their claims?

Senator O’SULLIVAN:

– Yes, the Government is not prepared to hand out the taxpayers’ money simply because! somebody asks for it. If the circumstances establish a case of genuine hardship being caused by the Government’s action, then very sympathetic consideration will be given to it. As a matter of idle interest, I mention that those people who will be disturbed do not make a very large number. I have before me a list of those who occupy the 51 cottages. Four of those houses are occupied by officials of the Department of the Navy, five by the Department of Social Services, twelve by the Department of the Interior, eight by the Department of Works, two by the Postmaster-General’s Department, two by the Office of Education, eight by private citizens, three by retired persons and seven by widows - two of whom are locally employed. I do not know of any reason why some of those who are now locally employed should not continue in their employment.

Senator McKenna mentioned sewerage. According to a report that I have received wthin the last month, the sewerage system, which comprises two N.O. septic tanks, is adequate at present, but it may be desirable at a future time to renew the reticulation system. If it is necessary, the Department of Works will recommend that a pumping unit be installed to pump the sewage to the existing treatment works at the Jervis Bay airstrip. That will cost approximately £25,000.

Before I conclude, I wish to discuss the suitability of Jervis Bay as a site. Naval experts claim that there is no better site on the eastern coast of Australia foi the establishment of a naval college. Jervis Bay can contain the whole of the Australian fleet together with many more ships. It is true that on very very rare occasions the weather causes the bay to become rough. For example, if there is a heavy north-easter or south-easter the bay comes up, but after all, the Manly ferry has to stop running on some occasions, and nobody would say that ‘Sydney Harbour is dangerous for sea craft. It is on the rarest of occasions that the. weather is such as to stop exercises being conducted in the Jervis Bay area.

Of course there are such occasions. Last week it would have been very dangerous at Jervis Bay, but it would also have been very dangerous on any part of Australia’s eastern coast. Those who have the responsibility of advising t!he Government, and the very heavy responsibility of training young naval officers, consider that the transfer of thi1 college from Flinders to Jervis Bay is of the utmost importance and of the highest priority. As to the lagoon on which seamanship can be taught and light boat, drill and light yachting done, I should say that although I was not actually on it, it .appeared to me to be quite all right for those purposes. The reports of the senior naval officers, whose responsibility it is to train these young men, refer to the lagoon in the most enthusiastic terms as an excellent avenue for instruction and development in seamanship.

Without _ wishing to delay the Senate, I -summarize by saying that over the last ten years at least, if not for longer than that, the best advice that the department and the Minister for the Navy has received has been consistently and persistently in favour of separating the COllaR from the depot at Flinders that it may be restored to an atmosphere in which it may develop into an institution similar to Dartmouth and other leading naval colleges throughout the world. It is most unfair for these young potential officers to be kept in an atmosphere tlike that at Flinders, which is not anything like what a naval college should be. When young lads of thirteen were being recruited, it is true that more of them could be crowded together than would bc the ease with young men of more mature years who have passed their leaving or matriculation examinations at 16-J or 18 years of age. Most of the entries are coming now from the 16£ .and 18 year? age groups, and these young men should have conditions and accommodation equal I to those of a university college or a great public school. We want them to graduate from these colleges with a sense of pride in the college in which they were trained, and we want them to carry that traditional feeling with them right through their careers in the Navy.

The Leader of the Opposition, asks why we want to shift the men now, especially as we have managed so well at Flinders for so long. In answer to that, I remind him that the move from Jervis Bay to Flinders in the first instance was made in 1930, during the depression period, and .at that time the number of cadets at the college had dropped to only 24.

Senator KENDALL:

– There were only 4,000 men in the Navy then.

Senator O’SULLIVAN:

– That is so. as against from 14,000 to 15,000 now At that time, economies were being pur sued, rigorously .and relentlessly and no body could justify keeping that college open for the sake of 24 cadets. On s present number is 117, and we expect t<have a constant average of 110 a year. Whereas 24 would not warrant the keeping up of a separate establishment.especially as that number could be more economically absorbed at the depot, tin atmosphere required for 117 is entirelydifferent. Although we are not in apposition to squander money, the building of the spirit of the officers who are to V- trained for our Navy is something tha’ cannot be calculated in terms of pound*, shillings and pence.

I hope I have established to the satisfaction of the Senatethat the actual capital outlay involved will be less than would be incurred in carrying out the works that would be necessary ifwe stayed at Flinders. Certainly, the extra expenditure on maintenance will be about £25,000 a year and the transfer will mean an additional enrolment of four officers and 43 ratings. The Government gets no consolation or pleasure out any inconvenience or discomfort it may cause to people whowill be called upon to leave Jervis Bay. I am not pretending for one minute that inconvenience and discomfort will not be caused; but the Government will meet the justice of each particular case as it is submitted. Most of those who are there, particularly those who are in business, have received in anticipation, by comparatively nominal rentals, any compensation to which they would normally be entitled. They have known for years that their occupancy there was, of its very nature, temporary, that the time would come when the Naval College would be restored. It has been rumbling now for five or six years, and I think it is inconceivable that people, within that period at all events, have expended any great deal in capital outlay.

The tourist aspect has been mentioned. An important point to remember is that apart from government expenditure, there has been no capital expenditure or development at all in the area. All expenditure there has been made by the Government. Further, the Australian Capital Territory at Jervis Bay is about 28 square miles. The N avalCollege takes up only about 5 square miles, or less than one-fifth of the total area, and I understand that the Departmentof the Interior wouldbe anxiousto assist any persons who are willing and prepared to develop tourist attractions there.

Senator McKenna:

– Before the Minister resumes his seat, I should like to comment upon the fact that there were only nineteen entriesto the college last year, in the light of his expectation that the average will be 110 each year. How doeshe reconcile that with the fact that there were only nineteen entries last year, and four ofthose nineteen came from New Zealand?

Senator O’SULLIVAN:

– I cannot answer that. I do not think there will be 110 applicants each year. We expect that the constant average attendance at the college will be 110 a year.

Senator McKENNA:
TASMANIA · ALP

– The Minister will agree that he will want more than nineteen entries per annum to achieve a constant yearly average of 110. He must expect a big increase in recruitments.

Senator O’SULLIVAN:

– I think that with the development of recruitment of youths of sixteen and a half years and young men of eighteen years weshall get more than when we confined recruitment to youngsters in their thirteenth year. Finally, the calculated opinion of the officers whose business it is to advise the Government on these matters is that they are confident there will be a constant average attendance of 130 students each year. Without wishing to delay the Senate further, I move -

That the question be now put.

Question put. The Senate divided. (Tub President - Senator the Hon. A. M. McMullin.)

AYES: 27

NOES: 23

Majority … . . . 4

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Original question resolved in the negative.

page 1474

DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL AVIATION

Public Accounts Committee Report

Senator SEWARD:

– I present the following report of the Public Accounts Committee : -

Twenty-fourth Report - Department of Civil Aviation.

Ordered to be printed.

page 1474

TARIFF BOARD

Reports on Items.

Senator O’SULLIVAN:
LP

– I lay on the table reports of the Tariff Board on the following subjects : -

Cellulose acetate flake.

Tractors

page 1474

EXPORT PAYMENTS INSURANCE CORPORATION BILL 1956

Bill returned from the House of Representatives with a message intimating that it had disagreed to the amendment made by the Senate, but in place thereof had amended the bill and desired the reconsideration by the Senate of the bill, and the concurrence of the Senate in the amendment of the Senate’s amendment made by the House of Representatives.

In committee (Consideration of House of Representatives’ message) :

Senate’s amendment. - Clause 9, leave out “ declares “, insert “ shall declare “.

House of Representatives’ amendment of Senate’s amendment. - Omit clause 9, insert the following clause in its stead: - “ 9. If the Commissioner -

engages in paid employment outside the duties of his office without the approval of the Minister;

becomes bankrupt, applies to take the benefit of a law for the relief of bankrupt or insolvent debtors, compounds with his creditors or makes an assignment of his salary for their benefit;

resigns his office by writing under his hand addressed to the GovernorGeneral;

is absent from duty, except on leave granted by the Minister, for fourteen consecutive days or for twentyeight days in any twelve months ; or

in any way, otherwise than as a member, and in common with the other members, of an incorporated company consisting of not less than twenty -five persons -

becomes concerned or interested in a contract entered into by or on behalf of the Corporation; or

participates or claims to participate in the profit of any such contract or in any benefit or emolument arising from any such contract, the Governor-General shall declare, by notice in the Gazette, that the office of the Commissioner is vacant, and thereupon the office shall he deemed to be vacant.”.

Senator SPOONER:
Minister for National Development · New South Wales · LP

– I move -

That the committee does not insist upon the amendment disagreed to by the House of Representatives, and agrees to the amendment made by the House in place thereof.

The committee will remember that the Exports Payments Insurance Corporation Bill 1956 was before it recently. Clause 9 of the bill is related to the circumstances under which the office of the commissioner of the Export Payments Insurance Corporation would be deemed to be vacated. The clause contains a list of circumstances under which the commissioner would vacate office. As the bill was originally presented to the Senate, it provided that the office should be deemed to be vacated on the happening of those various events and upon the Governor-General declaring, by notice in the Gazette, that the office had become vacant. When we dealt with that matter in this chamber, the Senate disapproved of it because we took the view that there should not be a discretion residing in the Executive should a series of events happen, as laid down in the legislation. The view of the Senate was that the office of commissioner should be deemed to be vacated if, for instance, the commissioner resigned or was absent, or if lie became bankrupt, and that that was the point at which the office should be declared vacant. The Senate was of the opinion that there should not be discretion in the Governor-General to make a further decision, in effect, as to whether or not the office should be declared vacant. Therefore, the Senate amended the bill so that, instead of the provision reading “ the office shall be declared vacant if such and such happens and the GovernorGeneral declares in the Gazette that the office is vacant “, it would read, “ the office shall be vacated on the happening of certain events, and the GovernorGeneral shall declare that the office is vacant “. The declaration would then become mandatory on the Executive, on the happening of those events.

That amendment made by the Senate went to the House of Representatives which conceded the propriety of the view of the Senate that there should not be any discretion in the Executive. The House of Representatives agreed that if the Parliament determined that an office was to become vacant on the happening of certain events, then there should not be a rider to that determination to the effect that, in addition to. the happening of those events the Governor-General or the Executive also had to declare that the office was vacant, thus, in effect, giving the Executive a discretionary power. The House of Representatives said, in effect, “ We do not disagree with the Senate on that issue. We agree with the Senate that there should not be a discretion in the Executive, but we do not exactly like the way that the Senate has altered the provision, because what the Senate has said is that, on the happening of these events the GovernorGeneral shall declare the office vacant; but who knows what may be the circumstances in which those events will happen? Conceivably, the commissioner may not disclose the fact that he has become bankrupt, or that he has done any of the things referred to in the section. Probably, the commissioner may do those things unwittingly and may not realize that he has done them “.

If no one knew that the events had happened, the Governor-General would not make the declaration. But if the

Governor-General ascertained, some months later, that the events had happened and then made the declaration, a period of time would have elapsed and there would be an atmosphere of uncertainty about the matter. During that period, as the Attorney-General (Senator Spicer) has reminded me, the man may have been acting illegally. What the House of Representatives has asked the Senate to do, therefore, is to accept an amendment which, in effect, will result in there being no discretion on the part of the Governor-General to declare the position vacant, the position only becoming vacant at the time the GovernorGeneral makes the declaration, so that there will not be that period during which there is room for possible uncertainty.

There is another minor alteration, and that is in reference to sub-clause (a) of clause 9. That sub-clause provides that the office of commissioner shall be deemed to be vacated if he engages in paid employment outside the duties of his office. It is proposed to add to that the words “ without the approval of the Minister “. In other words, the addition of those words is designed to cover circumstances in which the Minister may approve of the commissioner engaging in employment other than that of commissioner of this corporation. During the debate in the other House, by way of illustration of that addition, it was stated that, technically, an executor or a trustee of a will is in the employment of the estate, and there may be other such examples. The addition of those words would lead to the avoidance of difficulty, so that if the occupant of the office accepted an honorarium, or did something outside his normal duties, the Minister would be able to say, “ That does not conflict with your work. I realize that it is a matter of no consequence. I approve of your doing that”. If the commissioner receives that approval, he will not forfeit his official position. I ask the Senate to accept the amendment.

Senator McKENNA:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– On behalf of the Opposition, I say to the Minister for National Development (Senator Spooner) that he would be welcomed in the legal profession. I thought he explained the need for the amendment with great clarity, in an extemporé way, and the Opposition does not wish to oppose what the House of Representatives has asked the Senate to do. The Minister has made the need for the amendment quite clear. I wish to put to him, however, the view that the minor alteration to which he referred seems to pinpoint the reason for the Government, in the first instance, departing from the ordinary practice. The matter has now come down to the point where the Government wants a reservation in favour of the Minister, should the commissioner engage in paid employment outside the duties of his office. Is that conditioned by the fact that the commissioner is likely to be only a part-time officer? I appreciate that the Government must look to the insurance field for a commissioner of this type, but is it intended that the office of commissioner shall be only part-time? Has the Government a nominee in mind, and if so, is the Minister for National Development prepared to give to the Senate any information on that matter?

Senator SPOONER:
Minister for National Development · New South Wales · LP

. -in reply - At the moment, there is no technical officer of the Department of Trade present to whom I might refer, so I must rely on my own general knowledge. My discussions with the Minister for Trade (Mr, McEwen) on this matter have been entirely on the basis that the position would be a full-time one. I have not heard any suggestion that it would be a part-time job. All the discussions that I have had on the matter have led me to believe that it will be not only full-time but also a fairly highly placed position. The reservation is being made, not because the commissioner may occupy only one-third or two-thirds of his time with the corporation, but to cover employment which, in the opinion of the Minister, might be regarded, technically, as outside employment, but which would not interfere with the commissioner’s official duties.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Resolution reported; report adopted.

page 1476

HOUSING AGREEMENT BILL 1956

Second Reading

Debate resumed from the 7th June (vide page 1307), on motion by Senator Spooner -

That the bill be now read a second time.

Senator ASHLEY:
New South Wales

– The Minister for National Development (Senator Spooner) concluded his second-reading speech with this observation -

I doubt whether it would be possible for the Commonwealth to approach the matter in a more reasonable way; and if the States and my friends opposite would put politics aside for a moment, I feel they must agree

There has been a tendency of late for Ministers to indulge in propaganda when delivering their second-reading speeches. At the commencement of his speech, the Minister said -

The policy of the Government, however, has always been to encourage home ownership rather than rental housing. … In furtherance of this policy, the 1045 housing agreement was amended in 1955 so that tenants could purchase their houses upon favorable terms.

The idea of enabling as many citizens as possible to buy their own homes is not a new one. For many years, that policy has been supported by the Australian Labour party. Much has been said in various places about the amendment of the housing agreement in 1945, for which this Government has taken to itself great credit. I wish to make it quite clear, and beyond question, that it was only after the strongest pressure had been brought to bear by the States, particularly New South Wales, that the Commonwealth even considered the question of the sale of housing commission homes on terms. In other words, the idea of selling these homes to the tenants on reasonable terms and conditions emanated, not from the Minister, or the present Government, but from New South Wales. The Minister also stated -

In each of the past four years, almost 80,000 dwellings have been completed. As the current annual need is estimated at approximately 57,000 dwellings, the housing shortage is being overtaken by more than 20,000 dwellings per annum.

It would Le extremely difficult for the Minister to substantiate his statement that the housing shortage is being overtaken. It could not be substantiated hy an impartial examination of the position. The statement had little regard to factual circumstances, and is not in keeping with the opinion of both the building industry and authorities associated with building. I remind the Minister that, only a couple of weeks ago, an emphatic protest was made on behalf of the building industry in New South Wales against this Government’s restriction of credit, which is impeding the industry in that State., This has had such a serious effect upon the building industry that the president of the Master Builders Association, and the executive director of the Building Industry Congress, Mr. Stewart Fraser, who parades the same political views as the Minister–

Senator SPOONER:
LP

– He must be a good man.

Senator ASHLEY:

– Both of those gentlemen expressed deep concern at the diminishing rate of commencement of new homes. In a question that I asked in this chamber recently, I indicated that each of those gentlemen had made a plea to the federal Government to ease the restrictions on finance for home building.

In New South Wales, it is estimated that there is a shortage of .150,000 houses. This figure includes a number of substandard dwellings, which should be replaced as soon as practicable, and the number of unsatisfied applications in the hands of the New South Wales Housing Commission, the War Service Homes Division, and ‘the co-operative building society movement. According to information that I have received, about 13,000 ex-servicemen in New South Wales are still awaiting assistance from the Government to overcome their housing problems. It cannot be denied, even by honorable senators opposite, that since the MenziesFadden administration caine to office, the waiting period for war service homes loans has been greatly extended. In some instances, a period of two years has elapsed before applications have even been considered.

The housing situation in New South Wales is particularly grim. It has been contributed to by a number of factors. In the first place, New South Wales did not enter into the field of State housing until after World War II. During the war years, the whole of the resources of that State, including man-power and materials associated with the building industry, were directed to the war effort. In other States, however, the provision of housing proceeded at almost its normal rate.

Because of the high degree of industrial development in New South Wales, it would be unreal to suggest that any other State suffered so much as a result, of the depression of the ‘thirties as did New South Wales. In those years, although adequate man-power and resources were available, the anti-Labour governments then in office were indifferent to the necessity to provide adequate housing for the people. They made the magnificent contribution of 56 dwelling units at Erskineville, in Sydney, in a building project spread over a period of years. It is admitted that because of their economic position many families faced with a shortage of housing, were forced to live in shanties, bag-huts and shacks in the reserves round the city area. Far from the housing problem having been solved, ample evidence exists of an acute shortage of homes. The Minister himself on occasions has admitted such a shortage. This shortage applies particularly to New South Wales where it is reported the housing commission has applications from 30,000 eligible applicants. Only last week I read that 25,000 applicants had made applications to building societies, and as I have mentioned previously,, the War Service Homes Division has 13,000 unsatisfied applicants in New South Wales. All told, there is a total of nearly 70,000 people waiting for housing accommodation. That figure, when considered in conjunction with the natural increase in our population, plus the influx of immigrant families, can hardly be regarded as satisfactory even by the Government, despite tha optimistic views expressed by the Minister.

Tt is abundantly clear that a tremend 01.s demand exists for homes, but the brake has been applied as the result of the Menzies-Fadden Government’s meddling with the delicate mechanism of the finances of this country by imposing finance restrictions, lt cannot be denied by occupants of the Government benches, nor even by Senator Scott, were he here - and generally he is the spokesman for the Government - or by Senator Kendall or Senator Marriott, who is perhaps unavoidably absent, but who generally interjects on behalf of the Government, that it is the Commonwealth’s responsibility to provide houses for the citizens of the Commonwealth. Housing is a national problem which should be tackled on a national basis. I agree that both the States and the Commonwealth should accept responsibility in the matter. Briefly, the responsibility of the States would be in the provision of as many homes as it is possible to provide with the available resources of man-power and materials whilst the responsibility of the Commonwealth is to ensure an adequacy of finance to all State instrumentalities and organizations concerned in the erection of residential buildings.

The bill, which is virtually the proposed agreement, fails to recognize the fundamental principle of adequate finance. The Government will say that that is because of the recent restrictions imposed as the result of the Prime Minister’s financial statement. The Minister makes the position clear in his second-reading speech when he says -

The agreement contemplates that housing moneys will be provided each year in two categories. The major proportion of the moneys will be made available in a way which, with a few reservations, will enable the States to implement the kind of housing policy that they prefer. The remainder of the funds are to be paid to the credit of a home builders’ account in each State and used for the purpose of encouraging home ownership.

The matter I wish to deal with particularly is the subject of interest rates. As [ have said, the bill, which is virtually the agreement, fails to recognize the fundamental principle of adequate finance. I think that is admitted, and I feel sure that the Minister will admit that the discussion that took place in Canberra in regard to finance was the chief point of contest between the Federal and _ State governments. No definite allocation is made under the bill, but the position is apparently to be left to the Australian Loan Council. A significant aspect is that if agreement is not reached the funds will be provided by way of allocation by the Commonwealth from funds available. Coupled with the failure to deal with the financing of housing on a realistic basis is the proposal that the maximum amount to be made available under the agreement shall be provided at a concessional rate of interest. This reference to a concessional rate of interest is very interesting, indeed, as the rate is 1 per cent, less than the long-term bond rate, which is 4 per cent, at present. It is, in fact, an increase of 1 per cent, on the interest rate provided under the old agreement during the whole of the ten-year period of its existence. No satisfactory explanation has been given as to why, when finance has been made available at 3 per cent, for ten years, notwithstanding fluctuations in the bond rate, the interest rate should now be increased to 4 per cent. No statement in regard to that has been made by the Minister. The effect of this increased interest rate must, of course, be reflected in higher rentals that will he payable under the new agreement.

The higher rentals will range from 7s. to 10s. a week above the rentals on comparable dwellings under the old agreement. For example, a dwelling erected under the old agreement at a capital cost of £2,200 was rented at £3 0s. 6d. a week. Under the new agreement a similar house will be rented at £3 7s. 6d. a week, an increase of 7s. a week. A dwelling costing £3,000 and rented at £3 17s. a week under the old agreement will now rise to a rental of £4 7s. a week, an increase of 10s., under the proposed new agreement. “When the increase in interest rates, with a consequential increase in rentals, is considered in conjunction with the Commonwealth’s intention of vacating the field of loss sharing, largely as a consequence of the rental rebate scheme, the position of some of the future occupants of these dwellings will be deplorable. In addition to being called upon to pay rentals considerably higher than are warranted - and T say that with due regard to the responsibility of my position here - these rentals are being increased because of the higher interest charged. Some of the occupants of these dwellings may be pensioners, or workers in receipt of low incomes with large families to support, and they may not be able to enjoy the benefit of the rental rebates operating under the old agreement. Under the new agreement the Government proposes to withdraw from the field of rental rebate. 1 cannot escape the conviction - and I know my colleagues on this side of the House agree with me - that a rental subsidy in the form of low interest charges and rebates of rental is an essential social service. This should be a matter of serious concern to a federal Government which, virtually, has accepted responsibility for social services throughout Australia.

Another obnoxious proposal in the agreement is the restriction on the States hs. to the type of dwelling that they shall erect, the area in which flats may be constructed and the height to which they may be built. This clause is an infringement of State rights. In New South Wales - and I expect in other States also - advisory building committees have been set up to supply all the knowledge needed as to building standards. Local governing authorities employ inspectors, architects and others to see that the buildings are according to standard. But this Government does not believe in decentralization, and it wants officials in Canberra to decide what class of house shall be built, and also the height of blocks of flats. Such a proposal is a further intrusion into the rights of the States. What honorable senator on the Government side will argue that the States, which have all their authorities and advisory committees established, and know what are the local requirements, are not in a better position to determine what class of house should be built, and whether it is wise in a certain locality, because of congested conditions or the number of low income earners, that a block of flats should be built? The State authorities should not have to be restricted by a direction from the Commonwealth that a block of flats in a particular area shall not be more than two stories high, unless special permission is obtained from the Minister, or that only a particular design of house should be built.

Another provision in the agreement requires portion of the funds allocated to the States for housing to be diverted to the building of homes for serving members of the defence forces. That is a wrong and unjustifiable approach to the defence housing problem. The mere fact that there is a need to provide homes for serving members of the defence forces illustrates the Australian Government’s knowledge that there is a shortage of housing, but it should provide means from its own resources to overcome that shortage. Defence is clearly the concern of the Australian Government. In recent years, this Government has had considerable difficulty in spending the money allocated for defence. It is claimed, with every justification, that no Australian Government, even during the period of the war, ever wasted so much money as this Government has done in peace-time on fictitious threats of war. Yet, this Government is trying to evade the cost of providing housing for serving members of defence forces, which is entirely its responsibility.

Senator Spooner:

– Should the Government provide houses also for post office employees ?

Senator ASHLEY:

– There is no objection to the States building homes for the Commonwealth Government, but the objection by honorable senators on this side is to the diversion of funds allocated for State housing projects to build houses for Commonwealth servants. It is the responsibility of the Commonwealth Government to provide housing for serving members of the defence forces.

Senator Spooner:

– And for post office employees and other Commonwealth Government officials?

Senator ASHLEY:

– The most important provision in the new agreement is the proposal to divert a proportion of funds normally available for State housing to building societies and other approved institutions. It is agreed that there is every need for additional finance to be made available to home seekers through the building society movement. But surely, if the housing shortage i3 to be overcome, the finance for building societies should be provided in addition to that required for State housing purposes. We offer no objection to the Government providing finance for building bornes to people in New South Wales or in any other State of the Commonwealth. Indeed, we believe that the Government should provide finance for such purposes to the limit of its ability. Many of the applicants to .State housing authorities are in the lower income groups, or are pensioners and the like, who can never contemplate .owning homes, even on the most favorable .terms. Therefore, rental housing on -a subsidized basis is essential if those people are to enjoy the reasonable standards of housing which, I claim, every citizen in the community is entitled to have.

We can supply adequate finance to cooperative building societies and other home-building organizations only if the Government’s financial policy is revised. This policy should be arranged so as to permit sufficient funds to flow from the normal sources such as the Commonwealth Bank, other banks, insurance companies and financial organizations. The funds should be allowed to reach, in an unrestricted manner, the building societies, and should be sums additional to the ‘loan moneys provided to -tie State .housing authorities. It is well known that in New South Wales a section of the ‘building industry engaged in home construction is gradually slowing down. As I have already said, statements have appeared in the press during the last few weeks to the effect that the New South Wales building industry convened a conference to deal with the shortage of finance for -home building.

Senator SPOONER:

– Tell them to approach the new savings .banks.

Senator ASHLEY__ I wish that the

Minister would remain silent. He has a right to reply to anything I say, but I can speak only -once. In those circumstances he should be courteous enough to allow one to carry on without interruption. It has been estimated by the building industry that during the first three months of 1956 the building rate of new dwellings, that is the commencement rate of new houses, was reduced by 25 per cent. That proportion represents a ‘reduction of 1,000 homes in three months, and emphasizes the need for the provision of sufficient money to all organizations engaged in the building industry. I suggest that this finance should be provided so that the maximum building capacity of the building industry can be utilized without creating undue competition for man-power and materials. Undoubtedly, there is a slackness in the industry not only in New ‘South Wales but also throughout Australia, and I suggest that that slackness ‘can be taken <up in that manner. The agreement .before us does not make provision for one penny of additional money despite the inflated condition of the economy and the need to keep pace with the growing demands for -adequate housing accommodation. The proposal before us merely amounts to the diversion of funds from one authority to another; and in the five years for which this agreement is current, it cannot be .expected that it will make provision for .any more homes. It is in this regard that .the agreement must be considered to .be .completely .unrealistic and out. of tune with the needs of thecommunity.

Every honorable ‘senator and every person in a responsible position in the Commonwealth must agree that the greatest ‘contribution Chat can be made towards good citizenship is the provision of homes for the people. I 4o not care what political cOlour State governments may be. 1 am sure that they a1!’! are endeavouring to provide homes for the people. Therefore, it is the bound eu duty of this Government to -supply sufficient money to the- ‘States -to enable them to carry out their worthy programnios

I also draw attention to the fact that there are complaints of unemployment in various parts of .Australia that are stated to have arisen from the MenziesFadden financial .restrictions. Nothing makes .a greater contribution to .the stability of any -.country and gives n greater impetus to employment than home building. I ask the Gove.rnm.pn.’ to give favorable consideration to the requests of the Opposition because uv are not satisfied with the agreement that it has put forward. We should also like some further information about the conditions on which theallocation is to be made to State housing authorities of 20 per cent. of the funds set aside in the first two years, and30 per cent. in the following three years. We desire to know on what conditions those sums will be allocated. Is thereto be a restriction on the classof houses permitted to be built, or a restriction on the size of flats that may be built? We alsodesire to have before us any other information that may be relevant to the alteration of theagreement. As the Opposition is not satisfied with the agreement put beforeus by the Government, Imove -

Thatall words after “That” be left out, with a. view to inserting in lieuthereof the following words: - “in the opinion ofthe Senate the bill should be withdrawn to enable the agreement in the Schedule to the bill to he redrafted to -

  1. ensure the provision by the Commonwealth of allmoneys required for the erection of dwellings by the States ;
  2. reduce interest rates payable on those moneys by the States;
  3. include a system of rental rebates similar to that hitherto in operation ;
  4. detail the size of deposit, period of repayment and rateof interest to be included in agreements contemplated by clause 16, sub-clause (3), of the agreement in the Schedule.”.
Senator ANNABELLE RANKIN:
QUEENSLAND · LP

– I have much pleasure in supporting this bill. I was rather amazed atsome of the comments made by Senator Ashley, because in one breath he assured us of the need for adequate housing in this country - with which we all agree - and in the next breath he objected to everything that the Government isdoing to bring about that situation and overcome the lag in housing. I believe that this is a very good measure, and I support it on that ground first. I support it, secondly, because I believe that a bill of this nature which deals with housing must affect all Australians very deeply. I congratulate the Minister for National Development (Senator Spooner) on the work that he has put into drawing up this agreement and in carrying out the Government’s policy of increased home ownership. We believe that home ownership is a very important factor in our national life. Indeed, there are few things that are more important than homes, and as we believe in the best possible living standards and conditions, weconsider that every one who wishes to own a home should be given an opportunity to do so.

Home-ownership is of tremendous importance to the people. One has only to drive round the suburbs of any city or town during a week-end and see the numler of people working about their homes to appreciate how much we, as Australians, enjoy the privilege of home-ownership. I am glad the Government has brought down this measure which seeks to implement still further its policy of homeownership for the people. To a young man starting off in married life, the ownershipof a home means thecommencement of his own family unit and security for that family. To the wife, the woman of the household and the real home-maker, home-ownership is of tremendous importance. She is far happier living in her own home thanshe would be in a house thatbelongs to some one else. The importance of secure family life can never be over-emphasized, and I believe, as I am sure all other honorable senators believe, that a truly great nation can onlybebuilt on a strong and secure family life, home-ownership and good living conditions. We have seen too manybroken marriages, delinquent children and cases of neurosis largely brought about through lack of housing. This bill willbe of very great assistance in overcoming many of these evils. It will , be the means of bringing greater happiness to the community.

At this stage, it is good to look back and to remember exactly the problems Australia had to face in connexion with housing. We recall the great shortage of housing at the end of the war. We remember the great degree of substandard housing that existed at that time. We remember the acute shortage of goodstandard homes, and of skilled artisans to overcome our lag in housing. We also remember that at that time we were faced with an acute shortage of building materials. It was because of those thing? chat, in 1943, the Australian Government appointed a commission to inquire into the housing position as it then existed and to report on Australia’s requirements in the post-war years. That commission furnished its report in August, 1944, and its tentative estimate of the housing shortage at that rime was some 300,000 dwellings. That figure included 100,000 sub-standard dwellings which the commission estimated would need to be replaced. The commission recommended that the Commonwealth Government should take an active part in seeking to overcome the housing problem in the post-war years by providing finance for both rental homes and homes for owner occupancy in an endeavour to have dwellings built for the people as speedily as possible.

The Minister for National Development (Senator Spooner) quite rightly said, during his second-reading speech, that it is doubtful whether, under section 96 of the Constitution, the Commonwealth can provide funds for housing except by way of grants to the States, unless the housing is for defence or some other Commonwealth purpose, or within Commonwealth territories as distinct from States. Because of that, the Commonwealth has approached the problem by seeking to make arrangements with the States whereunder the States agree to use the funds which the Commonwealth provides in a manner which conforms, at least in part, to the policy desired by the Commonwealth. As a result, we now have an agreement before the Senate. I am sure it has been a difficult task for the Minister to draw up an agreement which will be satisfactory to all the States and to the Commonwealth. “We congratulate him upon his untiring efforts in arriving at such an agreement after endless discussion with all the parties concerned in an endeavour to find some way of overcoming the great problem confronting us. But this Government, of course, believes in the importance of homeownership. It is as well to remember that under the original agreement homeownership was not encouraged. Honorable senators will recall that before this Government amended the act, those who wanted to buy bouses had to pay cash for them: and it will be appreciated that under those conditions few sales took place. This Government, by its amending legislation, made it possible for people to purchase homes on a reasonable deposit and on extended terms of repayment. I should also mention, in answer to Senator Ashley’s comments that there has been little done by way of providing houses, that this Government has done a great deal to help overcome the housing shortage. The present Government has been fully aware of the housing problem confronting the country and it has done a great deal to assist in overcoming it. As a result of its efforts, almost 80,000 dwelling units have been completed annually for the last four years, and this progress is to continue. I remind honorable senators, also, that this is tremendous improvement on the 15,000 dwelling units provided in the first years after the war. Much has been done also by the Government in helping to make building materials available, by planning an immigration programme by which skilled immigrants might be encouraged to come here and help in the construction of new homes and by subsidizing imported houses.

We are also reminded of the great work done by this Government in the field of war service homes. I remind Senator Ashley and other honorable senators opposite that this Government has provided more war service homes than have all other governments together since the inception of the scheme. This Government has made available the record sum of £225,000,000 to State housing authorities for the building of homes and, up to date, 92,000 dwelling units have been completed. These are important figures and lend support to my assertion that this Government is fully aware of the need for good housing for the people of this country. It is overwhelming evidence of the fact that the Government has faced up to this problem, and that it will continue to do so. The Australian people want to own their homes if they possibly can. Here, it is interesting to note the improvement that has taken place over the years as revealed by census figures from time to time. According to the 1947 census, about 53 per cent, of all houses were owner-occupied. By 1954, that figure had increased to 63 per cent., and, of new houses being completed each year, SO per cent, are for ownership.

The measure before us is not only in line with the Government’s policy of achieving the highest possible percentage of home-ownership, but is also in keeping with the desire of the Australian people to own their homes. The legislation passed by this Government last year making it possible for people to purchase a home on a reasonable deposit and to repay the balance over 45 years has done much to assist and encourage homeownership. This Government believes in giving practical encouragement also to private builders. Much of our housing lag has been overcome by their efforts, and we pay tribute to them for the great work they have done. Because investors to-day are perhaps not so anxious to invest money in houses for rental purposes as they were previously, it would seem that not so many houses are being built by private people for rental purposes today. The Government appreciates the fact that as well as for home-ownership there is also a field for rental homes. Both those points have been recognized by the Government in its very real desire to assist all sections of the community.

One or two of the main features of the proposed agreement should be mentioned. First, the proposed scheme will run for five years. Secondly, it is proposed that of the total advances to be made available to a State, one part equal to 20 per cent, in the first two years and one part equal to 30 per cent, in the remaining three years, shall be advanced to building societies or other approved institutions for the financing of homes. One of the most pleasing features of the agreement is that home-ownership will be tremendously encouraged by this allocation of 20 per cent, and, later, 30 per cent., of housing funds through building societies or other financing institutions, in various States there are strong cooperative societies which will te able to encourage home ownership through the allocation of this money. The bill will mean a great advance in assistance to those who wish to buy homes, and it, will increase to a. record level the number of home owners in Australia.

I direct attention to the provisions of funds to the States for the erection of dwellings for rental. We are also pleased with regard to the assistance given to members of the defence forces. This is a most important provision and will be of great assistance to the relevant section of the community. I direct attention to the interpretation of the term “ member of the forces “. Paragraph (h) of clause 3 of the agreement states that a member of the forces is -

A person who during the war was engaged on continuous full-time service with any Nursing Service or other Women’s Service auxiliary to the Naval, Military or Air Forces of any part of the dominions of His Late Majesty King George the Sixth other than Australia, and who was born in Australia or was, immediately prior to her becoming a member of that service, domiciled in Australia.

Under the War Service Homes Act, an ex-servicewoman who has no dependants is unable to buy a home, even although she may have had overseas service. In the agreement, the term “ a member of the forces “ includes an exservicewoman, but there is no reference in clause 14 of the agreement to the eligibility of ex-servicewomen to participate in the allotment of dwellings. I should be interested to know whether the words “ members of the forces “ in that clause apply to ex-servicewomen who have served as members of the forces, and whether they will be able to obtain a. home under this agreement. I believe that the provision of a home would be of great assistance to many exservicewomen. Many of them, now advanced in years, have no dependants and are unmarried, but they may have had the responsibility of providing for a dependent parent. Some of them are in indifferent health. I suggest that such women should be able to get assistance under this agreement. I should be interested to know where they fit into the scheme.

In clause 15 (2.) of the agreement, the words “ eligible person “’ appear to be used in connexion with war service homes. I should like further explanation of the clause. Clause 14 of the agreement refers only to the allotment of homes for rental. I should like an explanation of its relevance to exservicewomen.

The agreement is to cover a period of five years. That provision has two beneficial features. It will give State governments and building societies an opportunity to achieve stability in homebuilding programmes. The negotiation of a five years’ agreement is not too long to prevent flexibility in the Government’s housing policy. Those provisions are most important.

I should like to repeat a plea that I have made previously in this chamber. I believe that many people would be assisted greatly if a proportion of the allocation for home building could be set aside for aged couples. This Government has done more than has any other government to house aged persons by assisting church and charitable organizations, but there are many aged couples who do not require housing in establishments or settlements provided by such organizations. They need accommodation and are willing to take a house built under an agreement such as that provided for in this bill. If a percentage of the houses available were allocated to such people, the houses provided should, in many instances, be specially designed for their needs. As the Australian Government is the authority to provide the money under this agreement, it should take some responsibility in ensuring that

Mich houses are provided.

Clause 11 of the agreement refers to the locality in which the houses are to he built. That is a most important matter. I have been greatly concerned when I have seen the areas in which some houses have been built under similar agreements. In one locality, a substantial area of good land was available, but a row of houses was built between a main road and a railway line. It is absurd to adopt such a practice when more suitable areas are available. “We propose to build houses for the use of families because the family unit is an important feature of Australian life. Therefore, particular attention should be given to the localities in which the houses are built. We should also be sure that they are suitably designed for climatic condition?. We have fine architects and builders in Australia. The climate of Australia varies widely. Some areas are subject to cyclonic disturbances and others to flooding; others are in tropical areas or are subject to extreme cold conditions. 1 hope that the houses built under this agreement will be designed so that the occupants will have the best living conditions to suit the climate in which they reside.

I support the bill and T would not favour any amendment having as its objective the withdrawal of the measure, because I believe it is a good bill. It. has received close consideration from the responsible Minister, and will bring comfort to many people. Home ownership would not be possible for them without this measure. I am reminded of the story of a child to whom an adult friend said, “ I hope your mother finds a house “, and the child replied, “ It is not a house we want; it is a home”. That is the thought in our minds to-day This bill will assist in the provision of homes ; it will give a sense of security to many Australians, and. will enable us to give strength to the family unit. It is a humane measure which, will contribute to the happiness of the people.

Senator SHEEHAN:
Victoria

– I support the amendment. I was very much impressed by the remarks of Senator Annabelle Rankin, although it was evident that the honorable senator had neither read the bill nor become aware of its implications. If she had. she would appreciate that this measure seeks to destroy the very high ideals about which she spoke. When the measure begins to operate, instead of aged people being able to benefit from its provisions, unquestionably they will be disadvantaged. Instead of having the comforts of which Senator AnnabelleRankin spoke so eloquently, they will be doomed to discomfort and disappointment.

Senator Wedgwood:

– Why? Would the honorable senator mind developing that argument?

Senator SHEEHAN:

– Yes, I shall do so later. I was also interested in the remarks of Senator Annabelle Rankin concerning the origin of this legislation. I was pleased to be a member of the Senate in 1945 and to be able to support the resolution which brought into existence the agreement that is now about to expire.

Senator Annabelle Rankin was most eager to eulogize this Government and its great work regarding housing, but J point out that it was the Curtin Government which set up the Commonwealth Housing Commission, and that that commission, in the concluding paragraph of its report, stated that it was the duty of the Government to provide housing for the people. At that time, approximately 250,000 Australians wanted homes. That was at the conclusion of war. During the war, building materials had been scarce, and people were unable to build because of the demands that had been made on supplies of building materials. But there was also another reason for the shortage of houses. From 1939 to 1945 the nation was at war, but prior to 1939, there was a period when people were unable to purchase or build houses because of the economic conditions which existed in this country as the result of legislation introduced by a government of a similar political colour to that of the present Government. Consequently, thousands of young Australian men and women were unable to provide themselves with decent accommodation. In many instances, three or four families were living in the one house. It fell to the lot of the Curtin Government at the conclusion of the war, as it had fallen to the lot of that Government during the war, to pick up the threads and endeavour to house the people, since the previous government had failed to do so. The Curtin Government set about that task in 1945 and brought forward a certain scheme. It is true that it was not a complete housing scheme as we visualize such a scheme to-day, but nevertheless it proposed to improve the lot of the wage-earning class. It was introduced for the purpose of helping the rent-paying section of the community.

As Senator Annabelle Rankin has intimated, the Commonwealth did not have the constitutional power to indulge in wholesale home building. It is true that, during the war, we had controlled building materials, but that control had passed from our hands. There was one thing that we could do, however, and that was to make money available to the States for home building. The government of the day, therefore, went ahead with it? plans and eventually initiated the agreement which has been running for the last ten years. At the commencement of the scheme, we were not unmindful of the desire of people to own their homes, and as a matter of fact, it was laid down that there would be no objection to houses, erected by the State building authorities under the agreement, being sold to tenants.

That the agreement was altered onlylast year does no discredit to the Labour government which went out of office in 1949, but’ it is to the discredit of the present Government, which came to office in 1949, that the agreement was not amended previously. Senator Annabelle Rankin, in speaking of the achievement.of this Government, overlooked the step.that it might have taken, had it been really interested, to provide homes for the people.

Senator GEORGE RANKIN:
VICTORIA · CP

– Tell us about Mr. Dedman not being interested in making little capitalists of the workers.

Senator O’Byrne:

– He never said that.

Senator GEORGE RANKIN:
VICTORIA · CP

– He did say it. I heard him.

Senator SHEEHAN:

– I am making this speech, and I can deal with little capitalists and big ones, too. The agreement has now run its course. All the imperfections, if they can be so described, of the original agreement have now gone. The Government has a clean sheet and is able to bring forward its own proposals.

The Minister for National Development (Senator Spooner), in his secondreading speech; intimated very clearly that the Government was eager to assist people to own homes, and he referred to a sum of money which is to be made available, in two portions, under the hill. However, there is a very important omission from the bill, and at this point 1 answer the question previously asked by Senator Wedgwood. Under the Labour scheme, it was possible for the housing authority of a State to take into consideration the financial position of the bread-winner of a family. We provided that the rental should be approximately one-fifth of the family income. Consequently, the State authorities were able to allow tenants, who were not in. receipt of very high wages, to occupy houses at reduced rentals. It was possible for pensioners to become tenants of the housing commission. Under this bill, however, which has been introduced by a Government that is alleged to have done so much for the needy people of the community, the poor aged people are being ignored.

While Senator Annabelle Rankin was speaking, I made a note of some of her remarks. I point out to the honorable senator that, under our scheme, with its system of rebates, it was possible for a single age pensioner in Victoria to obtain a housing commission home for 8s. a week. A married couple who were pensioners could obtain a cottage for approximately £1 3s. a week. Under this bill, unless a State government is prepared to accept the total loss involved in such rebates, the rents payable by old couples and age pensioners will be approximately 4 or £5 a week.

Senator Wedgwood:

– That is not correct in all cases.

Senator SHEEHAN:

– By withdrawing the rebate provision, which enables the State governments to accept the responsibility, the tenant will have to pay the full rental. I am very sorry to say that the very fine sentiments that were expressed by Senator Annabelle Rankin refer to conditions that do not really exist. Under this measure, the rate of interest charged to the States on money for housing will be increased by 1 per cent. To-day, it costs about £4,000 to provide a three-bedroom house, including the price of the land. I suppose that figure could be reduced, but who would want a house containing only the bare necessaries? Surely, some amenities should be provided in houses built under the housing agreement. Calculated on the capital value, the rent of this kind of house will be 15s. a week higher than under the existing agreement. In these days, when the workers are denied the full wage to which they are entitled to offset the increased cost of living, rent is a very important ingredient in the basic wage. Under this measure, as I have said, the rent payable on a home costing £4,000 will be increased by 15s. a week. But the unfortunate tenant will not be able to receive increased wages to which he is justly entitled, because the basic wage has been frozen.

The present agreement enables the various housing commissions to charge only an economic rent in certain circumstances. It should not be forgotten that the local governing bodies also levy on the housing commissions amounts for water, municipal, sewerage and garbage rates. The total amount of these charges should be. kept in mind when increases of wages are under consideration. For the basic wage earner, the person who is unable to take advantage of a cooperative building society’s scheme because of his inability to pay the necessary deposit, and so is compelled to remain a tenant of a housing commission, the rental is approaching the £5 a week mark. How will people in the lower income ranges be able to pay the economic rent of houses built under this scheme?

Senator Annabelle Rankin and other supporters of the Government have uttered nice platitudes about this Government’s efforts to house the people. It is the Government’s duty to do so. Senator Annabelle Rankin also referred to the position of pensioners. I point out that certain difficulties will be placed in the way of the various housing commissions as a result of the manner in which it is proposed to allocate money for housing. As I have said before, the Opposition has no objection to the activities of the co-operative building societies. In Victoria, these societies have done excellent work. In that State, between the end of 1945 and the end of last year, co-operative building societies completed the construction of 20,139 houses and, at the latter date, there were 4,900 houses in course of construction. I am citing the latest available figures. From 1945 to the 30th June, 1955, the cost of providing these houses was £44,953,000 of which the banks provided £41,253,000. Other organizations, such as hig insurance societies, provided £3,700,000. It is significant to note that, of the amount of £41,253,000 provided by all of the banks, the Commonwealth Savings Bank provided £9,950,000 and the Commonwealth Trading Bank an amount of £5,455,000 - a total of £15,405,000. On the other hand, the State Savings Bank of Victoria provided £16,258,000. At this stage, I should like to remind the Senate that the Commonwealth Bank Act was amended by a Labour government to enable the Commonwealth Bank to make advances for home-building. On the figures that I have cited, the Commonwealth Bank has not done a bad job. I wonder what is the position to-day, under the amending legislation that was brought down by this Government. I wonder what kind of a. reply a person would get if he applied to the Commonwealth Bank, or to any other bank, for a loan of £1,000 with which to pay a deposit on a home under the co-operative building society scheme. Yet, I suppose that’, during this debate, honorable senators opposite will rise and make extravagant claims about what this Government has done in relation to housing. Doubtless, supporters of the Government in another place will also do likewise when the measure is under consideration there. Senator Annabelle Rankin asserted that this Government has clone more than any previous government has done in relation to housing.

Senator Wedgwood:

– That is correct.

Senator SHEEHAN:

– Whatever this Government is doing will come to a very speedy conclusion as a result of its financial policy. It has made more difficult the task of the Victorian Housing Commission in coping with the demand for homes. The commission has been prevented, by the conditions the Commonwealth has imposed in relation to the provision of money for housing, from giving full effect to its policy. This Government has also seriously interfered with the part being played by that great financial institution, the Commonwealth Bank, in connexion with this very important social problem.

Many homes are still wanted in Victoria. I took out some figures indicating the number of homes that had been applied for in the metropolitan area, but. unfortunately, I have mislaid them.

Senator Wedgwood:

– I can give those figures to the honorable senator.

Senator Critchley:

– The honorable senator is anxious to take part in the debate.

Senator SHEEHAN:

– If she can contradict the figures I have placed before the Senate this afternoon she will be doing a very good job. I have located the figures for which I was looking. On the 24th April last a question was asked in the Legislative Assembly of Victoria by Mr. Towers. His question was -

How many applications for Housing Commission homes, in the metropolitan area and in the country respectively, arc outstanding? How are those applications classified?

The information he received in reply to his question was that approximately 7,500 applications were outstanding in the metropolitan area and 3,750 in country sectors. He was also told that applications were being recorded at the rate of 300 each week, 200 from the metropolitan area and 100 from country centres. Honorable senators will see that there is a very considerable lag in supplying homes for people who desire them.

Senator Henty:

– The silly system of rent control in Victoria would not make it a proposition to let a home there.

Senator SHEEHAN:

– I am referring to houses that are being built by the Victorian Housing Commission under the agreement that was entered into between the Curtin Labour Government and the State government at that time. These houses are required by people in the lower income group. As the result of the operation of this new bill the activities of the Victorian Housing Commission will be seriously curtailed. Under the new proposal, that commission will receive £7,000,000 this year as against £10,000,000 which it would have received under the old scheme. Under the old set-up the commission was able to build at least 1,000 homes’ a year, but under the. new scheme when the State government will be. compelled, to divert a certain proportion of the money to home building’ cooperative: societies the homes built by the commission will be reduced to between 2.500 and 3r,000i each year.

Senator Spooner:

– What about the bornes- the building societies will build?

Senator SHEEHAN:

– Under the’ new scheme the Victorian Housing Commission has authority to- sell a home to’ a tenant and the- tenant can purchase on a deposit of about £200. He is allowed a certain percentage of the amortizationfund accrued to him as a set-off against his subsequent liability. If he has been paying into a co-operative society and wants to buy a house, it is no good his approaching the society with less than £1,000 deposit. How is this new schemegoing to help house these needy people?’ Would it not be far better to encourage the State authority to continue its building operations and allow it to sell to its tenants under the conditions that were brought in last year and for which the present Government takes credit? Those terms would be much more favorable.

Senator Wedgwood:

– Can the honorable senator tell the Senate about the 20,000 fewer tenanted houses between 1947 and 1954 as a result of rent control?

Senator SHEEHAN:

– Is the honorable senator wanting rent control as well ? ls she speaking for the landlords ? I am not interested in them. ‘ I can now understand why, under the new agreement, £5 a week will.be payable on the capital value of a house.

Senator Spooner:

– The honorable sena- tor wants only the State to be the landlord.

Senator SHEEHAN:

– During the last sis months the Victorian Housing Commission has been able to sell at least 1,000 houses to its former tenants. That is not a. bad effort considering the scheme took some little while to get under way.

Senator Hannaford:

– It will still be able to sell the houses under the new scheme. ,1

Senator SHEEHAN:

– I know that; But I am telling honorable senators what has been done- under, the old scheme.

Senator Henty:

– Under the. scheme introduced by the’ present Government.

Senator SHEEHAN:

– Under the present Government’s scheme, if the honorable senator likes to put it that way. My point is that the Victorian Housing Commission is not to be allowed to continue with its good work; it is being retarded.. Instead of being able to proceed with its planned building programme it will have to reduce the number of homes it builds to 2,500 this year-. The year before last it built 3,960 homes; it will finish 4,000 up to the end of 1955 and will possibly complete 3,000 homes this year because the full effect of the new scheme will not be felt this year. As time goes on and as a greater percentage of the money has to be set aside by the State to comply with other conditions, the number of houses built by the State commission will become fewer. Its building programme will be retarded.

Senator Spooner:

– Victoria is getting more houses. Does it not want more houses?

Senator SHEEHAN:

– Of course, it wants more houses.

Senator Spooner:

– This bill will enable it to get them.

Senator SHEEHAN:

– The present. Government is retarding the building of houses. How can the Minister suggest, that we will get more houses in Victoria if the number of houses built by the State building authority falls from 4,000 to 2,500?

Senator Spooner:

– Because the building societies, on a £1 for £1 basis, will build more houses than the housing commission will build.

Senator SHEEHAN:

– I know nil about that supposition, but I ask the Minister where the people are to obtain their deposits to buy those houses.

Senator Spooner:

– Thirty thousand people are waiting with their deposits.

Senator SHEEHAN:

– Are not the people who have not a large deposit entitled to better treatment? We must not forget, either, that many of those people who have an interest in co-operative societies obtained their money in times when it was plentiful.

Sitting suspended from 5.1^5 to 8 p.m.

Senator SHEEHAN:

– The agreement contained in this bill will not be as favorable as the agreement which is now expiring. Under the new agreement, the amount available to the Housing Commission of Victoria will be reduced from the present figure of about £10,000,000 a year to about £7,000,000 a year. Consequently, the rate of houseconstruction by that authority will be reduced from’ approximately 4,000 a year to 2,500- or 3,000 at the most, which is a considerable curtailment. Although more homes may be built privately as a result of co-operative building societies having more money made available to them under this scheme; there will still be a considerable decline in. the- number of homes built for people in the low income group who. still find it necessary to pay rent. The increase in the interest, rate of at least 1 per cent, will mean that the economic rental will go up by at least 15s. a week, and that will have a marked effect on the low income group-. The withdrawal of the rental rebate system will very seriously affect, the arrangement which obtained under the old agreement, by which the States and the Commonwealth both accepted the loss incurred through houses being let at an uneconomic rental.

Under this bill, as was provided in’ the old agreement, a State housing commission will be able to sell to the War Service Some3 Division houses built by the commission. I suggest that the Government should seriously consider making available to the branches of the War Service Homes Division in the various States that portion of its defence vote that is unexpended at the 30th June. Last year, it amounted to £14,500,000, and this year it is expected to be £8,000,000. If this money were used for the housing of ex-servicemen it would reduce their waiting time from about eighteen months to a very short period, and satisfy the majority of their housing requirements.. If the Government would restore the financial position of this nation,, many thousands of would-be members of building societies in New South Wales and Victoria, to which the Minister referred, would be able to receive financial accommodation from the Commonwealth Bank and other financial institutions to build their own homes in the suburbs in which they wish to live. I support the amendment.

Senator PALTRIDGE:
Minister for Shipping and Transport · Western Australia · LP

– The purpose of this bill is to authorize the Australian Government to enter into an agreement with the States to make advances to the States for the purpose of housing. A particularly welcome feature of the measure,, which was recently introduced by the Minister for National Development (Senator Spooner), is the provision that the greater proportion of money allocated to the States shall be used directly for the purpose of promoting home ownership rather than the renting of homes. I am certain that that provision will be welcomed in the electorate. One fault in our housing legislation in the past has been that insufficient attention has been given to promoting home ownership. A great deal of lip service has been paid to this ideal, and political parties have acclaimed it as- part of their policy, but this measure really writes into the housing legislation a provision which ha.been sadly lacking in the past and which. I say again, will he gladly welcomed in the electorate.

Honorable senators opposite have criticized the bill,, and that is not surprising, because they criticized the housing legislation which was brought down last year.; and which proved to be outstandingly successful. I shall refer briefly to some of their criticisms. It appears that the Labour party tries to ascribe to the Commonwealth Government complete power in respect of housing. There are severe constitutional limitations upon the Commonwealth Government, but within the scope of its meagre powers, this Government has done a great deal to supply the housing needs of Australia’, and it is continuing to do a very greet, deal in that direction. Housing is not. in essence, a federal matter; it is a State concern, but notwithstanding that, this Government is making available annually, about £30,000,000 of its own share of loan funds to the States for housing. Tt has recently authorized the new savings banks to lend up to 30 per cent, of their deposits for housing. The Commonwealth Bank has continued to lend money for housing in the same volume as in the past. The Commonwealth, in this measure, now proposes to make funds available to building societies so that they can increase their activities, and add to the number of home owners in Australia.

Honorable senators opposite have said that the policies being applied by this Government are having a serious effect on the supply of finance for housing. This is plainly not so. The Australian Government has taken no direct action to restrict housing finance, but, on the contrary, has assisted in the way in which I have indicated. It has also been said, most surprisingly, that the new agreement will interfere with the rights of the States to build houses. In fact the new agreement will remove all the restrictions on the States - except that applicable to the erection of multi-storied fiats - which were in the old 1945 legislation.

Senator Sheehan will be delighted to know that under this measure the States will be free to apply their moneys in whichever way they like, provided it is for the erection of houses. They may sell or rent houses on terms or at rentals which they themselves can decide. Some criticism has also been levelled at the fact that under this agreement the Government requires that some housing provision should be made for serving members of the defence forces. In that regard it should be understood that the houses that are to be erected for members of the defence forces are in ordinary housing areas, and that, in any case, there would be an obligation on the State housing authorities to provide houses for the residents of their State in much the same way, as was stated by interjection, it was the responsibility of the State and not the Commonwealth to provide houses for residents of the State, whether they be mem bers of the defence forces, or employed by the Postmaster-General’s Department or any other authority.

I was much interested in the comments made about interest rates, but we are not unused to this type of criticism coming from honorable senators opposite. If my recollection is correct, one of the purposes of the amendment moved by the Opposition to our legislation of last year also had something to do with the reduction of interest rates. I submit that the Labour party’s opposition to the Government’? policy on interest is completely unrealistic. We have had ample examples of governments which have not been realistic and responsible in their approach to the matter of the payment of interest, finding themselves in all sorts of difficulties. I suggest that one brilliant example before us at the moment is the New South Wales Government, which finds itself in difficulties in respect of its transport system. When this proposal, which has emanated from the Labour party, is analysed, it is difficult to find out exactly what it means.

Senator Spooner, in delivering his second:

-reading speech on this measure, made it clear that although under the Commonwealth and State Housing Agreement some 90,000 homes had been erected, that total represented only 14 per cent, of all the homes erected in Australia in all the post-war years. Any proposal which aims at reducing the rate of interest on those 90,000 homes, which represent 14 per cent, of the total homes built, means that that 14 per cent, will be subsidized as to rental to the degree of the reduction of interest allowed, at the expense of the other 86 per cent, of the people who have bought homes and built homes under unsubsidized schemes, and. who very frequently do not enjoy incomes equal to those of the people who occupy Commonwealth and State rental homes.

I think that Senator Ashley also criticized the measure because in it no definite provision had been made for some specific amount to be allocated each year. He said that the allocation would be within the determination of the Australian Loan Council. I point out to the honorable senator that that has always been the case. Ever since the inception of the scheme in 1945, no specific amount has been allocated; the amount has always been determined year by year by the Australian Loan Council, which has taken into account the availability of loan funds and the requirements of the States.

Senator Sheehan, when addressing himself to this measure, dwelt at length on what he described as the fate of the low income group under this legislation. I point out to the honorable senator that the States, under this new agreement, will have a complete right to charge precisely what they like in respect of the 1 muses.

Senator Sheehan:

– But they will have to bear the total losses.

Senator PALTRIDGE:

– I point out further to Senator Sheehan that the States now have a pool of some 92,000 houses which have been built at a low interest rate and at lower costs than now operate. The States can put the low income group families into those houses.

Senator Sheehan:

– So they can root out some people and put others in. That is a great scheme.

Senator PALTRIDGE:

– What does the honorable senator propose to do? Does he propose to leave the high income group in the low rental houses? I have heard that story before, and I have seen it in practice in many States. Many Labour men have been parading this particular scheme during the years as one that has been designed to cater for low income group families. However, the truth of the matter is, as every honorable senator knows, that that principle has not applied in practice, and that very, very frequently indeed, people who enjoy moderate to high incomes occupy State rental homes. I have known, and I do not doubt that many other honorable senators have known, of members of Parliaments who have, at odd times, and in some instances for lengthy periods, occupied these Commonwealth and State rental homes.

I pointed out to Senator Sheehan that this agreement will not operate as he has tried to make us believe it will operate. It is a general scheme with general operation, and if it is his desire, or the desire of the State governments, to give the benefit of the low cost homes to low income groups, then they have a brilliant opportunity before them to .do so.

Senator Sheehan:

– They have to take somebody out of a house in order to put somebody else in.

Senator PALTRIDGE:

– I am merely answering the honorable senator’s charges and putting examples before him. The honorable senator built his case on what he said might happen to the low income groups. I point out to him that the practical remedy is to house the low income groups in the existing houses. The States have a large number of houses built at a 3 per cent, rate of interest and at low costs; they can house the low income groups in those houses and put the high income earners elsewhere.

Let me turn again to a comment that was made by Senator Sheehan when he was referring to what he called a reduction which would take place in the number of houses that would be built in the coming year by the State housing authorities in Victoria. He may be right in what he said, but let it not be assumed for one moment that because there will be a reduction of the number of houses built by the State authorities, there will be a reduction in the total number of houses built under this scheme. Indeed, I invite Senator Sheehan to look more closely at the effect of the home-ownership provisions, and to study the construction of the funds from which that particular part of the scheme will be financed.

If he does that he will learn that because of the fact that the fund can be made into a revolving fund, and because the money can be turned over more quickly as a result of higher deposits, the same amount of money applied to the home-ownership provisions of this measure will, in 53 years, construct twice as many houses as could be built under the general rental scheme. I suggest that that is one important aspect of the scheme which deserves further investigation, because surely at the very commencement of a scheme like this if, in relation to 20 per cent, or 30 per cent, of the funds allocated we can get that increase of the number of homes built, it is a type of scheme which should be extended as opportunity offers. I have no doubt that will be done in the course of time. I. come now to a comparison of the amounts made available by this and by preceding governments. I make the comparison because heavy criticism has been levelled at what has been termed lack of effort on the part of this Government to improve the housing position. In the last five years of Labour administration £62,000,000 was made available to the States for housing while in the last five years of this Government’s administration no less than £176,000,000 has been made available to the States for that purpose.

Senator Brown:

– But what about the decrease in the value of money?

Senator PALTRIDGE:

– I expected that type of interjection, and have had the figures reduced to terms of actual houses built so that even Senator Brown will be convinced by the comparison. In the last five years of the Labour Government’s administration, 30,296 homes were erected under this scheme while in the last five years of the present Government’s administration no fewer than 53,925 homes have been built. If my arithmetic is any good at all, that works out at an increase of something over 75 per cent, in the number of houses erected; and I submit that on any basis of comparison that effort cannot be criticized as being a poor one in the field of housing.

I have dealt with the benefits of the home-ownership provisions of the bill, but I believe the measure is important also because it brings within actual sight the end of a housing shortage which has persisted for many years and which has given succeeding governments a great deal of trouble. The situation was aggravated, of course, by our deliberate policy of immigration. It was aggravated further by the state of prosperity within the economy, which in itself generated an increase in the demand for homes. The commission appointed by the Chifley Government to inquire into and report upon the housing position stated that at the end of the war there was a shortage of some 300,000 homes in Australia. That was a mammoth task, to confront any government when it was just emerging from a war. It was a task which proved to be beyond the capacity of the government of the day to handle, for in the early post-war years something like only 15,000 homes were built annually. Compare that with the S0,000 homes now being built each year. In mentioning that figure, I realize all the difficulties with which previous administrations were confronted, but it emphasizes that vast progress has been made.

In the two years between 1945 and 1947, the shortage of homes in Australia actually became more acute, the number increasing from 300,000 to 345,000. It was at that stage that the Government was particularly feeling the effect of its immigration policy. From June, 1945, to June, 1949, the Australian population increased by 621,000. During that same period, 145,000 dwelling were completed. In other words, there was one dwelling completed for every increase of 4.3 persons in the population. During the last six years, Australia’s population has increased by 1,250,000 while the number of houses erected was 485,000, or one house for every increase of 2.6 in the population. Those figures indicate the magnitude of the task which had to be undertaken to overtake the leeway that existed. Both the Senate and the country should be interested in the figures quoted the other night by the Minister for National Development (Senator Spooner) when introducing this bill. He stated that the current annual requirement, of houses was 57.000 and that the rate of erection was 80,000 a year. This means that we are overtaking the leeway to the extent of 23,000 homes each year. At that rate of progress, it is obvious that the housing shortage in Australia will be completely overcome within a. few years. I know that some States are not as well situated as others. I know, for instance, that in Western Australia the housing shortage will be completely overtaken within a year or two at the most. In fact, it was stated during a recent election campaign that the shortage had in fact been overtaken then, but I think that claim was slightly premature. My estimate is that within two years Western Australia will have caught up completely with the housing lag. The position is not quite so good in other States. For example, 1 appreciate that in New South

Wale3 it will probably be a little more than five years before the leeway has been regained.

I come now to the sale of houses, and the figures again are interesting. For the first ten years of the scheme’s operation from 1945 to 1955, only 3,707 out of 81,000 homes were sold. In other words, something under 5 per cent, of the total number of houses erected were sold. When this Government introduced legislation last year to amend the agreement with the States, honorable senators opposite criticized it and said that we were not giving sufficient scope for the purchase of homes. In reply to that criticism, I point out that whereas only 3,707 homes were sold in the first ten years of the old scheme’s operation, 1,452 have been sold in one year under the amended scheme. That is a splendid illustration of the enthusiasm with which the people of Australia grasped the opportunity to buy a heme. Just as that adjustment of the scheme was enthusiastically seized upon by the Australian people, so I believe that the proposal contained in this measure will be enthusiastically seized upon, and more and more people will do what is in the best tradition of Liberal thought, at any rate, and go about the purchasing of homes. There is no doubt that the housing record of this Government has never been surpassed by any authority in this country. I have no doubt that the new agreement will have the desired effect and that, from this time, more and more people will be conscious of the desirability of buying homes in which to rear their families.

Senator BENN:
Queensland

.- Lt gives me great pleasure to object to the bill now under discussion, and to support the amendment. Before I address my remarks to the bill, I propose to speak briefly on the submissions of the Minister for .Shipping and Transport (Senator Paltridge), who has just resumed his seat. For his own purposes, the Minister compared the amount of money spent on the construction of houses by the Labour Government during the last five years of its term of office, and with the amount spent by his Government in the past five years. Of course, the Minister selected the periods most advantageous to his own case. The last five year3 of the Labour Government’s term of office were from 1944 to 1949, and two of those years were virtually war years. We know how difficult it was to construct homes during the war, and in the years immediately afterwards. Some honorable senatorsmight ask why it was difficult to build homes after the war. I remind them that the Labour Government at that time had to attend to the interests of servicemen, who were being discharged from the forces, and to rehabilitate them in industry. It had to recruit tradesmen for building construction. Men had to be drafted into industries, particularly the building industry, because of the acute shortage of labour. Therefore, the comparison made by the Minister was very unfair.

He also made a statement to the effect that a welcome feature of the legislation under discussion was that a greater proportion of money would go to those who wished to buy their homes, rather than to rent them. How does the Minister know that? Is there anything in the measure which will ensure that result? There is not a word in the bill which will bring that about.

I have said that it gives me much pleasure to object to the bill. I do so for various reasons. First, the Government has failed to recognize that we have two groups of home-seekers in the community. The first group is fairly well-to-do. It consists of people who are in receipt of a substantial annual income, and are able to pay a good deposit on a house and to make financial arrangements to their own benefit. The other group consists of those who are receiving an income totalling little more than the basic wage, and who are quite unable to save sufficient to pay a deposit on a house or acquire a suitable building site. The Government has failed to recognize the existence of the second group.

I object to the bill because the Government is using a form of financial duress to force the State governments to sign the agreement. I shall have more to say about that later. My third objection is to the blatant expression of the Government’s policy in this document, which is termed an agreement. I have always regarded an agreement, particularly a written agreement, as something existing between two parties who have agreed to it after discussion, but in this case, the States have not indicated that they are going to accept the terms of the agreement. I have reason to believe that some of the States will not accept it, but the Government has used its financial power to stipulate certain terms which will be used to the disadvantage of the States, and to the advantage of the Commonwealth.

It has been indicated - and most people will agree - that home-ownership is better than renting homes. No one will dispute that. It is an economic advantage for a person to own his own home instead of paying rent. If he owns his home, or is paying off a debt on a home, he is establishing an asset. Let us consider the position of a home-owner who acquired his home ten or fifteen years ago. In 1939, he might have acquired a home for £1,000 or £1,500. To-day, he would find that his asset would be worth at least £3,000, because of the inflation that we have experienced since 1949 when the Labour Government went out of office. We have no assurance that we shall not continue to have inflation, and those who purchase homes to-day will be building up an asset for the future. I have no dispute with that, but when the Government enters the field, I am entitled to question its actions.

The purchase and ownership of a home entails responsibility. There is the upkeep to be met, including maintenance and repairs, but we must never lose sight of the national aspect. The best citizen is the man who has his own home - the focal point of family life. The members of his family enjoy a feeling of pride and dignity, and that is desirable from a national point of view. But the Government is speaking with its tongue in its cheek about this matter.

The Minister indicated that there had been no restriction of credit for the purchase of homes. My information and experience is to the contrary. Let us assume that a man who wishes to acquire a home has £1,000. Let him take that £1,000 to the Commonwealth Bank or to any private trading bank in the Commonwealth, and ask for an additional £1,000 so that he may secure a home. He will meet with a flat refusal. The Government has stated that it has not, by means of legislation, restricted credit for home purchase, nor has it done so; but we know the relationship that exists between the Treasurer and the Commonwealth Bank. We know the powers of the Commonwealth through the Commonwealth Bank and under the Banking Act. A restrictive credit policy has been operating in Australia in respect of nearly all matters for the last two years or so.

I refer now to some of the boasts that have been made by honorable senators opposite in respect of this legislation. One of those boasts was that the Government preferred to help home-seekers to build their own homes rather than to have them built by government authorities. Perhaps it does so, but why does it have that preference ? All the time, the Government is seeking to avoid being embroiled in the construction and sale of houses. It seems that its one desire at the present time is to be able to say, “ We are the main financial authority in the Commonwealth and we shall make sums available to the States to do with them as they wish “. But because the Government feels that it must have some protection in respect of the sums of money that it makes available to the States, it adopts certain practices. In doing so, it is only doing what it has already done in other spheres. The supporters of the Government frequently boast of the sums that are spent annually in making milk available to school children throughout the Commonwealth. But this Government merely makes the money available; it has not to do the chores associated with issuing the milk to the children. It only provides the cash, which is the easiest part.

The Commonwealth cannot dissociate itself from responsibility to provide an adequate number of homes for the people of Australia, for the reason that Labour established an immigration policy before it went out of office. To the credit of the Menzies Government, it has continued that policy to the present time. But what is the situation to-day? Thousands of immigrants with families are coming to Australia every year, and this Government just cannot escape responsibility to make housing accommodation available for them. The Government may speak of the labour force that is acquired by bringing immigrants here, but the arrival of immigrants really means more than the acquisition of a labour force. When they land in Australia they become an economic force. They have to be provided with houses. In addition, there are the costs which must be borne by the local authorities in providing and extending the services that are enjoyed in a civilized community, in order to cater for an increasing population.

Another boast made by honorable senators opposite a while ago was that, last year, the Commonwealth and State Housing Agreement had been amended to make provision for tenants to buy their homes on favorable terms. Let us look at the history of this matter. Did not the States force the Commonwealth to adopt the 5 per cent, deposit plan? Did not the States hold out for two or three years from this agreement because the Commonwealth was haggling over whether or not it should be 10 per cent. ? Unless my information is correct, the States forced the Commonwealth to adopt, the 5 per cent, deposit scheme, under which a deposit of 5 per cent, would be required in respect of amounts up to £2,000 and a higher deposit in respect of houses which cost more than £2,000. This Government has nothing to boast about in regard to the provision of houses for the people.

Certain honorable senators opposite, in skipping by this very important matter, referred to the constitutional powers of the Commonwealth in regard to housing. I suggest that this Government has used the constitutional limitations as a funk hole, or as a means of avoiding its responsibility to the States. It has taken advantage of those constitutional limitations to say to the States, “ This does not become a matter that we have to attend to under the Constitution “. I suggest to the Senate that a form of financial duress has been applied by the Commonwealth to the States by the Commonwealth saying to the States, “ We are the sole authority in the Commonwealth for the collection of income tax, sales tax, excise and customs duty. We have control of the revenue, and we shall make allocations to you according to a formula that is prescribed in a statute but, at the same time, more or less according to our wish “. It may be stated as a fact that during the years of inflation the States have found that the sums allocated to them have been quite insufficient. For that reason, the Commonwealth has had to go beyond the statutory formula and make additional sums available. That indicates the attitude of the Commonwealth to the States at the present time.

In addition, the Commonwealth says to the States, in effect, “ We are the Loan Council. Never mind the nonsense you may hear about a statute which gives you the right to attend Loan Council deliberations. In the final analysis, we are the Loan Council. You may bring along your fanciful arrangements and your works programmes for consideration once a year, but we have the right to lop £100,000,000 off the figure that you suggest. You may bring along a works programme for the whole of the States which will cost something like £390,000,000, but we, who have the task of raising the loan funds, may, at our own sweet will, cut your programme bv about £100,000,000 and say that you will get only £200,000,000. Then, if we wish to do so later in the financial year, we shall cut the loan expenditure further by £10,000,000”. In effect, the Commonwealth says to the States, “ We are the financial power in the Commonwealth. If you think you can get along without finance, and that you need not come to the Commonwealth for your financial requirements, then you are at liberty to stay away “.

What is the position of the States in the matter of housing? They are almost wholly dependent upon the Commonwealth for what they receive from loan funds and revenue. The Commonwealth is fully appreciative of the power that is in its hands. It is able to collect taxes and raise loan funds, and it proposes, at the same time, to exercise fully the power that that ability gives it. When we read the housing agreement we find that a kind of hooliganism has been in operation, and r.hat the Commonwealth has been standing over the States and saying to them, “ Either you sign the agreement that we submit to you, or else - “. The meaning of the words “ or else “ in that context is well known to the States. If honorable senators desire an illustration of what I have just said, and of how the Commonwealth may actually govern the States in respect of State projects and instrumentalities, I refer to medical and health legislation and the national health scheme that was introduced by this Government. Prior to that, every State had its own health scheme. Nevertheless, each State, with the. exception of Queensland was forced to accept the proposals of the Commonwealth. The States had to submit to the proposals of the Commonwealth because they had no finance, apart from what was made available by the Commonwealth Treasury, for their medical schemes. The Government is repeating those tactics in regard to housing.

At this juncture, may I state that I come from Queensland? Honorable senators opposite apparently imagine that there has been no home construction by the State governments other than that which has been carried out since 1945, the date of the original agreement. That is altogether wrong. Since 1916, the workers’ dwellings scheme has been operating in Queensland, under which a worker who purchases a suitable building site can obtain a housing loan up to £2,000. Until a few years ago, the rate of interest charged on those advances by the State Advances Corporation was 3jj- per cent. I understand that the current rate of interest charged on corporation loans is about 4£ per cent. Many good houses were constructed under that scheme. To-day, the number of homeowners in Queensland is proportionately higher than the number in any other State. I believe that this is due to the introduction by a Labour government in 1916 of the State Housing Act, which made provision for money to be lent to persons who desired to build their own homes. There was also introduced the workers’ homes scheme. It was recognized that, in the community, there was one group of people who could afford to pay a deposit for the construction of a house, and another group who could afford from their savings to buy only a suitable building site. There was a third category, those on low incomes, who could not. even afford to buy a suitable building site. There was a government housebuilding scheme for people in receipt of annual incomes of approximately £800. All that those people had to do was to purchase the land, and the Government then constructed a house for them. The rate of interest charged on the loan was 4£ per cent. - I think it has since been increased to 5 per cent. - and it was repayable over periods of either 30 or 45 years.

The Minister directed attention to the number of building societies that are operating in the United States of America, Great Britain, and in the State of Tasmania. However, he went no further than merely to mention the number. I have no doubt that, in some of the older countries, building societies have Operated for many years. It is for that reason that they are able to continue to function to-day. The housing scheme that was established by the Queensland Government in 1916 has operated very successfully in the interests of the people.

Senator Spooner:

– How many houses have been built under the scheme?

Senator BENN:

– I inform the Minister for National Development that, up to a few years ago - I have not before me the latest figures - no less than £11,000,000 had been expended under the scheme on the construction of houses. I do not know, offhand, how many houses have been built under the scheme, but I shall deal with that aspect at a later stage. The Minister has stated that there are three or four building societies in Queensland. I point out that if one speaks about building societies to the average homeseeker in Queensland, he immediately holds his nose, due to his experience of building societies in the past. In 1926 and 1927, it was the custom of the few building societies then in operation to charge interest on loans at 8 per cent., which was calculated quarterly on the amount owing. As no allowance was made for sickness or unemployment, those who became entangled with the building societies never got out of their clutches.

The Minister mentioned, somewhat naively, that people purchase shares in building societies on the time-payment plan. Actually, they incur a debt to the building society, which they have difficulty in liquidating during the remainder of their lives. That is why chore are so few building societies in Queensland’. All that the Queensland Government requires in order to make its two housing schemes more successful is more money. If they are given more loan money, I have no doubt that, within a very short period of time, they -will once again function effectively.

Senator Spooner:

– They have not really functioned for some years.

Senator BENN:

– They functioned very successfully up to 1945, and they are still operating reasonably satisfactorily.

Senator BYRNE:
QUEENSLAND · ALP; QLP from 1957; DLP from 1968

– I understand that 6,298 houses were built in Queensland under those schemes last year.

Senator BENN:

– I think it is acknowledged that there is a continuing need, of money for home construction in Australia. It is necessary to provide homes for the people in order to maintain peace in the community. The proposed agreement will operate for a period, of five years, but there is no mention in it of the amount that will bc payable to the States during each of those years. That is a serious omission, from the agreement. Therefore, I think the Minister should inform the Senate of the amounts that it is proposed shall, be made available to the building societies each year because, after all, that money belongs to the people. Money raised by loans will be made available at a certain rate of interest to the States for housing,

Mir, of which a certain proportion shall be advanced to building societies. What a great wicket those societies will be- on ! In effect, they will be provided with money under- a socialist scheme. Of course, all building societies are not cooperative organizations-. Many of them operate as private companies. They will be able to use, for the purposes of their business, loan money made available at n low rate of interest for the- building of houses. Of course, we know what rates; of interest will be charged- by those concerns- to borrowers. Only recently; I read a newspaper report in connexion with a housing loan that was granted by the Bank of New South Wales Savings Bank Limited, on which interest at 5-J per cent, will be payable.

Some years ago, certain State savings banks amalgamated with the Common.wealth Savings Bank. It is interesting to note that, last year, due in part to that amalgamation, £750,000 from the profit of the Commonwealth Savings- Bank was distributed as follows: £5S7.959- was allocated to the Rural Bank in New South’ Wales, £130,415 to the Queensland Government, £26,284 to the Western Australian Government, and £6,327 was alio*cated to the Tasmanian Government. Under the terms of the amalgamationagreements, up to the 30th June, 1955, no less than £10,209,000 was made available to various State authorities which, in turn, lent money to home-builders under various housing schemes. Since the early part of this year the Commonwealth Government has permitted three trading banks to embark upon savings bank business. Those banks are now in competition with the Commonwealth savings bank and, no doubt, will affect its annual profit. It means, in effect, that lesser sums will be made available in the future through the Commonwealth Bank to the various authorities for homebuilding purposes.

I stated a while ago that this bill is, important in that it deals with homes. Members of the Australian Labour party have always held that nothing is more important in the community than proper housing for the people. We say that the basis of a standard of living is a home,, and that the person, who has no home has no standard, of living whatsoever. I stated a while ago that I supported theamendment, and I shall now comment upon the contents of the amendment which has been, submitted on behalf of the Opposition. One of the deficiencies of the measure is that it does not ensure the provision by the Commonwealth of all the moneys required for the erection of dwellings by the States. The Commonwealth was quite able to make an assessment of the housing requirements of

Australia at the present time and if it had done so it would be able to indicate the number of houses required and their approximate cost. It has not done that, and, therefore, we have submitted our amendment. We also believe that the interest rates payable on the moneys to be made available to the States are too high and should be reduced. The bill does not provide for a system of rental rebates such as have been enjoyed for some time by purchasers of housing commission homes. The Government has not given full consideration to cases of hardship which will arise in the future. There is no doubt that such cases will arise. The State governments will have to bear that responsibility. A breadwinner may die and leave a widow with children occupying one of these homes. No provision has been made for a case like that. The Commonwealth has not specified the amount of the deposit required, the period of repayment, or the rate of interest contemplated under certain clauses of the agreement. We say that the bill should be more definite.

In conclusion, I repeat that the measure is insufficient in that it does not state the sum that will be made available to the States during the currency of the agreement. That should be stated so that the States will know where they stand. Furthermore, as I have already stated, the Government is giving expression in this bill to its own private policy by trying to channel public funds into private institutions such as building societies. It is trying to farm out, as it were, moneys which belong to the people of Australia. For that reason I oppose the bill and intend to support the amendment.

Senator ANDERSON:
New South Wales

– This bill proposes to provide, by way of agreement between the Commonwealth and the States, moneys for housing purposes. Before I develop any argument with regard to the proposed agreement, I should like to refer to statements made by the preceding speaker, Senator Benn, with regard to the co-operative building society movement, ft is unfortunate that he has no knowledge at all of that movement.

Senator Benn:

– They are not all cooperative building societies.

Senator ANDERSON:

– The bill provides for money to be made available to co-operative building societies. Those societies are run completely by their members and they do not make profit in the sense which Senator Benn implied. I remind him that the Commonwealth Bank itself, to which he referred in praise a few moments ago, is probably one of the greatest contributors, by way of making loans available, to cooperative societies. The co-operative building societies movement has been one of the greatest movements to occur in the building world in Australia during the last two decades.

This bill, of course, provides for an agreement between the Commonwealth and the States and, as has been indicated by the Minister for National Development (Senator Spooner), when introducing the bill, certain constitutional difficulties exist. Because of those difficulties, the bill more or less rests upon the defence power of the Commonwealth under section 96 of the Constitution. It may well be that the constitutional committee, which has just been formed under the chairmanship of the learned AttorneyGeneral (Senator Spicer), should have a look at the problem of housing from the viewpoint of constitutional reform. The States, of course, have not yet signed this proposed agreement, but the social consequences of their failure to do so would be frightening. I think honorable senators on both sides of the chamber will agree with that statement. I do not need to stress the effect of lack of housing on crime, health and child delinquency or on our general moral outlook. Housing and good homes are fundamental to our way of life, and. therefore, it behoves the States to sign the agreement without delay.

Senator Ashley, who led the debate for the Opposition, Senator Sheehan and Senator Benn all spoke of the responsibility of governments towards housing. I suggest they could best help by urging the States to face up to their responsibilities and sign this proposed agreement without delay. It is noteworthy that none of the speakers for the Opposition ha.s recommended the signing of this particular agreement. The existing agreement expires on the 30th June. As the Minister said in his second-reading speech, the old agreement had many bad feature.* which have been corrected in the new agreement. The new agreement also breaks completely new ground by providing that 20 per cent, of the moneys allocated during the first two years and 30 per cent, of the moneys allocated during the last three years of the five-year period of the agreement shall be paid into a special fund to provide for home-ownership through such agencies as co-operative building societies and the like. If I have time, I shall further develop that point later.

I should now like to have a look at the background of this problem. Despite what has been said in this chamber, as one who was engaged in the real estate business before the war, I say sincerely that no real housing problem existed up to 1939. Part of my calling in life was to manage properties, and I managed some hundreds of them at the one time. I say that, as a general principle, up to the outbreak of war in 1939 no real housing problems existed. There was a movement in housing, but houses were available both for sale and for letting. I could refer honorable senators to a wellknown suburb in the city of Sydney in the County of Cumberland where the records show that in 1939 a certain firm had houses to let. The general statement I make is that up to 1939 no real housing problem existed such as that which, exists to-day. For a period of five or six years during the war no new houses were built, and that started the housing lag. But the States have aggravated it by their stupid rent regulations, and no sane person with money to invest would think of building a house for the purpose of letting it. The position in regard to homes already erected - such as a large home which was once occupied by a large family whose members have grown up and moved away, leaving perhaps only the parents living in it - is that the occupants are mortally afraid to let portion of it because of the provisions of the tenancy law. This position arose as a result of what was inherent in the 1945 housing agreement legislation, which a Commonwealth Government of the same political complexion as the present Opposition introduced, and which brought into being the original Commonwealth and State Housing Agreement.

Too much emphasis has been laid on what has been done under the agreement, and the Minister clearly pointed out that only approximately 15 per cent, of all houses built have been financed under the agreement between the Commonwealth and. the States. The remaining So per cent, have been built by private enterprise. It has been estimated that Australia’s present need is something like 57,000 homes a year, and the present building rate is approximately 80,000 homes a year, so that we are reducing the lag which accumulated during the war years at the rate of 23,000 to 25,000 homes a year.

It is essential that the States should use to the maximum advantage the money they receive under this agreement. It is imperative, also, that the Commonwealth should ensure, in any agreement with the States, that provision is made, insisting that the States spend that money to the maximum advantage. The New South “Wales Housing Commission is the housing authority for the New South “Wales Government, and its record has not always been a happy one in regard to the spending of funds for housing under the agreement. It has an overhead expenditure of approximately £1,000,000 a year, and the homes are built by private contract. A builder contracts to build a number of homes.

Senator Willesee:

– Does the honorable senator agree with that?

Senator ANDERSON:

– Yes, but I do not approve the commission’s enormous overhead expenditure. It has 976 employees, and calculations show that the overhead expenditure of the commission adds approximately £160 to the cost of each home it builds. That is high in comparison with the cost of homes built by other State housing authorities. The States have a responsibility to keep overhead expenditure down to an irreducible minimum, but that has not been done by the New South Wales Housing Commission.

In 1955 that commission “was holding 58,481 building blocks - enough to keep building going, at the prevailing rate of production, for about fourteen or fifteen years. In the area in which I have lived and given public service for many years, the New South Wales Housing Commisssion at one stage imposed a blanket freeze “ over a square mile of first-class residential land within 6 miles of the Sydney General Post Office. It did not resume or acquire the land, but under the appropriate statute imposed this “freeze”, and said to the owners, “You may not sell or lease that land. All you may do is to pay your rates and leave the land as it is, unless you obtain permission to do otherwise from the housing commission”. As a result, building in (hat area remained stagnant until saner counsels prevailed and the “ freeze “ was lifted, and private enterprise was allowed to commence building. Since then, 2,000 homes have been built in the area. It is She responsibility of State housing authorities to use for the building of homes the money allocated to them under the agreement.

In 1955, an amendment to the housing legislation provided that housing commission homes could be sold to tenants on very advantageous terms. As Senator Paltridge pointed out, in one year a very spectacular and significant number of tenants decided to purchase the homes which they were renting. This agreement provides specifically that a certain percentage of the money allocated to the States shall be placed in a particular fund for the purpose of providing finance for building societies. Either Senator Benn or Senator Sheehan asked why should a person want to finance the purchase of a home through a building society when he could obtain the money through a State housing commission. The answer is fairly obvious. In the first place, housing commission homes are built under group housing conditions.

Senator BYRNE:
QUEENSLAND · ALP; QLP from 1957; DLP from 1968

– Not necessarily.

Senator ANDERSON:

– Generally speaking, they are. One usually finds they are built according to a block plan on an estate subdivision. The homes are of a -particular type, with four or five designs that are constantly repeated.

Senator Willesee:

– The honorable senator knows nothing about the matter.

Senator ANDERSON:

– I am speaking of actual houses built in New South Wales. Obviously, a home-owner wants to have a dwelling with individuality, built to his own design to meet his particular requirements. Most significantly, lie wants to become what is known as an “ owner-builder “. When the building of his home has reached a certain stage he wants to be able to move on to the site, and do as much of the work as he can himself, and thus reduce the cost of his home. It might not be possible otherwise for him to finance it. There is nothing unusual in that procedure. It is commonly done in New South Wales, and I dare say the same thing happens in other States. The owner engages contractors to do electrical, plumbing and bricklaying work, but much of the detailed work he does himself in order to reduce costs. Many such men have gone to building societies to borrow money in order to “build a home in the locality they choose, to the design which they desire, and, by their own efforts and initiative, they have reduced the cost of building.

Some reference has Deen made to concessional rebates of rent, and I desire to say something about that later on. However, in regard to home-ownership, honorable senators of the Opposition have stated that they support the principle of home-ownership, but they have stated that they are opposed to the agreement. Indeed, Senator Benn said that he had much pleasure in opposing it. I point out to them that in this agreement there is a definite provision for expanded homeownership. I suggest that there is quite a wrong conception of home-ownership among honorable senators opposite. Senator Benn, for example, referred to two classes in the community, but I remind him that the persons who are trying to obtain their own homes are not, generally speaking, the welltodo people of the community, but the middle-class and working-class people. I suggest that if, as has been said, there are about 30,000 people seeking financial accommodation through building societies, 99 per cent, of those people belong to the working classes of the community.

I have an. interesting letter before me which bears out the argument that I am at present putting to the Senate. It is from Mr. Downing, the secretary of the Association of Co-operative Building Societies in Sydney. His letter mainly refers to Kew South Wales, but part of it also has some connexion, with Victorian conditions. He states that the districts principally served by cooperative building societies are Fairfield, Cabramatta, Rydalmere, Parramatta, Canterbury, Bankstown, Liverpool, St. George, Five Dock and so on. Honorable senators will notice that they are mainly areas which are represented, politically, by the Australian Labour party. Moreover, they are all areas in which large numbers of the great working community of New South Wales reside.

Mr. Downing also says in his letter that the average loan in 50 cases presented to the associated building societies for financial advances was £2,335. Therefore, it is the working people who are seeking finance through building societies in order that they may build homes for themselves, and the idea put forward by honorable senators opposite that home-owners are a definite class in the community quite distinct from the workers, is completely wrong and misleading. Moreover, it is completely unfair to- the working community.

A man’s home is his castle. Every man aspires to own his home, and the legislation at present before the Senate is pari of a scheme which proposes to give it to him. The once great Labour party, which has now split up into five or six Labour parties, is opposing this measure, and I cannot understand its opposition. The letter from the building societies which I have already mentioned points out that the average income of those who seek finance from building societies i* £17 7s. a week, and that the average cash sum or land equivalent that they have is £fiS7. The localities in which those people mostly desire to acquire their homes are on the Illawarra and Bankstown lines in Sydney.

Then Mr. Downing says that in addition to building societies serving persona in particular localities,, there are a large number of occupational building, societies which are lending to employees in particular occupations. One such is the Railway Employees Co-operative Building Society. Senator Benn apparently has never heard of such a thing as a building society associated with the trade union movement. This particular society is running parallel to, or is an adjunct of, the railways unions. Apparently all that Senator Benn knows about this matter is that in 1926 there were some bad, building societies in Brisbane. There if also the Road Transport and Tramway Employees Co-operative Building- Society The secretary of the Railway Employees Co-operative Building Society, which has a waiting list of more than 2,000 members, states, according to Mr. Downing’.” letter, that the average income of applicants is £17 a week and the general cost of houses, which are mostly of fibre is from £2,500 to £3,200.

Mr. Downing’s letter also refers to the Newcastle district and states that 95 per cent, of the applicants to housing societies in that district are industrial workers, mainly husband and wife groups. Therefore, honorable, senators will see. that the legislation at present before u& is part of the Liberal Government’s plan; to encourage home-ownership, as am inherent part of its agreement with the States. We are advancing money to the States in order that the States may allocate it to building societies so that the workers may participate in homeownership. Nevertheless, the Labour party is opposing our actions, and any conclusions that anybody wants to draw from that attitude will be fair enough.

The Minister for Shipping and Transport (Senator Paltridge) dealt with rental rebates quite effectively, but as the Opposition seemed to make this matter quite an important part of its argument, we must continue referring to it. The Minister pointed out that about 95,000 homes have already been erected by State authorities. Under the agreement the States are as free as the air to sell those homes on whatever terms and conditions they choose. Commonwealth responsibility for three-fifths of the loss in relation to the 95,000 homes will continue, and I ask what could be fairer than that.

Now let us deal with the position in New South Wales. The New South Wales Housing Commission pointed out in its report that of the 95,000 homes that had been erected by the State authorities up to the 30th June, 1955, New South Wales had built 35,779. In another part of the report we notice certain paragraphs devoted to rental rebates, and discover that under the terms of the old agreement rental rebates in some form or other have been applied to 9,124 people. That means that about 26,500 homes erected in New South Wales under the old agreement may still be subject to rental rebates. The Commonwealth would still be committed to three-fifths of the annual losses in respect to those houses. Therefore, there is a pool of houses in New South Wales, available to people whom the State Government may consider to be deserving of rental rebates and only two-fifths of the loss so incurred will have to be borne by the State.

Senator Willesee:

– The pool is not there if the houses are occupied.

Senator ANDERSON:

– In a pool of 35,000 or 40,000 houses, even at a time when houses are most difficult to obtain, there is always a movement of tenants, and houses become available.

Senator Willesee:

– But the honorable senator said there was a pool of so many thousands.

Senator ANDERSON:

– Within that pool some homes must be becoming vacant, and elderly or invalid persons should be put into those places. I suggest that the Minister for Shipping and Transport dealt with that matter quite effectively. In any assessment of an economic rental under the old system, certain allowances were made for the loss of rent and the vacancy of homes. If I went to court in order to have a house fair-rented, 5 per cent, would be allowed in the assessment for loss of rent and possible vacancy. Now in the agreement something like 5 per cent, is allowed in respect of that matter. Nothing like 5 per cent, has been lost under that head ing since 1945. In fact, in that time the States have made a substantial profit in that the allowance for loss of rent when working out the grant to be made is based on 5 per cent, whereas the actual Joss that has been sustained by the States over the period is something between £ per cent, and 1 per cent. So, here again, there is a certain amount of profit accruing to the States if they want to use their funds in this way. The main point is that a pool of something like 90,000 houses built under the old agreement is available to the States for rental or rebate purposes, and that is a big factor.

As my time has almost expired, I shall not go into further details, but when we are in committee I shall make specific reference to certain provisions in the bill. For instance, Senator Ashley spoke of the prohibition against the building of flats. He said that it applied to blocks of fiats of more than two stories. I think the actual provision refers to three stories. There is also the prohibition against acquiring or using funds for the building of shops. I agree entirely with that. Our purpose is to build homes for the people, and, that being so, it would be foolish to build shops instead of houses; but it is obvious that in any scheme of group housing some area must be set aside as shop sites. If we establish a huge residential settlement and make no provision for shop sites, we shall offend against all principles of good planning as well as perhaps the town plan of the local government body in whose area the settlement is established. I repeat that whilst these funds cannot be used for the purpose of building shops, there should be some arrangement under which provision may be made for shop sites. Some of these housing subdivisions might embrace a square mile of country. In those circumstances, it is essential that there be some provision for shopping sites. Perhaps, land could be set aside for that purpose on the understanding that as sites are sold to private enterprise for the building of shops the money obtained from such sale shall be used to reimburse the fund for the cost of acquisition in the first place. All principles of town planning suggest also that certain playing areas should be allowed for. I presume that will be done under the bill; but shops are expressly excluded, and there should be some arrangement for the acquisition of shop sites and for the subsequent reimbursement of the fund when those sites are sold to private enterprise.

I support the proposal that in the first two years of the scheme’s operation 20 per cent, of the funds made available to the States shall be allocated to building societies and that for the next three years 30 per cent, of those funds shall he devoted to that purpose. By making it available to building societies, this loan money will be given twice the velocity of funds used for the erection of rental homes in that the term of loan under the scheme operated by building societies is from 20 to 30 years. This means that the money made available to building societies will actually build twice the number of homes that it would if it were retained for the building of rental houses. [ support the bill for those reasons. All Australians, inherently and instinctively, desire to be home-owners. We all want to own our homes. We all want the joy of doing things in our own homes, and the Government is to be commended for having taken the initial steps to ensure that any agreement made between it and the States will contain adequate provision for the building of those homes which the people so earnestly desire.

Senator O’BYRNE (Tasmania) [9.37J. - ‘Senator Anderson outlined a pattern which has pervaded much of the legislation that has come before this chamber recently. To me, the Government seems to be like Shylock, wanting the pound of flesh nearest the heart. On every occasion, recently, it has sought to take that pound of flesh from nearest the hearts of the less-fortunate people in the community. Senator Anderson referred constantly to co-operative building societies. We have no co-operative building societies in Tasmania. I understand that in Queensland there are certain co-operative societies which, because of their operations, are not held in very good repute. But my point here is that the Minister for National Development (Senator Spooner) made no reference to cooperative building societies during his secondreading speech. Whenever there is mention of building societies, it refers to those societies which are operating as ordinary commercial enterprises established for the purpose of making profit.

Senator Henty:

– There is a building society in Tasmania, but it is a mutual society.

Senator O’BYRNE:

– And that mutual concern in Tasmania has rather pointedly thrown this so-called agreement back into the teeth of the Government. The Minister himself has said that the permanent building societies in Tasmania have been established for 80 or 90 years. Last year they made advances totalling £960,000 as against the £2,000,000 spent by tha Tasmanian Government on housing. They expressed appreciation of the Commonwealth’s interest in their well-being but indicated that they had successfully managed their own affairs for so long without finance from the Government tha* they did not now desire to accept government finance.

That illustrates the exact position o? the States under this proposed agreement, The proposal contained in the bill is a direct infringement of State rights. This Government has no constitutional right to tell the States where or how they shall spend their money. After all, they gave up their taxing rights and many other powers to the Commonwealth during the war, and this loan money is virtually only money which the Commonwealth has collected from the States and is now handing back to them. These loan funds, which come from the States, are now having all sorts of tags attached to them. Senator Anderson mentioned the conditions that obtained before the war. If he were sincere, he would realize that before the war, the prime consideration was to obtain food and not to build houses. The ordinary man could not think about his home being his castle. I have seen whole families of young Australians living in humpies and tin huts and, in fact, many are still living in them. In Tasmaniaand more commonly in the other States - thousands of persons are living in huts and sheds. The Government talks about a man’s home being his castle, and it is a castle for the man who can get one.

This agreement will place at a disadvantage the very people that the Commonwealth and State housing agreement of 1945 was originally intended to assist. In that connexion, I should like to nail a lie that has been .repeated often enough for the purposes of political propaganda. I refer to Hansard of the 13th September, 1945, and the secondreading speech of Mr. Dedman, who was then the Minister in charge of the measure which implemented the agreement. Mr. Dedman expressed his own views, and those of the Government, on homeownership when he said -

The Government realizes the need for the encouragement of home-ownership . . .

That was the purpose of the legislation of 1945, and the idea was embodied in the measure by the Labour Government, but the new, so-called Commonwealth and State housing agreement twists the purpose of the original agreement. This was explained by Mr. Dedman in his secondreading speech, when he said -

To cope with the shortage of homes, 1 estimate that about 750,000 houses must be built in the next ten years.

I consulted .the Minister for National Development (Senator Spooner) a few moments ago, and I found that that target had been almost reached, which shows that the Minister of the day was well acquainted with national needs. He was criticized roundly by the Opposition of the time for bis estimate of housing needs. When he outlined the purpose of the legislation he said -

Up to 50 per cent, of the houses are to be allotted to ex-servicemen, the dependants of servicemen still serving and members of the Merchant Navy.

That policy has been applied by the States, which have given preference to ex-servicemen for a proportion of the homes that have been built. That has applied particularly in Tasmania, and I pay a tribute to the housing authorities in that State for their contribution to the Commonwealth and State housing agreement and the way they used the funds that were available. The amount was always too small, but they used it credit ably. Mr. Dedman also said in 1945 that the agreement would apply -

Where the present habitation is condemned by local authorities, or otherwise regarded an insanitary, or dangerous, or where, for other reasons, the court has issued an eviction order.

That was one of the main purposes of the -original agreement but, under the new agreement, houses are ‘to be placed out of the reach of ordinary persons who cannot find a substantial deposit. The Minister also said in 1945 that the agreement would apply -

Where the present habitation in overcrowded including family units inadequately housed in a boarding house.

Where the present .habitation is not afford ing reasonable access to the place of employ ment and results in the loss of efficiency to an essential worker ….

Where the tenant is prepared to move from a dwelling which has accommodation in excess, of needs.

Where suitable housing accommodation In not available at a rent within the means of the tenant.

The whole purpose of the original agreement has been subverted in the new agreement. It infringes the rights of the States, and the financial provision is inadequate to meet the needs for new houses and slum clearance. In fact, the Minister for National Development did not touch upon slum clearance in his second-reading speech. Many houses that have been built over the past 100 years are held up by uprights which .have rotted at ground level. They should be demolished hy bull-dozer3, but the Government has no intention of taking such action. The States will never have sufficient funds under this agreement because they will not be able to plan more than twelve months .ahead. Because of fluctuations in financial provisions, every State government has to wait until a new budge comes .along before it can plan for on* year ahead.

Senator KENDALL:
QUEENSLAND · LP

– This is a fiveyears agreement.

Senator O’BYRNE:

– Ostensibly it, is a five-years agreement, but the only certainty about it is that 30 per cent, of the money to be provided will go to private enterprise as a profit-making business after the second year. If the cooperative societies were really cooperative it would be a different matter, but they are simply business propositions. Honorable senators on the Government side have referred to the mutual assurance companies. I cannot accept the statement that those companies operate solely for the benefit of those who have life assurance policies, or of the tenants of the houses built by co-operative societies. They are good investments.

This is all part of the Government’s programme. Its first consideration is to look after investments and profits but we, as representatives of the people, should try to ensure, first, that basic social needs are satisfied. “We should see that the people have the fundamental things that go to make our way of life. Senator Benn said that the important needs were housing, food and clothing. Food is a prime necessary, but housing is one of the great needs in any civilization. “Under this legislation, housing is to be changed from a social responsibility to a half-baked business proposition. Loan money is to be raised throughout. Australia, and then will be lent to the States, which will pass it on to business organizations.

Senator BYRNE:
QUEENSLAND · ALP; QLP from 1957; DLP from 1968

– The middle man.

Senator O’BYRNE:

– Exactly ! This is a middle man’s government. When there is direct business between governments, we know where we stand. ET.e is on a salary, he has a certain status, and he tries to do the best he can in his department. But the man in private business says to himself, “How am I going to keep up with the Jones’s? How can I make more money? How can I get a bigger cut out of this ? “ That illustrates the difference between my point of view and that expressed in this legislation. ‘ The Government is handing housing over to the middleman so that he may get his share out of it. But who will pay for it in the long run?

The Minister for Shipping and Transport (Senator Paltridge) stated that one result of the bill would be that the houses that have been constructed in the States will be available for rental purposes, and that the low income people will be able to go into those houses whilst the people on higher incomes may embark on homeownership. Who will start pushing these people about? Who will be prepared to approach the tenant of a housing commission home and say, “ You are earning too much to be in this house. You are on a certain income and you should go along to a private building organization or insurance company and arrange to buy a house “. I do not know whether that can be done legally, but if it is done it will be a departure from normal practices in a free country. I certainly hope that what the Minister for Shipping and Transport said concerning the number of houses available for rental purposes will not remain true for very long.

I ask honorable senators to imagine thicase of a public servant who is transferred to another State. The authorities may say to such a man, “ We have a position for you in such and such a place and we would like you to be ready to be transferred in a month’s time “. Do honorable senators opposite contend that he could just walk out of his home at short notice like that and be able to find a home somewhere else without difficulty? I suggest that we must have houses for rent. There must be houses available in the areas in which there is industrial activity. The need for labour alters from place to place and from industry to industry. Senator Anderson stated that only a fool would build homes for rental to-day. I suggest that only a fool whose sole motive was the making of profits would do so. One of the greatest social needs is decent housing for the people, so that they may acquire that measure of self-respect, to which all Australians are entitled.

Another matter that should be considered in relation to agreements of this nature is the coming of automation. On every occasion that this matter is raised in the Parliament, members of the Government say glibly, “ Well, it may mean some alteration of the density of employment in particular areas, and of course the people in those areas will have to move to other areas “. I suggest that a man who has £3,000 or £4,000 worth of debt round his neck, in respect of a home, will not find that very easy to do. Then? is no doubt that we must have mobility in our labour force, but at the same time we must have a proportion of homes in the community available for rental. indeed, that was one of the main purposes of the agreement when it was made in 1945.

If certain people can so arrange their family affairs that they are able to save sufficient money to make a deposit on a home, good luck to them. I admire them for being able to do so. But there are many people in the community who are not able to raise the £1,000 or so that is needed, particularly those with young families. It is these people who are being deprived, by this legislation, of the right to acquire a home of a decent standard. As honorable senators know, the tendency these days is for building societies to require intending home builders to pay, by way of deposit, approximately 30 per cent, of the total cost of the home, which usually works out at more than £1,000. Where the ordinary individual is to obtain that sum, I do not know. Apparently, the Government is of the opinion that it is easy to do so, and that many applicants for homes are waiting with £1,000 in their hands. I think that if a survey were to be made the Government would be sadly disillusioned.

I disapprove of the Commonwealth, under the agreement, dictating to the States as to whether or not blocks of flats should be built. I believe that if a State government wishes to build blocks of flats, to clear a slum area, or to house workers close to a particular project, whether it be a private project or a government one, it should be able to do so. The Commonwealth is impinging on the right of the States to decide exactly where they should build. I am certain that these conditions will be unacceptable to Tasmania, and that it will not agree to the Commonwealth saying where the State authorities may build. For practically the whole period of time that this Government has been in office the Tasmanian Government has kept as far away from the Commonwealth as it could. It has said, in effect, “You give us our just dues, our just proportion of this loan money, and we will conduct our own business “. I must say that it has done a good job of it, too.

This legislation gets right away from the purpose of the original Commonwealth and State Housing Agreement, which was to provide houses for people on low and moderate incomes. For those who are sufficiently fortunate to be able to pay a deposit on a home, the legislation may be satisfactory, but for people of moderate means it will not be so. In their case, unless their wives are able to go to work - and the present basic wage and margins are grossly inadequate to support a family - they will have no hope of finding the deposit, and the Government will have to provide good quality rental housing for them. As I stated previously, we of the Labour party have never said that we are against homeownership. I deny the propaganda that has been directed against us in that respect.

I come now to the subject of the interest rate provided in tha legislation. I suggest that this will make a substantial difference to the rents of people who, at the present time, are having great difficulty with their household budgets. Every additional 2s. or 4s. a week by way of rent means that something else must be dropped from the family budget. It may be that the saving will be effected in respect of amusements, such as a visit to the pictures or a football match, or perhaps the children will have to go without some article of clothing. Every time that the interest rate on housing loans is raised, rents are raised also. Senator Henty, who has been having a good deal to say to-night, and whom I should like to hear speak during this debate, knows that his colleagues in the Legislative Council in Tasmania were responsible for the abolition of rent control in that State. As a result, Tasmania has shot to the front in respect of the level of the basic wage and the cost of living. This agreement will influence costs throughout Australia. Increased rents will give impetus to the inflationary process. When similar legislation was introduced in Tasmania, it was thrown out by the Legislative Council - by the old reactionaries who were elected on a restricted franchise, whose first thought is of profit, and their last thought is for human dignity. What happened in Tasmania? One of the police superintendents resigned because of certain evictions. He refused to supervise further evictions, which he regarded as anti-social and anti-Christian.

The increased rents had a tremendous effect on the basic wage in Tasmania, quite apart from the suffering that was inflicted on the people concerned. At a time when we are trying to compete in international markets, Tasmania has been placed at a distinct disadvantage because of increased costs of production. The basic wage in Tasmania has leapt ahead of the basic wage in other States.

This agreement departs from the purposes of the original agreement, which enables persons of moderate means to buy homes in which to rear their families. I think that this agreement will bring great discredit on the Government, and that there will be serious reactions in the States. Politically, I think that it will hasten the Government’s downfall. I oppose the bill.

Senator HANNAFORD:
South Australia

Senator O’Byrne commenced his speech in a melodramatic manner. He accused the Government of wanting, like Shylock, to extract its pound of flesh from nearest the heart of the poor people who are striving to obtain homes. I do not think that many honorable senators or people listening to the broadcast of these proceedings would be influenced by his outburst. Contrary to what the honorable senator said, one finds on examining the bill calmly and dispassionately that its purpose is to continue to assist the people to obtain homes on quite favorable terms. Indeed, it introduces a new element by providing for the establishment of a home-builders’ fund, from which money will be advanced to the State governments for housing. They, in turn, will encourage home-ownership by making a proportion of the money available to building societies. Senator O’Byrne stated that he would give the lie direct to what Mr. Dedman, who was Minister for Post-war Reconstruction in the Labour government, was reported to have said when outlining Labour’s policy on homeownership. The honorable senator quoted from Hansard the report of a speech by Mr. Dedman, which indicated that he was completely in favour of homeownership, and that that was in line with Labour’s policy. However, I have another volume of Hansard before me.

Senator Henty:

– The honorable senator did not refer to that one.

Senator HANNAFORD:

– He did not quote the statement that I expected him to quote. On the 5th May, 1955, tha Minister for National Development, (Senator Spooner) quoted, from Hansard. the following statement made by Mi . Dedman : -

The honorable member for Denison (Dr. Gaha) suggested that, instead of augmenting the family income by the payment of child endowment, we should provide for the sale of houses at lower prices and that it should be possible to use the money now paid in child endowment to amortize the cost of such an undertaking. He said that in this way we would make the average worker a capitalist. That is too big a problem for me to discuss in detail to-night, but there is one argument which I would put forward; the Commonwealth Government is concerned to provide adequate and good housing for the workers; it is not concerned with making the workers into little capitalists.

That statement was attributed to Mr. Dedman by a reputable Minister, and I believe that it sets out, accurately, what Mr. Dedman said in 1945. Senator O’Byrne can deny its accuracy if he wishes to do so. The Labour party has paid only lip service to the principle of home ownership. The Commonwealth and States Housing Agreement-

Senator O’Byrne:

– It has not yet been signed.

Senator HANNAFORD:

– I am referring to the agreement of 1945, which terminates at the end of this month.

Senator O’Byrne:

– The proposed new agreement has not yet been signed.

Senator HANNAFORD:

– I am not suggesting that it has been .signed. The main purpose of the existing agreement was to provide houses for renting. Last year, this Government was instrumental in amending the agreement to enable the tenants of housing commission homes to buy them.

Senator Arnold:

– Has the honorable senator anything further to say about Mr. Dedman?

Senator HANNAFORD:

– It must be evident to honorable senators that Mr. Dedman did, in fact, make the statement that was attributed to him by the Minister for National Development, Senator

O’Byrne’s assertion to the contrary notwithstanding. In common with other speakers from this side of the chamber, I support this measure, which I believe to be a very good bill indeed. I was greatly interested in the Minister’s secondreading speech, and I have studied the proposed agreement, which is set out in the schedule to the bill. It has been very well conceived. I should like to pay a tribute to Senator Spooner for the excellent work that he has performed in relation to housing. It is not easy to draw up an important piece of legislation such as we have before us to-night, one which has entailed considerable negotiation. He has had to deal with all the State Premiers on this rather complex matter and the fruit of his work is indicated in the agreement we have before us. It reflects great credit upon him. The subject of housing is probably one of the most important that could come before us at any time.

I am reminded of a very interesting speech I heard delivered by a prominent visiting architect. He made a comparison between housing conditions of the present and those of the past. He was an Englishman, and, of course, laid emphasis on housing conditions in Europe, but, to a lesser degree, the same comparison can be made in Australia. He referred to the great monumental buildings that have have been built in Great Britain, Prance and other European countries. They excite the admiration and interest of visitors, but, unfortunately, they were built at the expense of the people who lived in sub-standard dwellings. He stressed the point that a change of outlook has taken place in modern times. The great buildings which excite our admiration and wonder are no longer being constructed to the same extent, but the housing of the population has become a. first priority. In the enlightened countries of the world a magnificent job has been done in housing the people.

We do not need to go far back in the history of our own country to realize that a tremendous number of sub-standard houses existed. Quite apart from a shortage, the houses in existence were very far from perfect. I am glad to think that during the last two decades we have been tackling this problem with increasing tempo. As was pointed out by the Minister in his second-reading speech, a commission was appointed in 1944 to inquire into housing in Australia; and it arrived at the conclusion that a shortage of some 300,000 houses existed after taking 100,000 sub-standard houses into consideration. At the present time, after allowing for sub-standard houses, there is a shortage of 100,000 homes. A certain degree of slum clearance has taken place in our capital cities. The extension of business activities into areas formerly occupied by slums has brought about the transfer of people from slum areas to new housing areas. To that extent, former slum areas have been cleared.

Senator Ashley:

– There are still plenty of them left.

Senator HANNAFORD:

– I do not deny that we have yet quite a way to go. As has been pointed out, there is still a shortage of 100,000 houses, after allowing for sub-standard dwellings. I am pleased to support this measure because 1 believe it is an improvement on the old act. The old act was concerned mainly with providing rental houses; it did not foster home-ownership to the extent it should have. Although it did not preclude sales from taking place, very few sales were made because of the provision that cash had to be provided for the purchase of one of those homes. As I pointed out earlier, an amendment went through this Parliament in 1955 enabling prospective home-owners to buy a house on a low deposit and extended terms. As a result of the passing of that act a considerable increase in sales took place.

I suggest that Labour’s policy has never really been to support home-ownership enthusiastically. One has only to consider the conditions that existed under a socialist government in England and also under the last socialist government of Australia. The Labour Government was not enthusiastic with regard to homeownership. It held the fundamental belief that the State should own the houses and that people should occupy them on a rental basis. The legislation it brought in indicates that to be the case. The 1945 measure that is now to be terminated, indicated by its very results that the rental of bouses was the main principle in which the Government was interested.

Senator Ashley:

– That is not quite correct*

Senator HANNAFORD:

– 1 am not going to get into an argument with Senator Ashley. I believe that what I have said is substantially correct. Senator Ashley himself made a concession’ by saying that what I said was not quite correct. I do not say that the old act achieved nothing; far from it. It achieved something in housing the population of this country. That fact is borne out by the figures that were quite fairly presented by the Minister in his secondreading speech. He mentioned that nearly 631,000 home units have been built. Of course, it must be recognized that nearly 470,000 or 70 per cent, of those houses were built during the tenure of the present Government. Those figures indicate that in the years during which the Labour Government was in office, immediately following the signing of the agreement 30 per cent, of the total number of houses built under the agreement were erected. However, I desire to be fair and say that the government of that day had to contend with difficult conditions which this Government, perhaps, has not experienced. During the immediate postwar period, the Labour Government was up against the difficulty of transferring from war-time to peace-time conditions. The fact remains that the charges that have been made against the present Government of doing very little about housing and of having fallen down on the job are not substantiated by the figures I have just cited. This Government has done a remarkable job in providing 70 per cent, of the houses that have been built under the present agreement. The housing programme, over the past five years, has proceeded at a satisfactory rate, and the leeway is being rapidly overcome. In 1945, when a royal commission inquired into this matter, 300,000 houses were needed. To-day, the deficiency has been reduced to 100,000. That is a splendid achievement, particularly when it is remembered that, during the past eight years, more than 1,000,000 residents have come to Australia and have had to be accommodated.

Under the agreement, a huge amount of money has been made available to the States to finance house-building. The State housing authorities are better able to undertake this work, because of constitutional limitations on the Commonwealth. In South Australia, the State Housing Trust has expended wisely the money allocated to it, and has done good work in providing houses. But in spite of the fact that the Australian Government has made available a total of £225,000,000 to- the States, and that they have undertaken, through their housing authorities, to provide dwellings for the people at reasonable cost, they have provided only 14.3 per cent, of the houses that have been built, the remaining S4.7 per cent, having been built by private enterprise. The building societies and the private builders have borne the brunt of the housing problem. Tins matter must be considered in its proper perspective, and although the housing authorities in the States have done good work the bulk of houses to meet the people’s needs have been provided by private enterprise.

The need for houses for renting is accepted because every one cannot own his home. Many persons prefer to rent a house, because they wish to invest their capital in some other enterprise, or they may not have enough capital with which to buy a home. It is desirable that there should, he sufficient houses available for renting to meet the requirements of thepopulation. The housing authorities have done good work, in the main, in providing such dwellings, but in earlier years a vast pool of houses for renting was created by private enterprise. I know that, the old catch-cry of the Labour party will be raised again about landlords sucking the blood from the poor wretched tenants, but the number of houses available for renting has been reduced because of the rent control measures which have been enforced by State authorities with great rigidity over the years. One result has been that private owners of rented houses have taken the first opportunity available to sell their properties with the result that the number of houses available for renting has dropped to 20,000 during the years that the Commonwealth and State housing agreement has been in operation. I know that this Government has kept a strict control on rents, and sometimes has been subjected to criticism because of that. It is desirable that a certain proportion of houses available should be retained for renting, and the fact that that number has dropped to 20,000 indicates that the right proportion for renting has not been retained out of the houses built by the housing authorities since the agreement began to operate.

The new agreement is fundamentally sound, and will operate for five years. It will be necessary for complementary legislation to be passed by the various States, but I do not know what some of the State Labour governments will say when they read or hear the criticism of this bill which has been voiced by honorable senators opposite. If they heed what their colleagues have said and adopt their policy, the whole concept of this legislation will be wrecked. I consider that it would be a great tragedy if any State government should break down this agreement by not passing the necessary complementary legislation. However, I am optimistic enough to believe that the State governments will examine this matter on its merits, without prejudice, come into line with the Commonwealth and approve the agreement which will put our housing legislation into effect for the next five years.

The amounts that are to be allocated for housing have been left indefinite, and [ do not see that there is any real reason for complaint in that regard. As we all know, the Australian Loan Council meets and considers allocations of loan money to the States, for housing among other things, according to the applications made by the States. The whole matter is one of negotiation between the States and the Commonwealth.

The higher interest rate proposed in the agreement has been criticized, but I consider higher interest at the present time is inescapable. Interest rates have increased generally throughout the world, and the very fact that the Commonwealth proposes interest rates at § per cent, lower than the long-term bond rate if that rate does not exceed 4-J- per cent., and 1 per cent, less if that rates does exceed 4-J per cent., indicates that the interest rates in the agreement are fair and reasonable. There is no doubt that they will allow people to obtain, through agencies such as the State housing authorities and building societies, the finance that they require to build their houses at reasonable rates of interest. Therefore, indirectly the agreement will allow such persons to enjoy a higher standard of living and consequent greater happiness in their lives. My time has now expired, and although I had desired to touch upon other matters of importance, I shall content myself by saying that I have much pleasure in supporting the bill.

Senator COOKE:
Western Australia

.- If this bill is passed, we shall end the first big national housing scheme that was ever undertaken by an Australian government. That scheme was introduced in 1945 by the Chifley Labour Government, which at that time acted with great courage because under section 96 of the Constitution it was perhaps liable - as succeeding governments were perhaps liable - to challenge by governmental instrumentalities or sections of the community, if they thought the matter worthy of challenge. However, for a period of ten years the agreement entered into by the Commonwealth and all State governments, with the exception of Tasmania, has functioned admirably.

The agreement had its origin in Labour’s policy, and the agreement itself was designed to meet a dire and extreme need for housing in this country. I submit that early statistics in connexion with the scheme cannot fairly be compared with later statistics of its operation, because in the early days the scheme was just getting under way and various shortages were apparent ;, whereas in the later days of the agreement materials and labour were in abundant supply.

Under the administration of both Labour and non-Labour goverments the Commonwealth and State Housing Agreement has been of great service to the Australian people. To-night honorable senators on the Government side have mentioned figures designed to show what an excellent job has been done, and they have claimed all the credit for the satisfactory functioning of the scheme. In reality no credit at all is due to the Australian Government, because the responsibility of administering the housing scheme has fallen squarely on the State governments. This scheme could only be as successful as the State governments were successful in administering it, and the Australian Government had nothing more to do than to supply money in adequate quantities, and co-operate with the States in their endeavour to correct the very serious evils that had arisen through lack of proper housing. As the system has worked so well in the past, why does the Government now want to change it?

The Government has admitted that the system has worked well, and now it quite wrongly claims credit for great advances in the field of housing. That being so, why should the arrangement be changed? Let us analyse the reasons why the Government wants to change it. The agreement in relation to the 1.945 Commonwealth and State housing agreement expired last April, but operations under it will continue until June. Therefore, while this Government has been pleased to talk about a Commonwealth and State housing agreement, there has been no agreement in existence because no State has yet become a party to the Commonwealth’s new proposals. The Government has put these proposals to the States, but in the main they are not acceptable to State governments. Of course I do not say that complementary legislation will not be passed in the States, but there is no doubt there is much dissatisfaction in all the States in respect of this legislation and, indeed, some of the States have been quite voluble in expressing that dissatisfaction.

The main point that is concerning them is the elimination of rental rebates in cases of hardship. The rebate system has been a thorn in the side of nonLabour governments since the arrangement was first entered into - although it is one of the major points of policy of the Labour party, and was accordingly incorporated in the agreement when the scheme first came into operation.

The rental rebate system provides that people who cannot afford to pay the normal economic rent for homes, but who are good-living citizens and who work well, can occupy a house at a rent equivalent to one-fifth of the family income. That provision gives the States a right, in cases which justify a special rental, to require a rental that compares with the working ability of the tenant and the ability of the worker, family or widow to pay. That arrangement has been challenged and argued against by the members of parties other than the Labour party ever since the inception of the agreement, and now this Government has been successful in eliminating it from the housing policy of Australia. Tn its place, the Government has introduced the Liberal party policy of letting the devil take the hindmost. We on this side of the chamber feel very strongly about that, and rightly so.

Another reason why the Government considers it is necessary to depart from our previous successful housing arrangement is that it desires to raise interest rates. Honorable senators on the Government side have stated that interest rates generally are rising, and that the increase of interest rates under the agreement is inescapable. That is the Government’s immediate submission in connexion with an increase in interest rates on loans for housing. No doubt the Government’s rate would be lower than that charged by private institutions at the moment, but let us cast our minds back to the time when the State governments were pressing a Liberal Commonwealth government for a reduction in the interest rate provided for in the agreement. The present Minister for National Development was then also the Minister responsible for this portfolio. At that time, he was pleased to say -

The unlimited provision of advances at low rates of interest is preventing private builders from competing. If the States do not realize that houses should be sold on the basis of an economic deposit, we shall become the only providers of finance for building houses. I am sure that every responsible person will pause to consider that possibility.

He was referring to the possibility of building houses at low rates of interest. So long as this Government continued with the legislation passed by the Labour Government, it was committed to low interest rates. It had no power to increase them, and the Minister stated quite clearly where this Government stood when he said, on the 22nd October, 1953, that unless there was going to be a better profit motive in providing houses for the people of Australia the Government was not very pleased to move, and private builders would not. He said further -

Traditionally, over a long period of years, a substantial number of banks, insurance and building societies and private persons have invested in housing, and it should be our aim to give them every opportunity to do so in the future. We must encourage more investors to return to this field.

There was no mention of co-operative building societies. He referred only to banks, insurance companies and other people who generally provide finance at profitable rates of interest to the people for whatever they want, whether it be housing or anything else. The Government indicated quite clearly that it was hostile to the Labour Government’s legislation, and the main reason for its hostility was that that legislation prevented people who were in dire need of homes from being exploited by those who sought to charge extortionate rates of interest.

I come now to the question of homeownership. I think we are all agreed that when the original agreement became law in 1945 the Labour Government intended to provide housing on a low rental rebate basis for all people who had large families and who, because they could not afford to pay high rents, had been forced to live under slum conditions. It was also made clear at that time that when that first essential task had been done, the agreement would be reviewed with a view to encouraging home-ownership. The present Government cannot claim that the desire to encourage home-ownership was what spurred it on to bringing down this proposed amendment of the agreement. Between 1952 and 1953, all the State governments which were parties to the agreement wrote to the Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies) suggesting that the agreement be altered to make it possible for people to purchase homes under the Commonwealth and State Housing Agreement on terms on which the States were jointly and severally in agreement. That request was refused by the Prime Minister, and the correspondence is available to the Minister for National Development if he cares to peruse it. Mr. Cain, the then Premier of Victoria, wrote in those terms to the Prime Ministeron the 24th February, 1953. Mr. Heffron, the Acting Premier of New South Wales at the time, submitted his request on the 25th

March, 1953. Mr. Gair, the Premier of Queensland, wrote on the 27th April. 1953, and Mr. Playford, the Premier of South Australia, wrote on the 24th April, 1953. The Western Australian Government wrote on the 9th July, 1953. The sum total of their submissions was that under the operations of the Commonwealth and State Housing Agreement it was most difficult to sell homes ; and they asked for reasonable conditions from the Commonwealth Government to permit them to sell homes to people who desired to buy them. They stated that the main reasons for their difficulties in effecting sales of houses were -

  1. The demand of the Commonwealth Government to be recouped in full, on a cash basis for the sale price of any house disposed of;
  2. The general restriction of finance throughout Australia, and its particular effect on Western Australia.

At that time, the Commonwealth Go vernment had imposed restrictions upon the allocation of loan moneys and that prevented the State governments from financing those who wished to buy houses under the various State acts. On the 17th February, 1953, Mr. Cain, the then Premier of Victoria, addressed a communication to the Prime Minister, in which he submitted, first, a proposal that the Commonwealth Government agree to accept the proceeds from the sale of houses by way of repayment instalments as received by the State authority; and, secondly, a suggestion that the amortization period prescribed by the act be extended from 53 to 73 years with a view to reducing rentals. Similar submissions were made by the other States, and, on the 9th July, 1953, Mr. J. T. Tonkin, then Acting Premier of Western Australia, wrote to the Prime Minister summarizing the suggestions of his Government as follows : -

  1. Sales to be made to occupiers under agreement for sale and purchase subject to eligibility tobe defined by the State concerned.
  2. Rate of interest to be a minimum of 1 per cent. over Commonwealth rate of 3 per cent. with a maximum of5 per cent. at the discretion of the State concerned - to cover administration costs and to provide for bad debts and losses as well as protection for both the Commonwealth and . the States in case of a fall in values.
  3. Deposit to be atdiscretion of State authority.
  4. Period of repayment to be a maximum of 53 years.

I might mention that for twelve months before this correspondence was entered into, the States had been seeking to have some alteration made. Eventually, the Prime Minister wrote suggesting that he was not prepared to meet the representatives of the States at that time, but that if they would put their submissions in writing, he might get a general idea of what was required. In 1953, when the act was again amended, I suggested to the Minister that a meeting of State authorities shouldbe held to consider matters that were causing concern in connexion with home ownership. The Minister replied -

I do not consider that I would be justified in giving an assurance that Senator Cooke’s request will be acceded to. I believe the matter must be determined first at the highest level; that is, by Cabinet.

Cabinet has done nothing about it. It was not prepared to negotiate with the States to put the agreement on a basis that would be acceptable to the State Governments and to most of the people, but two years later the Government has boasted that it wanted home ownership. It wanted to put into the agreement the rights of certain authorities to operate in the money-lending field at the higher rate of interest. The Government, on its own figures, submits that 86 per cent. of houses have been built by private enterprise, and 14 per cent. by the States, but it is not satisfied with that ratio. It believes that more houses should be built by private enterprise.

Its attitude towards housing as a national responsibility is weak. It wants to throw housing overboard, but it is not perpared to do so directly. It proposes to encourage a new housing scheme under the agreement, which the States have not yet signed, and to which they have objected. The Government does not submit a straightforward proposition under which money will be made available to building societies and contractors to stimulate the building trade. It is enforcing its own policies, although they run contrary to the national interest. It will not allow the States to carry on, although they have done so admirably up to the present.

There is a marked recession in the building trade, and considerable unemployment. That has been brought about by the Government’s policy of restricting credit. In Western Australia. 10,000 men were directly engaged on the construction of houses. Private builders contracted with the State Housing Commission, but they have not sufficient work now, and many men are unemployed. It is doubtful whether the release of extra money to co-operative building societies willcorrect the position.I believe that the Government would achieve better results if it allowed the present Commonwealth and State housing agreement to continue, and placed the responsibility on the States to house the people while it provided the money on the same terms as before. This Government has forced up interest rates. If it wants to stimulate private interest in building now, it should release more money for the purpose. It is begging the question tinder the new agreement.

When this legislation becomes operative the organization of the State housing commissions will have to unwind, because they will be able to provide only 80 per cent. of the service that they gave previously. At the end of two years, they will be able to give only 70 per cent. of the previous service. In addition, there will be a reduction of staff. Most of the people who require houses immediately are not in a position to find the deposit that will be necessary under this agreement. They will have to find a bigger deposit and pay a higher rate of interest. and they cannot afford to do so.

In this connexion, there has been a bad racket in war service homes. This Government has so restricted advances for war service homes that ex-servicemen have been thrown upon the money market for temporary loans at excessively high rates of interest. Some have paid 17 per cent. The Government has not taken any action to correct that situation. It could not regulate the interest charges, because they are commercial rates for such loans, but it could have regulated the issue of capital to war service homes applicants at a reasonable rate of interest.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order ! The honorable senator cannot discuss war service homes during the debate on this measure.

Senator COOKE:

– An analysis of this bill shows that it will have a similar effect upon housing. The Minister indicated clearly in 1952 and 1953 that he wanted the banks, the life assurance companies, the building societies, moneylenders and private mortgagees to come back into their own in providing finance for homes. This bill is a clear indication of the Minister’s desires. The Minister has put before the Senate a bill incorporating an agreement which was drawn up by the Government. He made a second-reading speech that was sheer propaganda. It was his responsibility to inform the Senate that the States had not agreed to the proposition. He should have been able to tell the Senate what the various States required so that the Senate, as a States House could have analysed the objections of the States to determine whether they were justified.

The Government has acted on this occasion as it has done previously at meetings of the Australian Loan Council and other organizations. It has told the States that they must accept its terms or go without. The States have not agreed to this proposition, but the Government insists that we should pass the legislation and that the States should conform to the agreement.

Debate interrupted.

page 1514

ADJOURNMENT

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. A. M. McMullin). - Order! In conformity with the sessional order relating to the adjournment of the Senate, I formally put the question -

That the Senate do now adjourn.

Question resolved in the negative.

page 1514

HOUSING AGREEMENT BILL 1956

Debate resumed.

Senator SPOONER:
Minister for National Development · New South Wales · LP

in reply - We have just heard from Senator Cooke a hymn of praise about State housing commissions and government home-building. May I give the other side of the picture? In that respect, I shall read to the Senate the following extract from the Melbourne Herald: -

State Built Houses in a Panic.

Thousands of standardized houses built by the State Housing Commission since the war to meet the post-war crisis will be classed as sub-standard within the next 15 or 20 years, because their design is already outdated and because the materials and workmanship that went into them were of shockingly poor quality.

There are two sides to every question. In this bill, we have aimed at a reasonable compromise which will enable the State housing commissions to continue to operate, but which, at the same time, will provide for an infinitely better system to operate, under which a greater number of houses of better quality will be built fo] the money that is invested.

Senator Cooke stated that the effect of the bill will be to unwind - I think that was the word he used - the work of the housing commissions. To the extent that the work of the housing commissions declines, it will be replaced by homebuilding and building societies, which will be able to build infinitely better houses. In addition, the people concerned will be able to have houses erected in localities where they desire to have them. Having said that, I ask for leave to continue my remarks at a later stage. leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 1514

CHOKES, LOW POWER FACTOR

Tariff Board Report

Senator O’SULLIVAN:
LP

– I lay on the table the report of the Tariff Board on the following subject : -

Chokes, low power factor.

page 1514

HOUR OF MEETING

Motion (by Senator O’sullivan) agreed to -

That the Senate, at its rising, adjourn to to-morrow at 10 a.m.

Senate adjourned at 11.3 p.m.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 13 June 1956, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1956/19560613_senate_22_s8/>.