House of Representatives
15 April 1969

26th Parliament · 2nd Session

  1. House of Representatives
  2. 26th Parliament
  3. 1969

Mr SPEAKER (Hon. W. J. Aston) took the chair at 2.30 p.m., and read prayers.

page 1059

DISTINGUISHED VISITOR

MR SPEAKER:

– Honourable members will be pleased to know that we have present in the gallery this afternoon the Honourable Itubwa Amram, the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly of Nauru. 1 am sure the House would want me to extend to the honourable gentleman a warm welcome.

Honourable members ; Hear, hear!

page 1059

DEATH OF GENERAL D WIGHT D. EISENHOWER

Mr GORTON:
Prime Minister · Higgins · LP

We had long watched with admiration and sympathy the courageous fight he waged against the ravages of recurring heart attacks, and he faced the closing hours of his life with the courage and fortitude that lived with him all his days and which carried him to the greatest heights his country had to offer in war and in peace. lt is scarcely necessary to rehearse the facts of his greatness, because his distinguished service as the Supreme Commander of the Allied Forces for the invasion of Western Europe and the conquest of Nazi Germany are not so far behind us in the span of years. Indeed, Australian servicemen, particularly those in the Royal Australian Air Force, served under his command in the liberation of Europe. And to most of us in this House his service as President of the United States is part of recent history. But in the 20 years or more since his name became a household word amongst those of us who lived through the sombre days of World War II a new generation has grown up in Australia and it is fitting that we in this House pay tribute to his long and brilliant career.

General Eisenhower was born on 14th October 1890 and was educated at the United States Military Academy West Point where he graduated in 1915. He served in the First World War with the infantry of the United States Army and from then on held a succession of Army appointments increasing in rank, experience and professional skill with the passing years.

In World War II General Eisenhower became known to the world when he was given command of the European theatre of operations in 1942. His qualities of leadership, his military judgment and his flair for getting on with people led to his appointment as Commander in Chief of the Allied Forces in North Africa from 1942 to 1944, and finally his greatest test and his greatest triumph, his appointment as Supreme Commander of the Allied Expeditionary Forces in Western Europe from 1944 to 1945. No soldier could have faced a more difficult task in welding the forces of several nations into one united powerful and triumphant command for the invasion of Europe. He succeeded brilliantly and achieved the liberation of the countries of Western Europe that had been occupied by enemy forces.

After an interlude of 2 years as the President of Columbia University, General Eisenhower returned to uniform once more to serve his country, first as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and then as Supreme Commander of the North Atlantic Treaty Forces in Europe from 1950 to 1952. In 1952 he made his final commita to the service of his country by accepting the nomination as Republican candidate for the presidency and by being elected to that office.

General Eisenhower accepted the challenge of foreign affairs as perhaps the most important of his tasks and although his health had already been undermined he laboured unceasingly to lead new offensives for peace when the climate with the Soviet Union was dark and foreboding. He sought endlessly for a new understanding between East and West, and the Geneva Summit Conference of July 1955 brought his prestige to a new level. From the time he assumed the presidency until his second term was over he never ceased to fight for peace. He was a great soldier-statesman, perhaps the greatest of our time. We mourn his passing - I am sure I speak for all members of this House - and I am sure that the

House will join with me when I say thai the sympathy of this Parliament and the sympathy of the Australian nation go out to the American people and to General Eisenhower’s own family. For myself, I felt privileged to attend the services, representing Australia, at the Washington Cathedral and at the Capitol, and to lay a wreath on behalf of the nation of Australia and on behalf of the Returned Services League at the Capitol.

Mr WHITLAM:
Leader of the Opposition · Werriwa

– On behalf of the Opposition I support the remarks that the Prime Minister (Mr Gorton) has made about the late President Eisenhower. What he has said about the late President as a soldier and as a statesman will be supported not only by all members of this Parliament but by all Australians of all generations - those who were contemporaries and those who are beneficiaries. It was appropriate that Australia should have been represented at the services for the late President by the Prime Minister himself.

President Eisenhower became known to the American people, to the Australian people and to the people of the world as a general. He was not the first successful general to become President of the United States of America, but he was unquestionably the most statesmanlike of all generals who have become President since the first President, General Washington.

The importance of General Eisenhower’s presidency, ironically it might seem to some, lay in his role as a peacemaker and peacekeeper. Four times he acted to prevent possible world conflict - twice in the Middle East and twice in South East Asia. He inherited the Korean War and the cold war. He ended the Korean War and al Camp David he set in train the beginning of the end of the cold war. He was the only President since Hoover of whom it may be said that fewer American soldiers were fighting and dying at the end of his presidency than at the beginning. His final message as President was to warn his countrymen against the military industrial complex which threatened and still threatens the political balance of the United States of America.

If it were not for the fact that the Constitution of the United States has been amended to limit a President to two terms he would have been President to the day he died. He retained an astonishing hold on the affections of his countrymen and of all people in the Western world.

He transcended politics in the breadth of his support at home. He transcended the generations in the breadth of that support. It was during his period of office that his countrymen and their friends overseas became aware of the enormity of many of the domestic problems of the United States. He initiated some of the steps which gave recognition to these problems and which have been taken to solve them. In particular, I refer to his appointment of Earl Warren as Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court. As Chief Justice, he has shown that he believes he has a responsibility to take the initiative where the legislature and the executive do not feel able to do so or have been reluctant to’do so.

The President of the United States is not only Head of State; he is head of government. General Eisenhower acted as Head of State in a supra-political sense such as we understand well in Australia and in those Commonwealth countries, which have j nominal, non-controversial Head of State. He served his countrymen very well through a long life which was painfully protracted in its last years. He served the Western peoples, not least the peoples of the British Commonwealth, with very great warmth. Where he felt that Britain was in error he said so, as at the time of the Suez crisis. He was able more effectively to express his disagreement because of his proven support and leadership during the war years and throughout the period of his Presidency. He was a great man, a man in the traditional mould that we associate today more with Americans of the last century. He was a man of simple beginnings, a man who made his own way. Yet he was a man who was never corrupted by office or affluence. He remained to the end a man who deserved the affection of all his people, whom he had served, whom he had represented and whom he had embodied to an exceptional and memorable extent.

page 1061

BENDIGO ELECTORAL DIVISION

Mr SPEAKER:

– I have to announce that on 9th April I received from Mr Noel Lawrence Beaton a letter resigning his seat as the member for the electoral division of Bendigo.

page 1061

PETITIONS

Kangaroos

Mr BENSON presented a petition from certain residents of Victoria showing that they, along with thousands of other Australians, are deeply concerned at the unchecked, cruel slaughter of our defenceless creatures of the bush, to the point where they face extinction. The Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation report, Wild-life Division, has been presented to Parliament and the alarming fact made known of the danger that exists for our unique, inoffensive fauna. But still the slaughter continues, even with the so-called protection laws, as there are nowhere enough wardens to see they are properly enforced. Though our kangaroo is declared protected here in Victoria it is being slaughtered in the other States to provide Victoria with supplies of pet food - 2 million wiped out yearly, 5 million in Queensland in 6 years. We, the electors of Victoria will not stand silently by and see these ignorant, greedy killers exterminate our unique, utterly defenceless kangaroo and all the inoffensive creatures of the bush who are the target of any callous crank with a gun and of spotlight shooters dazzling these helpless, docile, native animals to exterminate them completely without feeling that these graceful creatures are our national emblem and cannot be found anywhere else on earth. In fair climatic conditions the kangaroo can produce only 3 young in 4 years. It prefers different herbs and grasses to sheep and does not damage pastures permanently. It does not roam the land in millions. Its flesh is not safe to feed to pets or humans because of the danger of salmonella.

The petitioners pray that as only Government legislation can save them now, the Federal Government shall immediately ban the slaughter and export of kangaroo meat and fur products and, as a matter of urgency, set up a Commonwealth body to completely and thoroughly protect and conserve our unique defenceless fauna in every State, with enough wardens to see this thoroughly enforced, before one of the most wonderful animals on earth suffers the same shameful fate of so many other species.

Petition received.

Education

Mr STOKES presented a petition from certain citizens of Australia showing that there is a crisis in education in Australia; that a transformation of the classroom situation is necessary, where children will have reasonable freedom to develop as self-reliant, independent individuals and where they can learn to function as members of a democratic community; that proper preparation for school and thorough guidance there, by qualified teachers are crucial to a proper education for Australia’s children; that the present rate of teacher training is far below the requirement determined by the Martin Report which shows that 75% additional teachers in government schools alone will be required by 1975 compared with those in service in 1963; that to obtain maximum benefit from the education system preschool facilities should be available to all children; that insufficient State or Federal assistance has been made available to meet these requirements; that adequate finance to meet these requirements can only be provided by the Commonwealth Government; that there is an urgent need for a national inquiry into all aspects of Australian education.

The petitioners pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled will give earnest consideration, during Human Rights Year, to this most vital matter.

Petition received.

Export of Merino Sheep

Mr MUNRO presented a petition from certain electors of the Eden-Monaro Division showing that the decision of the Government to lift the 40-year ban on the export of merino rams will do irreparable harm to the present and future merino wool industry of Australia; that the initial quota of 300 rams will be sufficient to make any future protest worthless; and that the production of fine medium quality merino wool in cheap labour countries will put the Australian merino wool grower and all connected with Ibis industry out of business.

The petitioners pray that the Government will cause to be held a referendum of wool growers to determine this issue.

Petition received and read.

page 1062

MINISTERIAL ARRANGEMENTS

Mr GORTON:
Prime Minister · Higgins · LP

– Mr Speaker, I wish to inform the House that the Minister for External Affairs (Mr Freeth) left Australia last Sunday to attend the twenty-fifth annual session of the Economic Commission for Asia and the Far East in Singapore. Mr Freeth will also pay short visits to Kuala Lumpur and Djakarta to establish personal contact with Malaysian and Indonesian Ministers and to discuss with them various matters of mutual interest and concern. He plans to be in Kuala Lumpur from 19th to 22nd April and in Djakarta from 24th to 27th April. During his absence the Minister for Defence (Mr Fairhall) will act as Minister for External Affairs.

page 1062

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Mr J R Fraser:
ALP

– I ask the Treasurer: Does he recall that in September 1967 in an interview with Mr Bruce Juddery of the Canberra Times’ he stated that Canberra was practically reaching the point of balance in the relationship between revenue received from the residents of the Australian Capital Territory and Commonwealth expenditures within the ACT? Did he also say that draft financial statements were being prepared which would clarify this situation but that they would not be released for the information of the public? Can the right honourable gentleman now say whether we have approached closer to the point of balance between revenue and expenditure within the ACT and, if so, can he say why it is found necessary to impose new taxes on the people of the ACT? Would he also agree with me that if draft financial statements have been prepared showing the extent of revenue as opposed to the extent of expenditure they should be made available to the people who are called upon to pay the taxes?

Mr McMAHON:
Treasurer · LOWE, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– I do remember making a statement relating to the subject which the honourable gentleman has mentioned but I am not sure as to whether he has accurately quoted me. Nevertheless, I shall have a look at it and ask the Treasury officials to bring the statement up to date. 1 shall then look at the two questions that the honourable gentleman has asked. I shall also forward to him a copy of the statement which I have already made, setting out the Government’s reasons for the action.

page 1062

QUESTION

PAPUA AND NEW GUINEA

Mr GRAHAM:
NORTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I direct a question to the Minister for External Territories. A recent news item in the ‘Sydney Morning Herald’ suggests that he has imposed a constitutional freeze on Papua and New Guinea for the next 7 years, ls there any basis for this suggestion?

Mr BARNES:
Minister for External Territories · MCPHERSON, QUEENSLAND · CP

– There is no factual basis for this suggestion whatsoever, lt would appear from the report that the newspaper has suppressed part of my remarks and has used only those portions which suited its particular philosophies on Papua and New Guinea. I would like to quote from a tape recording of my Press comment, because I believe that this is quite a serious matter. When I was asked whether I had any comments to make since the Territory had now been functioning for almost a year under the amended constitution, and how this special transitory stage was working, particularly the Administrator’s Council and the ministerial members, I said:

F think it is working splendidly. The House of Assembly has, I think, completed a very interesting and useful legislative period since the elections of this new House, and I am particularly pleased by the progress made by the ministerial members and the assistant ministerial members in learning their responsibilities of their various departments. This is no easy task to suddenly come in with little political or administrative experience and come in and exercise their responsibilities in the department, and 1 think they have made splendid progress. They have been most responsible, most earnest, and the advice given to the Administrator is passed on to me on various matters, and we consider it very thoroughly before anything is done. No. I think I am very pleased indeed with the progress made and I am fully confident that they will function as a very responsible body. I think we have got to have patience in some of these things and not hurry them into a situation of rapid politically advanced responsibility before they are ready for it.

I was asked the further question: ‘You do not anticipate the need for any constitutional changes in the life of the present House?’ I said that I anticipated no major change. Here again I said that I expressed a personal view and that it was up to the House of Assembly to give its views on this matter. I went on to point out that it had other great problems ahead of it, that is in relation to the question of unity.

Mr Whitlam:

– ls that in the transcript?

Mr BARNES:

– Yes. I do not want to take up the time of the House by reading, it word for word, but this is the basis of it. As 1 have already said, this newspaper apparently has its own policies on Papua and New Guinea. This is its right; but why should it deny its readers, whom it purports to inform, the facts of a situation and not enable them to arrive at their own conclusions? I have travelled throughout the Territory and 1 claim to know something of the thinking of the people there. Surely as the Minister responsible for the Territory I have a right to make some observations without being misrepresented. I am sure that this answer to the question will not be published in full by the ‘Sydney Morning Herald’. I point out in contrast that the Press generally has treated my comments in a fair and reasonable manner. Finally, Mr Speaker-

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– At last.

Mr BARNES:

– It is strange that honourable members opposite should treat so lightly matters which vitally concern Papua and New Guinea. This is a very important matter. There seems to be some lack of appreciation of the scope of amendments to the Papua and New Guinea Act which were introduced last year. Pursuant to these amendments section 25 of the Act provides a very great deal of flexibility in enlarging the responsibility of ministerial members. Within this framework there is room for considerable constitutional advancement as the Territory becomes accustomed to the ministerial membership system and as its people gain experience in that system.

page 1063

QUESTION

TOWRA POINT AND TULLAMAKINE

Mr WHITLAM:

– I refer the Minister for Civil Aviation to the announcement by the Prime Minister that the honourable gentleman had decided to direct the interdepartmental committee, convened to consider the future airport needs of Sydney, to exclude this site from this consideration. I ask the Minister whether his Department has decided now to release the land at Towra Point? If not, when will this land become available for homes instead of dromes’? I also remind the Minister that last November he told me that he would keep me posted regarding the meetings of the Commonwealth and State officials who were considering the problem of the zoning of the land adjacent to Tullamarine. I do not think that he has given me any information on this matter since. I ask the Minister: What is the present situation concerning the housing rezoning in the approaches to Tullamarine?

Mr SWARTZ:
Minister for Civil Aviation · DARLING DOWNS, QUEENSLAND · LP

– I will answer the second part of the question first. The joint CommonwealthState committee that was set up to investigate certain matters in relation to the zoning of land adjacent to the new Melbourne airport has had several meetings. I understand that, at the last meeting, it decided to make a report. I have not yet received that report, but I expect that, in the next few weeks, I will have a copy available. I will certainly pass some information on to the Leader of the Opposition as soon as I receive it. That may not be for a couple of weeks yet.

On the question of the situation at Towra Point, I am afraid that the Leader of the Opposition is not fully aware of the situation in relation to the previous proposals because the ‘land’ that he is referring to is mainly water. We have no reservation whatsoever on any water or land in that region. Some proposals had been considered in the past in relation to Towra Point, the same as many other areas in New South Wales. Because of the community problems of noise which have been brought certainly to the notice of the Prime Minister and myself on a number of occasions by our Federal members who are responsible for that particular region, we carried out some fairly intensive and careful studies of the problem. As a result of the studies which we carried out, I decided that it would not be desirable to go ahead with any proposals for the development of a major airport in that region. I did make that recommendation to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister accepted this as a policy. That is where the position stands.

page 1064

QUESTION

ANIMAL FATS

Sir Wilfrid Kent Hughes:
CHISHOLM, VICTORIA · LP

– 1 desire to ask the Minister for Primary Industry a question, ls the Department of Clinical Science of the Australian National University producing an anti-coronary cookbook with the assistance of a grant from the National Heart Foundation? If so, will the Government ask the Australian National University to include in the cookbook the new Mayo Clinic weight reducing diet, which has caused a shortage of grapefruit and grapefruit juice (unsweetened) in Victoria, and which advocates animal fats and plenty of butter but bans from the diet chart the eating of corn, corn oil and margarine?

Mr ANTHONY:
Minister for Primary Industry · RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · CP

– -I. have only read in the Press that such a booklet is being produced. The production of such a booklet really does not come within my province, particularly if there is a margarine content in it. I think that it is more within the responsibility of the Minister for Education and Science or the Minister for Health. I have read with great interest at the same time a statement by Dr Reader that there was no conclusive evidence at this stage that animal fats, particularly dairy fats, were inducive of heart disease, that research work was being carried out but that it would be quite unfair at this stage to say that animal fats were the cause of heart disease.

page 1064

QUESTION

OIL EXPLORATION

Mr BARNARD:
BASS, TASMANIA

– I ask the Treasurer a question about the large number of new oil exploration companies being floated on Australian stock exchanges. Does the right honourable gentleman consider that the new flotations comply with the spirit of section 77a of the Income Tax Assessment Act? Does he believe that income tax laws aimed at encouraging oil exploration should be capable of manipulation for tax evasion by shareholders or share dealers? I further ask why wealthy share traders should be allowed to use sections 77a and 82 of the Income Tax Assessment Act to reduce their tax liabilities to low levels when they are not engaging in serious investment? Will the Minister see that the Act is amended so as to encourage oil exploration and not facilitate tax evasion?

Mr McMAHON:
LP

– Naturally I have read most of the newspaper articles dealing with sections 77a and 82 of the Income Tax Assessment Act so far as they relate to oil exploration. To put this matter in perspective may I say that in 1959 when the legislation was introduced its paramount objective was to provide an incentive for oil exploration and development in this country. We have found a great deal of oil here. But it is the strong Government view that incentives must still be provided in order to put us in a position where, over the long term, we may feel that we are largely self-sustaining in the amount of crudes we are producing. When the legislation was introduced in 1 959 and when the Cabinet first considered the matter it was recognised that because of the joint operation of sections 77a and 82 of the Act opportunities might be provided for tax avoidance. Naturally 1 am looking at this matter but above all I take the very strong view that we must do nothing that would discourage genuine oil exploration and development.

Mr Barnard:

– 1 said that in my question.

Mr McMAHON:

– You have asked your question; 1 am answering it. I assure the honourable gentleman that we are looking at this matter; indeed, we have been keeping it under close observation since 1959. I have had discussions with the taxation authorities but I assure the honourable member that I will take maximum precautions to ensure that we do nothing that would in any way reduce the incentive to genuine oil exploration and development.

page 1064

QUESTION

DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES

Mr TURNBULL:
MALLEE, VICTORIA

– Does the Minister for Social Services recall that some time ago I requested him to consider establishing at Swan Hill, Victoria, a regional office of the Department of Social Services? Does he know that the city of Swan Hill is the centre of a growing progressive community and that the nearest office of the Department is 120 miles distant at Bendigo? Has the Minister considered my request? When may the city of Swan Hill expect the office to be established?

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

– There are few people in this House whose admiration for the city of Swan Hill is greater than mine.

I am afraid I am not in a position to give the honourable member a factual answer now, but I will consult my Department and see what can be done in the matter.

page 1065

QUESTION

EMPLOYMENT

Mr CONNOR:
CUNNINGHAM, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I ask the Minister for Labour and National Service a question. I preface the question by informing the honourable gentleman of the dismissal yesterday of 209 employees of Stewarts and Lloyds (Aust.) Pty Ltd, which is in my electorate, following completion of the company’s contract for the supply of natural gas pipeline for the Bass Strait to Melbourne project. Will the Minister inquire into the percentage of imported Japanese steel pipe used in this project? Will he consult with his colleague the Minister for Customs and Excise to secure protective action for’ the exclusive use of Australian steel pipes in all future gas pipeline projects? Will he also use his best offices to ensure the absorption of these men in suitable employment by associated parent organisations within my constituency?

Mr BURY:
Minister for Labour and National Service · WENTWORTH, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– 1 am well aware, of course of these dismissals. This is the kind of situation that inevitably occurs at the end of a particular project. I will pass on to my colleague the Minister for Customs and Excise the honourable member’s question concerning the importation of piping. But as far as I am aware most of the particular kind of piping required is made in Australia. There are numbers of special types of piping that are used for different purposes. As far as the men are concerned my Department will do its best, as it always does, to find them suitable alternative employment. In view of the current state of employment in Australia I can envisage no difficulties of a serious character in finding them alternative work. The problem my Department now faces in many places is to find men to take the jobs that are offering.

page 1065

QUESTION

EXPORTS TO INDONESIA

Mr STOKES:
MARIBYRNONG, VICTORIA

– My question is directed to the Minister for Trade and Industry. As one who is interested in Australia, in the national interest, increasing its business transactions with Indonesia I ask the Minister whether exports to that country are eligible to be insured with the Export Payments Insurance Corporation.

Mr McEWEN:
Deputy Prime Minister · MURRAY, VICTORIA · CP

– I know the honourable gentleman is chairman of those government members who take a special interest in export trade, and I am able to assure him that the Export Payments Insurance Corporation is in a position to issue cover in respect of sales to Indonesia on the same basis as it issues cover in respect of sales to other countries.

page 1065

QUESTION

RECORDING OF TELEPHONE CONVERSATIONS

Mr SCHOLES:
CORIO, VICTORIA

– I direct my question to the Postmaster-General. Has he seen reports that a tape recording of a telephone conversation was used in a court case in Queensland last week? Is this contrary to postal regulations, and, if so, are any prosecutions being launched against the persons who recorded the conversation?

Mr HULME:
Postmaster-General · PETRIE, QUEENSLAND · LP

– Section 16a of the Post and Telegraphs Act, I think it is, makes it illegal to record a telephone conversation. This matter was brought to my notice by the person who was charged as a result of this recording. The matter was considered by my Department and by the Crown Law authorities, and on the basis of advice from the Crown Law authorities no action was taken by me or by my Department in this case.

page 1065

QUESTION

WIDOWED OR DESERTED FATHERS

Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

– I direct my question to the Prime Minister, and in so doing refer to the hardship suffered by men who fall within the category of widowed or deserted fathers trying to raise young families. I remind the Prime Minister that in many cases the children involved finish up in institutions.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The honourable member will ask his question. He cannot debate the question.

Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

– The family is broken up in this way because the deserted father is unable to provide proper care for the children. Will the Prime Minister consider providing assistance to the States to deal with this problem in the same way as we have provided them with assistance to help deserted wives? I have in mind some kind of home help scheme, so that homes will not be broken up and children placed in institutions.

Mr GORTON:
LP

– Questions of widowers as distinct from widows, and deserted fathers as distinct from deserted wives, and what happens to the young family of a widower or a deserted father, are ones which early engaged our attention and to which I think we have referred as matters of some considerable importance.

The Welfare Committee of Cabinet has been carrying out quite detailed studies of what could or should or might be done in this field, but it is by no means a simple problem. It has required a great deal of attention and it will require, I think, considerably more attention yet before a proper answer can be found which is both just and within the economic capacity of the country. The honourable member can be assured that this is a matter which has received attention from the Government.

page 1066

QUESTION

SUGAR INDUSTRY

Dr PATTERSON:
DAWSON, QUEENSLAND

– I direct a question to either the Treasurer or the Minister for Primary Industry. What action is the Government taking to provide a sustenance price of at least §92 per ton for the 1968 No. 1 Pool sugar crop, particularly for those farmers who are in a serious financial position as a result of a run of low prices, drought and rising costs? Is the Government aware that the Queensland Cane Growers’ Council, which is the spokesman for the sugar industry, has voted consistently over the last few months for Federal Government action for a sustenance price of $92 per ton? Finally, why is the Government delaying this decision? Is it because it has no intention of providing supplementary finance for the 1968 crop and does not want to embarrass the Queensland Government by making a decision before the election?

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member will not debate the question. He will state his question.

Dr PATTERSON:

– If this is not the case, when will the Government make a decision on this most important matter?

Mr McMAHON:
LP

– I speak with reservations here, but it must be obvious that the honourable gentleman is blatantly trying to make political capita] out of this issue. It becomes obvious that he is attempting to make political capital out of it as he knows the facts as well as I do. To the best of my information we have had no request for special aid for this season. Nonetheless, I will have a look at the position immediately, and if I find out that what I have said is incorrect I will immediately let the honourable gentleman know.

page 1066

QUESTION

SUPERANNUATION

Mr WILSON:
STURT, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I draw the Treasurer’s attention to the statement attributed to Mr Niall of the National Mutual Life Association that he believed that a multiplicity of controls was undesirable for superannuation funds which operate Australia wide. In view of the fact that the development of superannuation and pension funds may depend upon improved portability of pension rights, minimum requirements as to the vesting of employers’ contributions and the encouragement of schemes which provide for income benefits rather than for payments of lump sums, will the Treasurer review the controls now imposed upon superannuation funds by the Income Tax Assessment Act with a view to making appropriate amendments to achieve these ends?

Mr McMAHON:
LP

– For some time this whole question has been under consideration by the Treasury and by myself. I can assure the honourable gentleman that it is an extremely difficult subject which requires the most careful analysis before we can come to a conclusion. I have had the first draft of a new paper put on my table within the course of the last 2 or 3 days, but up to the present time I have not had an opportunity to read it. as other matters have intervened. As to the substance of what the honourable gentleman says concerning the multiplicity of different kinds of legislation throughout Australia, I am of the opinion that the statements made by the Victorian authorities may have been premature and may have, I think, caused a great degree of discussion which could have been avoided if there had been consultation with the Commonwealth Government. Nonetheless, as 1 have said, this is a very difficult subject matter. It is one which is presently receiving attention and one which I hope to have before Cabinet in the near future.

page 1067

QUESTION

RADIO AND TELEVISION ADVERTISING

Mr HANSEN:
WIDE BAY, QUEENSLAND

– My question is directed to the Postmaster-General. I refer to that section of the Broadcasting and Television Act which prohibits radio and television election advertising for 72 hours prior to an election. Is the Postmaster-General aware that the occurrence of the State election in Tasmania on 10th May imposes a ban on radio and television election advertising in Queensland from 7tb to 10th May, for candidates who are engaged in the Queensland State election, which will be held on 17th May? Does the Postmaster-General believe that such a situation was foreseen when the restriction was introduced? If not, will he undertake to review the application of the ban on election advertising?

Mr HULME:
LP

– This provision has been in the Broadcasting and Television Act for many years and applied to radio before we had television. The Government has had a look at this matter and has decided that there should be no variation from the situation that has applied for many years.

page 1067

QUESTION

PRIMARY INDUSTRY

Mr HALLETT:
CANNING, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I direct my question to the Treasurer. Is the right honourable gentleman aware that primary industries and others are experiencing considerable pressures relating to their cost programmes? Is he aware that machinery prices have risen in recent times? Also, is he aware that spare parts prices have also risen in recent times? Further, is he aware that primary industries are not in a position to absorb such prices at this time? If so, what is he considering doing about the position?

Mr McMAHON:
LP

– I am aware of the difficulties mentioned by the honourable gentleman. I think he must know that there is a limit to what any government can do in attempting to ensure that costs are kept to the minimum. We do intervene before the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission which is responsible for wages which I believe are the dynamic influence in costs rises. We do put to the Commission specifically the position relating to the increased costs and the cost price squeeze so far as they affect the primary industries themselves. 1 have frequently said, and I repeat this now, that I think it would be of enormous advantage if the primary industry organisations could detach themselves from the Metal Trades Employers Association and put a case to the Commission that would in effect make a big impact upon its opinions and decisions and permit it to pay a higher regard to the interests of our primary and exporting industries.

Secondly, we do attempt, through budgetary and other financial means, to try to ensure that over-full employment or excessive demand does not arise. We have been remarkably successful so far in ensuring that this objective is achieved. But those who have seen the recent employment figures published by my colleague the Minister for Labour and National Service must be forced to the opinion that we are now getting very close to the stage of overfull employment and we would not like this trend to continue for any great period of time.

We, as a government, do what we can. But the honourable gentleman and the House must know that our powers are limited and that everyone in the community has to play a part. I say that with great respect to the primary industries whose productivity has been enormously good, whose gross income has been rising but whose net income has not been rising in a commensurate way.

page 1067

QUESTION

VIP AIRCRAFT

Mr DAVIES:
BRADDON, TASMANIA

– J direct a question to the Prime Minister. I ask the right honourable gentleman: Did your predecessor lay down that Ministers and others using VIP aircraft should not be accompanied by a private member except within that member’s electorate? Are you aware that the Deputy Prime Minister last week took with him to Tasmania on a VIP aircraft two private members from another State to participate in his negotiations with the Centre Party in Tasmania?

Mr GORTON:
LP

– I cannot call to mind precisely what was laid down by way of instructions by my predecessor. But I would be sure that it did not follow precisely what the honourable member has suggested, and that is that a Minister should not be accompanied by a private member except within that private member’s electorate. I think not. I think, Mr Speaker, that what the Leader of the Opposition, who is nodding his head in agreement with the suggestion made by the honourable member, is probably getting mixed up about is this: I do have a recollection of an instruction that a private member could accompany a Minister from any point outside his electorate to a point inside his electorate. This is somewhat different from what has been suggested here today. In other words, they could travel from Canberra to sonic function in an electorate somewhere else; but they were not confined to travel inside their own electorate, which was. the point put to me. I think the best thing that I can do is to seek to discover whatever instructions were laid down by my predecessor in this matter and let the honourable member know.

page 1068

QUESTION

VIETNAM

Mr CLEAVER:
SWAN, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I address a question to the Minister for the ArmY. I refer to my own visit to Vietnam some months ago and also to the Minister’s more recent visit there. Can the honourable gentleman confirm my own conviction that the Army of the Republic of Vietnam is now a well disciplined and soundly trained fighting force which has attracted the confidence of Australian servicemen? Is it true that hardly a day passes without a hamlet or a village transferring from Vietcong to government control? Does the Minister believe, as I do, that the ARVN forces could largely hold the situation in Vietnam, with minimal allied support, in 1970? ‘

Mr LYNCH:
Minister for the Army · FLINDERS, VICTORIA · LP

– My own observations during a recent trip to Vietnam and discussions I had in that theatre with our embassy people and military authorities, and with United States embassy and military authorities, certainly confirm the comments of the honourable gentleman relative to the increasing strength of the Army of the Republic of Vietnam. One of the encouraging facets of the visit was the assessment that during the past 12 months the ARVN forces have become better equipped than ever before. Their officer training programmes are of a high quality. The Vietnamese Army has grown considerably in strength and in operational efficacy, and it is interesting to note that the increase in the forces since the beginning of 1968 has been of the order of 200,000. About half of this increase has occurred as a result of voluntary enlistment. The House will appreciate that this took place after the Tet offensive earlier in that year. Although it is not generally recognised outside South Vietnam, it is my own belief, and I am sure it is the belief of many observers who have looked at this matter, that the ARVN forces have long borne the brunt of the fighting in terms of the period over which they have” been committed and the size of their forces.

page 1068

QUESTION

RIVER MURRAY SALINITY: PELS’ PLAN

Mr WHITLAM:

– I ask the Minister for National Development a question. Has Hunting Technical Services completed its report on Mr Simon Pels’ proposals for solving the salinity problems in the Murray Valley? Although the River Murray Commission’s charter extends to regulating the quantity but not the quality of the water it allocates to the States, will this report be tabled before the Parliament is asked to ratify further agreements amending the River Murray Waters Act so that it can never be alleged that members were not fully informed on the issues involved as is now being alleged concerning the Chowilla project unanimously and enthusiastically endorsed 51 years ago by the 500 members of this Parliament and the parliaments of New South Wales, Victoria and South Australia?

Mr FAIRBAIRN:
Minister for National Development · FARRER, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– The River Murray Commission has received four or five interim reports from Hunting Technical Services, who are working in co-operation with Gutteridge Haskins and Davey. The final report is due before 30th June. They have listened to Mr Pels, who put forward a most interesting proposition for reducing salinity. This has also been discussed in the River Murray Commission, but the view of the Commission is that although it is a most interesting proposal it is one which could be extremely expensive and that there are ways of reducing salinity at a very much cheaper cost than the method put forward by Mr Pels. I will have to check whether this report of the River Murray Commission could be made available to honourable members. Interim reports, such as the report by the technical officers comparing Chowilla and Dartmouth, have been made available, so it should be possible to make this report available. I will look into the matter and, if it can be made available, I will see that copies are distributed to honourable members before we discuss the amendment to the River Murray Commission Agreement.

page 1069

QUESTION

GORTON MINISTRY

Mr IRWIN:
MITCHELL, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I ask the Prime Minister whether he intends in the near future or the distant future to sack, demote, transfer or appoint to an ambassadorial position the Treasurer.

Mr GORTON:
LP

- Mr Speaker, I think that this question must, perhaps, have been motivated by an article or articles which have recently been written, one of which was brought to my attention after I returned from the United States. I was quite fascinated to discover in that article that at some stage in the past - in the far past, I gather - I suggested to the Treasurer that he take a position abroad. This came with as much surprise to me as I am sure it must have come to him. All I can say, Mr Speaker, is this: I look forward to working out with the Treasurer and the Cabinet a Budget which will be as forward looking and as beneficial to the Australian community as last year’s Budget and which will foster the growth of the Australian economy, without over-fostering it, as did the Budget we worked out last year.

page 1069

QUESTION

HOMES SAVINGS GRANTS

Mr UREN:
REID, NEW SOUTH WALES

- Mr Speaker, I will give the Prime Minister a chance to improve on that Budget. I ask him a question in regard to the homes savings grant of $500 to young people under the age of 35 years. Is he aware that it is extremely difficult for persons living in the Sydney metropolitan area to purchase a house and land for less than the maximum allowed under the Homes Savings Grant Act, which is $15,000? Is he aware that it costs at least $5,000 to purchase a block of land in the Sydney metropolitan area? Will the Government review this Act and increase the maximum amount of $15,000 so that most young couples will not be precluded from receiving the $500 grant?

Mr GORTON:
LP

– This is clearly, of course, a matter involving Government policy, but all matters which we believe will benefit the Australian people and which we believe the Australian economy can afford will be considered in their proper context.

page 1069

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN FLAG

Mr TURNBULL:

– Does the AttorneyGeneral contemplate introducing legislation that will provide an appropriate penalty for the act of burning or attempting to burn our national flag? If not, will he give the subject further consideration, for the Australian people honour the flag, and it must not be degraded by anyone under any circumstances?

Mr BOWEN:
Attorney-General · PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– This matter has been considered from time to time, and so far the view has been taken that respect for our flag depends much more on the feelings and the sentiments of the Australian people than on any law which we might pass. There seems no risk of this proving insufficient at the present time. There have been no outbreaks of burnings or of derogatory treatment of the flag which might suggest that anything stronger than what is at present in the law is required. I remind honourable members that if any action is taken in a public place which is likely to lead to a breach of the peace, that is already covered by our laws.

page 1069

REPRESENTATION OF WARRINGAH DIVISION

Mr St JOHN:
Warringah

– by leave- I beg leave to inform the House that in present circumstances I shall not be attending the meetings of the Liberal Parliamentary Party and propose to describe myself as an Independent Liberal. I remain at present a member of my local branch of the Liberal Party and I shall continue to support the Government, whilst reserving the right to speak with an independent voice where I think it desirable to do so.

page 1069

PERSONAL EXPLANATION

Mr St JOHN:
Warringah

-! seek leave to make a further personal explanation in relation to a statement made in the House.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Leave is not necessary. Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?

Mr St JOHN:

– I claim to have been misrepresented by a statement made in this House on 27th March 1969 by the honourable member for Boothby (Mr McLeay). The honourable member referred to a group known as the ‘Businessmen for Democratic Government* and brought my name into the matter in such a way as to suggest possibly that I had some connection with that group. I wish to say categorically, Mr Speaker, that 1 have never had any connection with that group in any way. I know nothing of its activities beyond what I have read in the Press.

page 1070

PRIME MINISTER’S VISIT OVERSEAS

Ministerial Statement

Mr GORTON:
Prime Minister · Higgins · LP

Subsequently I had separate and preliminary discussions with the Secretary of State, the Honourable William P. Rogers, the Secretary of Defence, the Honourable Melvin R. Laird, the Secretary of the Treasury, the Honourable David M. Kennedy, and President Nixon’s special adviser, Dr Henry A. Kissinger, on matters of mutual interest in defence and foreign affairs including the conflict in Vietnam and future stability and progress in the region of which we are a part. Even in this introductory stage of our discussions I found a continuance of the deep interest and the warmth of friendship that characterises the Australian-American relationship and I look forward to resuming the talks with the President of the United States and his Administration on my return to Washington in three weeks’ time.

Since the discussions so far held are of a preliminary character and since they are not yet concluded, 1 think the House will agree that it would be more appropriate for a full statement to be made after my return from the concluding talks. There was, however, val’ue in the opportunity to open up discussions on matters which will be the subject of further study in the United States before our second series of talks are held.

On the afternoon of 2nd April I flew to Ottawa and was welcomed to Canada at a dinner given by the Prime Minister of Canada, the Right Honourable Pierre Trudeau. On the following day I had a series of discussions with the Prime Minister and attended a meeting of the Canadian Cabinet. 1 also had separate discussions with the Minister of Industry and the Minister of Trade and Commerce, the Honourable Jean-Luc Pepin, the Minister of Finance and Receiver-General of Canada, the Honourable Edgar J. Benson, and the Secretary of State for External Affairs, the honourable Mitchell Sharpe.

The Canadian Cabinet expressed their interest in the various forms which their own participation in the region could take. We emphasised our joint and mutual interest in making the International Grains Agreement work and we had already arranged discussions about these matters between experts which were taking place on that very day in Washington D.C. The Minister of Finance discussed with me Canadian experience with overseas investment in Canada.

The principal purpose of my visit was to foster closer relations between our two countries. In addition to Mr Pepin’s presence here this month I hope that a visit to Australia by Mr Trudeau will not be long delayed and both our Governments were delighted that a representative party from the Australian Parliament will be visiting Canada in June. I present the following paper:

Overseas visit by Prime Minister - Ministerial Statement, is April 1969.

Motion (by Mr Erwin) proposed:

That the House take note of the paper.

Debate (on motion by Mr Whitlam) adjourned.

page 1071

AID TO MALAYSIA AND SINGAPORE

Ministerial Statement

Mr GORTON:
Prime Minister · Higgins · LP

– by leave - In the course of my statement to this House on 25th February I said:

  1. . we shall continue our efforts to help with the training of local Malaysians and Singaporean forces which we expect will be increased in size and capacity, and to provide financial assistance for defence aid aimed at assisting Malaysia and Singapore to build up their own defence capacity.

We have been actively pursuing these purposes. I am now happy to say that following discussions with the Malaysian Government we will make a gift to Malaysia of ten of our Sabre aircraft, together with spares, ground support equipment and a simulator for training purposes. When the Sabres are delivered they will be in A I condition with an operational life before them of at least 6 years. To train Malaysian pilots and ground staff to fly and maintain the Sabres we will send to Butterworth nearly ninety Royal Australian Air Force instructors and personnel. The aircraft with their spares and so on will be by way of addition to our current Defence Aid Programme. The costs involved in operating the aircraft will naturally be borne by the Malaysian Government and the other costs involved will be met from the present uncommitted portion of our Defence Aid Programme for Malaysia. As pilots and ground staff are trained, the Royal Malaysian Air Force will be able to convert the squadron of Sabres from a training to an operational fighter unit.

We believe that this contribution on our part will be of help to the Malaysian Government in that it will provide an essentia] transitional step towards the eventual acquisition of supersonic aircraft which we understand the Malaysian Government has as its long-term aim. Further, it will enable this step to be taken without the necessity for the Malaysian Government to divert very considerable resources away from the programme of social and economic development which it rightly regards as essential to the stability of the region. Malaysia is also seeking our help in training operators and technicians for the radars it is acquiring - themselves costly enough - and in basic training for its pilots. These requests are under study - and I merely say at this stage that we will do what we can to help.

We have also had certain discussions with the Singapore Government about directions in which we might aid Singapore defence plans. I mention here only one particular aspect,It is that we have notified our willingness to help the Singapore Government with the training of certain operators and technicians required for the Bloodhound defensive missiles which the Singapore Government is proposing to acquire from the United Kingdom Government. These actions on our part should be seen in the context of our continuing association with our four partners in the Five Power arrangement - New Zealand, Malaysia, Singapore, and the United Kingdom - and also of our and their common concern with the security of the South East Asia region. As 1 made clear in my statement to the House on 25th February 1969, our activities are in no way directed against the interests of any other country in the region but are intended to strengthen the stability of the whole; this we believe is well understood and accepted. What we are doing now is in fact making one more contribution to our long-standing defence aid programme, the purpose of which is to strengthen the defence capacity of Malaysia and Singapore within the framework of a broad concept of regional security and regional co-operation.I present the following paper:

Defence Aid to Malaysia and Singapore - Ministerial Statement. 15 April 1969.

Motion (by Mr Erwin) proposed:

That the House take note of the paper.

Mr WHITLAM:
Leader of the Opposition · Werriwa

– On behalf of the OppositionI welcome and applaud the statement made by the Prime Minister (Mr Gorton). In the long term it has more relevance and importance than the right honourable gentleman’s statement of 25th February thisyear. It represents a realistic and relevant regional response. In1967 the British Government enunciated its policy as being to foster developments which would enable the local people to live at peace without the presence of external forces. In welcoming and supporting that statement the conference of my Party in that year stated that Australia should be prepared to provide assistance to train military forces in Malaysia and Singapore. In his statement the Prime Minister has indicated that Australia is doing just that. I merely wish now to recall some of the remarks 1 made on 27th February last on this point in elaboration of the declaration that my Party made in July 1967. 1 said:

We should be prepared to help Malaysia and Singapore with the training and equipping of their armed forces. There is a great lange of equipment, particularly in the field of radar and electronics, which the British formerly provided and which we should now offer, lt will be some years before Malaysia can develop an adequate air force of her own. We clearly have an obligation to assist her in this. The obligation derives from our past commitment and our past assurances. The Malaysian air force does not have an interceptor or attack capacity. The Royal Australian Air Force has had to provide it. Australia cannot accommodate her four Mirage squadrons in Australia. If. as one would expect and hope, Malaysia decides lo acquire an interceptor and attack capacity for her air force; Australia would be able, and should be eager to help her to acquire, operate and maintain such aircraft.

Further on in that speech 1 said:

Sabres and, still more, Mirages have always required complicated radar installations. The Malaysians and Singaporeans do not own or operate radar installations such as are at present to be found in their countries. It will take at least 3 and possibly more years for the Malaysian Government to acquire and staff and effectively operate contemporary radar systems. The Australian Government’s- indecision over the last 12 months and more has deferred Malaysia’s radar preparations by a similar period. It is no longer possible for Malaysia to acquire and operate radar herself by the end of 1971. Australia should be able to manufacture and install such equipment and to help in training the Malaysian forces to service and operate it

I repeat that on behalf of the Opposition T welcome and applaud the statement made by the Prime Minister.

Debate (on motion by Mr Fox) adjourned.

page 1072

NAMING OF ELECTORAL DIVISIONS

Report of Select Committee

Mr FOX:
Henty

– I present the report of the Select Committee on the Naming of Electoral Divisions.

Ordered that the report be printed.

page 1072

ASSENT TO BILLS

Assent to the following Bills reported:

Wine Grapes Charges Bill 1969.

Loan (Supplementary Borrowing) Bill 1969.

Currency Bill 1969.

Excise Tariff Bill 1969.

Spirits Bill 1969.

Universities (Financial Assistance) Bill 1969.

page 1072

HOUSING

Discussion of Matter nf Public Importance

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

– I have- received a letter from the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Whitlam) proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:

The need to re-assess the Commonwealth’s responsibility for the provision of housing and land for it.

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

Mr WHITLAM:
Leader of the Opposition · Werriwa

– The excellence of Australian architects and town planners is acknowledged and admired throughout the world. In ingenuity and enterprise, Australian builders are second to none. As a nation, our wealth is such that no family should be obliged to accept sub-standard housing or to impoverish itself in meeting the cost of a home. It is therefore the more anomalous and objectionable that so many Australians are still wretchedly ill housed, that so many are still obliged to pay for housing amounts grossly disproportionate to their incomes, and that so many find the amenity of their homes diminished by lack of urban planning and the absence of proper urban services. These shortcomings have arisen and persisted because the Government’s approach in matters of housing oscillates between half-heartedness and indifference, between the superficial and the supine. At least one million Australians receive incomes which are below the poverty line or only marginally above it. One large family in every four and one class A civilian widow pensioner in every three is impoverished. Poor families are wholly dependent upon governments for adequate housing and for housing at a cost which they can afford to pay.

The Chifley Labor Government provided to the States 53-year housing loans bearing interest at 3%. It agreed to meet threefifths of the cost of rent rebates designed to ensure that no low income family would be required to pay more than one-fifth of its income for housing. Liberal governments have since increased by half the rate of interest which the States must pay for their housing finance and which they are obliged to pass on to the tenants and purchasers of Housing Commission homes in higher rents and prices. Liberal governments now decline to share the cost of rent rebates for homes other than those built before mid-1956, and the cost of such rebates further inflates the level of rents which housing authorities are obliged to charge. Liberal governments now require the States to divert 30% of the funds they receive for housing to co-operative building societies and other approved sources of finance for private home builders. Commonwealth obduracy in the matter of housing for low income earners has created a situation in which State housing authorities were able to construct only 10,371 homes last year although 52,315 applications were lodged in the course of that year and 71,023 were still outstanding at the end of the year. In Victoria the number of homes completed by the Housing Commission has declined from 4,100 in the final year of the Chifley agreement to 2,214 in 1967-68.

More than half the homes now being completed are flats, and in particular multistorey flats unsuitable for families with young children. One home in every seven is designed for elderly people. Rentals for new family homes averaged $6 in 1956 and they now average $15, although a survey of applicants for Commission homes in 1961 revealed that only 22.7% had incomes in excess of $40 a week. Clearly, the number of Australians who cannot without assistance afford to house themselves has not diminished. Clearly, the contribution which State housing authorities are able to make to housing the economically disadvantaged family has never been lower. Clearly, even the tenants of State housing authority homes are in many cases required to pay for housing a proportion of their incomes exceeding by far the 15% which the 1942 Joint Committee on Social Security thought desirable or the 20% which the Committee thought should be a maximum.

The Government has belatedly acknowledged that older Australians have special housing needs, but it has done so in a halfhearted and ineffectual manner. The Government provides supplementary assistance for age pensioners who are obliged to pay rent, but makes no provision for age pensioners whose costs for the rates, insurance and maintenance for their own homes are constantly rising. It has passed an Aged Persons Homes Act, but effectively excludes from the compass of that Act State housing authorities with their great fund of experience in low cost housing and local government authorities which are called upon in all the countries with which we compare ourselves to play crucial roles in the provision of housing. Councils are disqualified by the provision precluding a grant being made in respect of funds raised by loan. Almost all the capital works undertaken by local government are financed with loan funds. Only one municipality has so far received assistance under the Aged Persons Homes Act. The Act is unnecessarily weakened by the exlusion of State housing authorities and local government councils. Approximately 35% of the accommodation has been established with the aid of donations, that is, key money.

The Government has never accepted a proper measure of responsibility for housing the migrants it brings to Australia. Migrants who possess on arrival enough capital for a deposit on a house are exceptional. Most migrants are obliged to choose between high hostel tariffs and high rents for substandard accommodation. In these circumstances, many become impoverished, many fall victims of mental illness and many simply give up and return to the countries of their origin in practically all of which housing is more within their reach. Although only 4% of migrants are poor in terms of income alone, 18.4% fall below the poverty line when the costs they incur for housing are taken into account. One migrant in every twelve becomes a victim of mental illness. Last year 23,500 migrants left Australia and took up residence elsewhere, mostly for housing reasons, but the remainder because of health costs. Much of this unnecessary suffering, economic loss and loss of population would be avoided if the Government now used the resources of the War Services Homes Division to provide housing for migrants. The War Service Homes Division financed 12,422 homes in 1952-53, but in 1967-68 financed only 6,450. The repayments it received in 1967-68 exceeded its outlay by $23m. It would now be possible for the Division to devote half its resources to financing homes for migrants and at the same time to withdraw the ministerial directions by which the present Government has rationed and restricted the benefits for ex-servicemen and present servicemen. It would now be possible to use the repayments it receives to establish a revolving fund of housing finance for persons for whom the Commonwealth has direct responsibilities, such as Allied ex-servicemen, migrants and social service beneficiaries.

The rate of interest has risen under Liberal Federal governments from 31% to 54% in the case of the Commonwealth Savings Bank, from 31% to 6i% in the case of other savings banks, from 34% to 7i% in the case of trading banks ana from 4% to 8i% in the case of life offices. Those governments have tolerated rampant land speculation and soaring land prices. They have added at least $600 to the cost of the average home by their failure to secure a national code of building regulations. The Government could have sealed off housing finance from the overall upward trend in interest rates since housing moneys come directly from the Commonwealth or through agencies which constitutionally it can or should regulate. Alternatively, the Government could have compensated home builders for the effects of high interest policies by allowing them to deduct the cost or some of the cost of interest payments on the family home from their taxable income, as is done in Great Britain. If the whole amount was wiped off in Australia, it would come to $60m less to the revenue. The Commonwealth could have kept land prices within reasonable bounds by making grants or long term loans to the States for the public development of land. It could have engendered greater enthusiasm on the part of the committee which is investigating the establishment of a uniform building code and whose deliberations are now in their third year. In few fields has this dilatory Government been more tardy and unenthusiastic than in genuinely advancing or protecting the interests of the individual home builder.

Slums and substandard housing disfigure the inner suburbs of all Australia’s capital cities. There are at least 125,000 substandard homes in Australia. Estimates of the area of slums and substandard housing in Melbourne alone vary from 1,000 acres to 5,000 acres. The Victorian Housing Housing Commission is able to clear from 15 acres to 20 acres of slums each year. At this rate, the present stock of sub-standard housing will not be replaced for at least 50 years, in which time at least as many more dwellings will have become substandard. Older houses and slums occupy much of Australia’s best residential land. This land is adjacent or close to the inner city. It is serviced by water, sewerage, electricity, gas, telephone and transport facilities, all of which have to be reticulated anew in the outer suburban areas. The Commonwealth’s failure to make available finance to clear and redevelop these areas forces Australians in increasing numbers to make their homes on the urban perimeter, further from the centre of the city than in any city of the world, save, maybe, Los Angeles. It imposes on State governments .and councils the burden of providing new urban services and facilities at a per capita cost of about $10,000. In areas which are unable to meet this cost, it produces poor roads and public transport, scanty recreation facilities, scattered civic amenities, deferred sewerage and telephones and a growing incidence of neurosis, vandalism and delinquency. The proportion of the population served by sewerage has declined over the past 20 years in Perth from 72% to 47% and in Melbourne from 95% to 85%. Half the population of Brisbane and a quarter of the population of Sydney still live in unsewered homes. In no other western nation is the level of urban sanitation so primitive and so ludicrous as in the cities of Australia. It cannot be cured without the attention of the Loan Council which the Commonwealth Government of the day dominates and always has dominated. All Australians, particularly those who live in the capitals and provincial centres, are suffering poor quality basic services because they , allow themselves to be fobbed off with the excuse that the provision of community services is the exclusive responsibility of the States or local government. We will all continue to suffer until our national government accepts at least as much responsibility for urban problems as do the national governments of all comparable countries.

A generation ago, it was not contemplated that the Australian national Government would take responsibility for providing and regulating housing funds. Today, it would be unthinkable in any comparable country that the national Government would take no responsibility for providing housing land. Over 23% of total’ housing finance is provided by the Commonwealth through State housing authorities and its own War Service Homes Division. In addition, the Commonwealth provides building societies with half their funds. Banks provide over 50% of housing finance. Life assurance offices provide over 7%. The Commonwealth can regulate both bank and insurance finance through its own express constitutional power. Directly or indirectly, then, the Commonwealth is in a position to regulate 90% of housing finance. This gives the Commonwealth a very great opportunity to enforce proper town planning principles. In run down inner suburban areas, a Labor Federal government will make advances to the States and give guarantees to banks and insurance companies which undertake their redevelopment. This will relieve pressure on outer suburban building land. In outer suburban areas, a Labor Federal government would have two objectives: First, a reduction in the cost of land and, secondly, the building of housing communities and not merely housing units. On both these issues, the Commonwealth can play a vital role. A Labor Federal government would make advances to the States to enable them to acquire substantial areas of residential land on just terms and to develop, service, divide and sell the land at cost. Public acquisition of development land is necessary not only to reduce land prices and provide competition and standards for private developers but also to ensure the orderly and comprehensive development of large areas of land.

The second Commonwealth objective - the creation of housing neighbourhoods - can be insisted on by the Commonwealth if it wishes. It was intended under the 1945 Commonwealth and State Housing Agreement that grants would be conditional upon the application of proper town planning principles and the reasonable availability of occupation, education and recreation. Liberal Federal governments have not insisted on these principles.

A Labour Federal government would press the States and local government bodies to agree on a national building code. This would save $600 on the cost of the average house. A Labor government would employ tax concessions selectively to reduce the interest rate which building societies must pay to secure funds from the public and which home builders must pay to the societies for loans. A Labor government would use tax concessions to offset the cost of interest on a family’s first home in the initial 10 years of occupancy. A Labor government would adjust in relevant contemporary terms the assistance provided under the Homes Savings Grant Act and the Housing Loans Insurance Act.

In all these respects it is high time that the Australian Government ensured conditions by way of housing and the land for housing such as are provided in every country with which we choose to compare ourselves under both unitary and federal systems.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member’s time has expired.

Mr BURY:
Minister for Labour and National Service · Wentworth · LP

– In his closing remarks the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Whitlam) once more gave an indication of the gross irresponsibility of which he is guilty whenever he deals with matters relating to public finance and their effect on the economy. Imagine the ideal housing situation, with wonderful roads and public transport and parks around the corner. A Labor government would have no trouble, according to the Leader of the Opposition, in providing the finance for all these things. Labor would provide the States with all the money and resources to create the new Utopia. This kind of argument is employed by the honourable gentleman in so many spheres. Tt would be a lovely exercise to look around the cities of Australia, to replan them and demolish where necessary, without regard to cost. The honourable gentleman said that interest rates were too high. Some of the greatest damage to the Australian economy was done by the last Labor Government which drove interest rates down to 3i% for long term finance and which caused prices to increase by about 10% a year. Of course, it is possible to reduce interest rates for a time to 1% merely by adding to the supply of money. AH you have to do is give an instruction to the Reserve Bank. There is no administrative limit. The only limit, unfortunately, which a government in office must face is the limit of resources. The inevitable consequence of providing tremendous sums of public money is inflation and an increase in prices.

The honourable gentleman referred, very properly, to the reputation of Australian builders and architects. These people, particularly the more modern ones, enjoy a very high reputation. Seeking the reason for this reputation one may be persuaded that it has something to do with the fact that 85% of dwellings in Australia are built by private enterprise. The variety, the different ideas, the initiative all arise spontaneously from the workings of private enterprise and not from centralised government instructions. The honourable member referred, apparently with disapproval, to the increasing proportion of new dwellings contained in multi-storey buildings. Recent construction figures show that one multistorey building is being erected for every 2.5 houses.

The honourable gentleman said a lot about land - one of his favourite subjects. Like money, land to the honourable gentleman is apparently in unlimited supply. He seems to think that in a city like Sydney or Melbourne, with a population of 2 million or more and increasing steadily, you can have as much land as ever and not have to build upwards in order to house the people. It is a delightful theory that some wonderful and far-sighted public authority - perhaps rather different from some of the public authorities with which we deal day by day - will plan the use of land and that if money is required the Commonwealth will provide it at very reasonable prices without creating inflation. That idea is at variance with experience in any big city of the world, irrespective of its location or the regime under which it functions. Unfortunately, real resources are scarce. Of all resources land is one of the most difficult to conjure up. The Leader of the Opposition, employing enormous sums of money, would inflate the currency to the nth degree in order to achieve all of the things that appeal to him. Unfortunately land is one thing which even he cannot produce, although at question time today he referred to a housing estate on the waters surrounding Towra Point south of Botany Bay. It may be said that the supply of money need not be limited, but the supply of land is limited. The Leader of the Opposition would discover this fact very quickly if ever he had responsibility in the matter. When he has had some experience and responsibility he will not dwell so lightly on so many subjects.

The honourable member referred to a national building code. Any sensible person who has gone into this matter would warm towards the idea but unfortunately State governments find that when they wish to make local authorities conform - when they wish to impose standardised measures - there is a severe kick back. Commonwealth officials are very keen on a building code applied widely, but we have no sovereign authority to do this. Any suggestions in this regard are examined not without some suspicions and misgivings on the part of State governments, as the Leader of the Opposition would discover. However, the Commonwealth has taken some initiative in the matter, as have some State ministers. Unfortunately, these things, involving human emotions, take time to develop.

The honourable gentleman referred to the difficulties confronting migrants. He spoke of high hostel charges. The Commonwealth provides a subsidy of 40% on hostel accommodation, which for the most part is good, although not always up to the standard that we would like. The cost of hostel accommodation is reasonable. For the most part hostels are very efficient. They are operated by very faithful staff who are anxious to make the immigration programme a success. The length of stay, incidentally, in these hostels has over the last 2 years been almost halved, so that far from the housing position for migrants becoming more difficult H is becoming very much easier. It is true that conditions do vary from State to State. It may be very difficult to find reasonable housing in Perth, but if one goes to South Australia it is currently extremely easy. There are, of course, many things which one can criticise in an imperfect world, but on the whole there is very little doubt that although standards vary elsewhere and different people want different things the current standard of housing in Australia is about the highest in the world. We in Australia spend about 5% of the gross national product on housing, and this 5% compares with about 3i% in the United States and the United Kingdom. The expenditure in those countries is relatively much lower than ours, even taking into account our necessity to accommodate a large migrant inflow.

We have 3,150,000 dwellings in this country. In 1967-68 $ 1,000m was spent on housing, and since ‘ World War II $ 12,000m has been spent. Although labour is extremely scarce, we have 80,000 people directly employed on building sites, apart from the other tens of thousands employed in industries which provide the necessary material, in 1968 we built 130,000 dwellings, a number which,, relative to population, was probably not exceeded anywhere else. Even more dwellings are being built this year. Compare this figure with those achieved 10, even 20 years ago. Twenty years ago it was 57,000, ten years ago it was 78,000. As far as the relative improvement in numbers is concerned, between 1947 and 1966 - a period of 20 years - while the population increased by 53% the number of individual dwelling units increased by 78%. In 1967 there were about 3-4 persons per dwelling and 0.7 persons per room. Now, if any Opposition supporter can produce figures for any other country which, across the board, are better than these it will be very interesting to hear them.

Although Government housing accounts for only 15% of the total number of houses built - 85% being built by private enterprise - as the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Whitlam) pointed out indirectly, although this was not his object - the Commonwealth Government does participate very widely in providing finance and does in large measure determine the overall rate of construction, not immediately and in the short term but, by the provision of funds, in the long term.

This is a story of continuous improvement on every front. The Leader of the Opposition does point to a number of deficiencies, particularly in big urban areas, which, when analysed, are matters which come mainly within State authority. But the States, of course, in many cases are struggling to do their best against the difficulties inevitably imposed by the extremely rapid rate of expansion which is taking place everywhere, lt is of interest that since the Government started the homes savings grant scheme 135,800 couples have been assisted by it. In order to overcome a problem which has faced a number of people in recent years - fortunately it is a problem which is diminishing - the Housing Loans Insurance Corporation was started. It is interesting to note that it had already insured $l81m worth of loans up to the end of December.

The picture is, on the whole, a very favourable one. In fact, if anyone were to have any concern at the moment about housing they might well point not to failures but to the strong pressure which an increasing building programme does exert on the economy, because the volume of housing now being constructed is rising so fast that it greatly taxes our available resources. We remember the experience of South Australia, which almost over-buil’t. No-one can possibly argue that Australia at the present juncture could devote any greater material resources to the construction of housing than it is doing at present.

Mr BEAZLEY:
Fremantle

– I am sure that the House is grateful to the Minister for Labour and National Service (Mr Bury) for establishing for us that this is the best of all possible worlds and that there is nothing to be concerned about in housing. His concentration on South Australia is extremely interesting, lt would be equally legitimate for the Minister to concentrate on Western Australia. Granted that the Commonwealth’s influence on housing may, in many instances, be indirect, I would like nevertheless to bring the Minister back to a feature of Commonwealth housing policy of direct influence to which he himself drew attention. He spoke of the homes savings grant. The price of land in Western Australia has skyrocketed. The State Liberal Government set up the McCarrey Committee to consider this and I would just like to draw to the Minister’s attention the movement of land prices in my electorate as quoted by the McCarrey Committee. Melville is one of the sub-divisions in my electorate. In the period from 1954 to 1968 land prices there rose from under $800 a block to about $5,000. Since then the rise has been steeper still. At Salter Point in my electorate land prices have risen from a little over $800 a block to over $6,000. At Rossmoyne, which will be in my electorate, prices have risen from about $800 a block to over $4,000 a block, and at Wembley Downs, which is in the neighbouring electorate of Curtin they have risen from about $600 a block to about $5,600.

The Minister referred to the homes savings grant. I ask him to face the fact that if land prices are three times as high in Western Australia as they are in South Australia his homes savings grant scheme operates very unfairly for young people in Western Australia. If in South Australia a block of land which would cost $6,000 if it were in Western Australia, can be purchased for $2,000 it is quite clear that the kind of house which can be built in Western Australia after obtaining the homes savings grant will be very inferior. In point of fact the land prices put one right out of a chance of getting a homes savings grant at all. As far as homes savings grants are concerned, the Minister knows very well1 that in areas of skyrocketing land prices he could make an adjustment so that the $15,000 ceiling limit would not unfairly penalise those who are trying to purchase a home in those areas. I do not expect the Minister to comment on that. He knows very well that this variation in land prices makes a very sharp difference in the way the homes savings grant scheme works in different parts of Australia. This is something to which he and his Government ought to give consideration instead of just fobbing off with sneers at the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Whitlam). An administrative adjustment could be made in areas of skyrocketing land prices. That is one of the direct fields of Commonwealth intervention in housing. There are points of which I would like the Minister to take note instead of holding a conversation with the honourable member for Bennelong (Sir John Cramer).

Mr Uren:

– He is a real estate agent.

Mr BEAZLEY:

– I am aware of that. It is a very good housing scheme for real estate agents. The McCarrey report pointed out the rise in land prices in Western Australia. It pointed out the percentage increases in a subdivision like Melville in my electorate of 351% over 11 years, 360%, 443% and 402%. Then it showed the changes in wages in the same time for an engineer, an accountant, a teacher, a bank officer and a fitter. The Minister was very swift to tell us how building has exceeded population increase. Let us face some of the statistics of how house and land prices have shot ahead of wages and then face the fact that there are housing problems of an increasing intensity for a lot of young people. The Minister may say that there is nothing the Government can do about them. But at least the Government ought to acknowledge the problem that the cost of a house and the cost of land are getting more and more remote from the resources at the disposal of the wage earner.

One of the things which is being loaded on to the price of land in Western Australia, apart from racketeering by real estate agents, is the developmental costs which once were met out of loan funds and then spread over a number of years in rates. The characteristic in Western Australia is that many years ago certain local authorities were given endowment land. They have a tendency now to sell this endowment land in small parcels. This keeps the price of land up. Some people blame the fact that there are on the councils a lot of real estate agents who want to keep the price of land up. In Western Australia, most people in residential areas have no vote in local government and some people have eight votes. I notice the honourable member for Bennelong flinching when I made that statement as requoting a criticism. That does not happen to be the criticism which I am endorsing.

What has happened is that local authorities sell the land in small parcels from their endowment, admittedly because they want to keep the price up but also because they have to use that money for developmental purposes. So by these devices there is loaded on to the price of land the cost of what they are going to put in by way of sewerage, water supply, roads and foot- paths. If there were a more generous loan programme these would not be so loaded. These services would be paid for in rates, spread over a period of time. This is the way it used to be. Of course, there was a time when land was subdivided for housing purposes away ahead of development. People went out and bought building blocks where there were no roads, no water supply and no sewerage. Therefore they got the land very cheaply, and in the course of time development and all these things came to them and they were not presented with the handing over of land to developers who put in all these services and then load this cost on to the price of the land.

Mr Chaney:

– Do you think that people are prepared to do that now?

Mr BEAZLEY:

– I think that a good many people would be prepared to do this now.

Mr Irwin:

– Would they pay more rates?

Mr BEAZLEY:

– No doubt they would. They have the advantage of the spread of rates over the years and they pay higher rates, lt is a question of young people who start out to found a family being hit with the initial high price and later higher rates. Honestly, how does a school teacher with a take home pay of about $60 a week, after deductions for tax and all the rest, face the fact in a working class suburb like Dianella which, 1 think, is in the electorate of the honourable member for Perth, or will be in the new Perth subdivision, where the minimum price of land is $7,000 to $7,500? I do not know how a school teacher would face it. Fifteen years ago I bought the house in which I live and the land on which it is built for $10,000. I am told that it is now worth $30,000. That is very nice, but it does not mean anything to me. 1 am not selling the house. AH I want to do is to live in it. If I sold it I would have to buy another house at the new levels of prices. But what I am concerned about is my son who, when he reaches the age of 20 years, will have to face such costs. Of course, the Minister always puts the point that there is no Commonwealth money. I do not want to go back over the old story about defence and not being able to provide additional money without increasing the levels of taxation. The Government has increased annual defence expenditure from $400m to $l,200m. It has found $800m a year over a number of years, and that can make a difference. 1 believe that given the same passion for housing as the Government has for these defence questions a greater allocation of resources would have taken place and these fundamental services would have been provided for local authorities. At the present time the costs of these services are simply loaded on to the cost of land and they are so withering to the hopes of young people who wish to marry and set up a home.

Mr SINCLAIR:
Minister for Shipping and Transport · New England · CP

– As a primary producer I am rather glad to see that honourable members opposite are beginning to give a bit of greater concentration within this place to the cost price squeeze which has for so long affected not only the housing industry, with which this proposal deals, but also the export industries with which this whole nation is concerned. As I understand the proposition that has been put forward by the Opposition, there are two particular proposals. One is that the Commonwealth Government ought to involve itself to a greater extent in urban redevelopment and, in particular, in redevelopment within the inner city areas which, naturally, were settled in the past. Many of the homes in these areas are now becoming old; many of them are substandard. Consequently, it is suggested they should be pulled down and replaced by other types of housing. This, I gather, was one of the themes propounded by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Whitlam).

To this proposal was added the very real question of the cost price story which was presented by the honourable member for Fremantle (Mr Beazley) when he referred to the problem of the construction of homes in outer suburban areas. Because there is not adequate land available in the closer inner city areas it becomes necessary for young people to move out from the centre of the city, buy land where land is cheaper and construct homes there at considerably greater cost resulting, as I understand the proposition put forward by the honourable member for Fremantle, from land developers rather than the Government providing the infrastructure for the services. It is true that there has been a tremendous increase in home construction costs in Australia. A brochure which I received late last year and which was produced by the Economic Research Department of the Housing Industry Association contains a survey of levels of activity in the housing, building materials and fittings industries. It shows that wage rates in the building industry increased in the last 6 months of 1968 by as much as they had in the previous 3i years. It also shows that the price of building materials which had been stable until about the middle of 1968 was also forced up by higher costs, particularly by increases in wages.

I think we must appreciate that one of the problems which is besetting the young home builder is this constant wage spiral which is not necessarily returning to the wage earner the real value for the added money which he receives in his pay packet. Increases in wage rates are passed on, in this instance, to the building industry in which employment has risen substantially from 150,847 at the end of June 1967 to 160,091 at the end of June 1968- an increase of a little over 6%. I understand that the employment figure has continued to increase at a greater rate since that period. So substantially increased numbers of people are being employed in the building industry. As wage rates are increased, of course, the burden is passed on. The $1.35 total wage rise which dated from 1st April last year adds to the price of home construction. I think what has come out of this is evidence of the very real burden that the community bears if wage rises are not matched by productivity rises. But one of the other factors that emerges is the extent to which, as I understand it, finance is being made available by the Commonwealth at present. The Opposition feels that there is not adequate provision for the construction of homes within the present finance limits.

For example, at the moment there is a limit of $15,000 under the homes savings grant scheme. This limit is placed on the value of the land and the home. I am told that at the end of 1968 80% of all Australian houses, with the land, cost less than $15,000. Not only is a substantially high percentage of homes built for less than this monetary limit but it is not unnatural for young people to buy cheaper houses. Many of them help to build their houses. We are not now thinking only of the total pur chase price of the house which is bought by a person who writes out a cheque or decides to pay off the house over a period of years. Most young people spend a considerable part of their time in building part of their houses themselves. More often than not they are involved in the process of building over a period of time. They assist the builder and contribute their time and labour. So the cost to build is not necessarily only the full price a person would pay for a completed house. In spite of all this, I believe that there is a very real social problem in Australia in providing sufficient money for homes. I believe that this problem exists not only in the city areas but also in the rural areas.

Honourable members will recall an amendment in 1966 to extend the CommonwealthState Housing Agreement. A provision was inserted in the Act to facilitate the allocation of funds by the States for private home ownership in rural areas that were not served by building or housing societies. It is very necessary that when we think of houses and home construction we think not only of urban areas but also of rural areas. We should ensure that adequate funds are available for the construction of homes in all areas. Statistically it appears that in the past 12 months the level of home construction has been quite reasonable. There are certainly some areas where the finance gap between the amount of money that an individual himself can raise from the bank and the amount which is necessary to build homes causes problems. But I think the Housing Loans Insurance Corporation has done quite a remarkable job in extending its facilities to ensure a bridging of this finance gap. At the end of December last year the Corporation held insured loans to the value of $18lm. This is one of the very real ways in which the Government has taken steps to try to bridge this finance gap.

Beyond this, the Commonwealth Government has instituted quite a number of schemes in different areas to provide special assistance for particular groups of people who have difficulty in establishing credit or acquiring sufficient money to purchase their own homes. This, of course, includes old people, low income earners and young married couples. In each of these areas the Commonwealth Government has instituted schemes of assistance specifically designed to cope with some of the problems that members of this House have discussed on various occasions. In the current financial year the Government has provided for housing some $23 8m, including SI 26m under the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement, $50m for war service homes, $14m for the homes savings grant scheme, $12m for houses for the aged and disabled and the balance for homes for defence personnel and residents in Commonwealth Territories. This sum is supplemented by the amount of money that is provided, for example, by housing loans allocated by the Commonwealth Savings Bank and private savings banks, by housing loans provided by co-operative building societies and by private, charitable and religious groups working within the subsidy provided by the Aged Persons Homes Act. So there is a tremendous amount being achieved.

What the Opposition has put forward to us this afternoon is rather a suggestion that there is not at this stage a bridging of the costs-price gap which means that youngsters and perhaps middle aged people, whoever it is who is seeking to buy a home, are not going to be in a position to take full advantage of this rather natural desire that exists within the Australian people to own their own homes. I understand that the census figures of 1966 show that 71% of Australians own their own home. It is felt by the Opposition that there is not sufficient provision of funds to enable this desire for home ownership to be met completely. Of course, there is always more that needs to be done, but I believe that the Commonwealth Government is doing and has done a very real and positive job in ensuring the provision of adequate finance for home construction. If costs continue to rise there will be a problem not only for the home industry and house ownership of individual residents of Australia but also for all who are producers in the community. I would regard it as a very worthwhile sign that at long last the Opposition is recognising the tremendous burden that costs are placing on the Austraiian community. I hope that the Opposition will carry this recognition into other fields.

Mr WEBB:
Stirling

– I rise to support the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Whitlam) in the matter of public importance that he raised. It is true that the housing position throughout Australia is very serious indeed. Let me say that in Western Australia it is more than serious; it is desperate. The Western Australian Government, I am afraid, has not the drive to grapple with this most serious problem and it is not receiving the assistance that it should receive from the Commonwealth Government. When the Labor Government in Western Australia assumed office in 1953 it was faced with a serious housing situation. During 1954-55 under the able administration of the then Minister for Housing, Mr Graham, the State Housing Commission produced 4,062 houses. In contrast, during 1966-67 under the Brand Government, 1,776 houses were constructed by the State Housing Commission and in 1967-68 the number was 1,577 - a drop of 219 on the previous year but over 2,500 fewer than under a Labor government.

Many of the units which are built by the State Housing Commission and by private enterprise are flats. Whilst flats may be relieving the housing situation for some people, what sort of outlook is it to expect that Australians today should have to live in flats? That mode of living must be contributing to a great extent to child delinquency. I believe without any doubt that these flats will be the slums of tomorrow. Flats do relieve the pressure on housing to some extent but more houses are required for families. When we are calculating the extent to which the housing position is deteriorating each year it is necessary to take into account both the increase in population and the rate of demolition of existing houses.

I am not certain what the figure is for the demolition of existing houses throughout Australia but it is estimated that 1,000 houses per annum are demolished in Western Australia. In addition to the natural increase, and persons who have come to Western Australia from other States, the migrant intake has increased by about 3,400 in the 12 months to 30th June last. This makes a total increase of 14,000 for the year. Many of the migrants are misled before leaving their homelands about the housing position in Australia, and particularly in the State that I represent. They are given misleading information on rents, land prices and the prices of homes. When we add the number of migrants and the young people from the post-war baby boom who are now entering the marriage market we can realise the magnitude of the demand for houses. We should also bear in mind that people are now marrying at a younger age.

If we refer to the amounts of loan expenditure annually each year since 1962 it is easy to see why the housing position has deteriorated so much in Western Australia. In 1962, $2,702,000 was provided for housing out of a total loan expenditure of $43,062,418. This represented 6.3%. In 1963 the expenditure on housing represented 4.6%; in 1964, 7%; in 1965, 3%; in 1966, 2%; and in 1967 the expenditure of $2,640,000 represented 4.3% of the total expenditure. According to documents tabled in the State Parliament, the estimate for 1968-69 is $2.5m or 3.9% of the total loan expenditure. With the exception of the current year the amount on housing has increased annually, but so has the cost of homes. Consequently fewer homes can be built unless the amount allocated for housing ls increased considerably.

In August of last year the Commonwealth Government rejected a request from the Western Australian Government for a special loan of $5m for housing. Because of other calls on loan funds - caused by development and by a high migrant intake - it is estimated that the amount to be spent on housing this year will be less than in the last financial year. If the State Government decided to spend more on housing this year than last year its expenditure on other essential areas would have to be reduced. There are now 15,190 outstanding applications for Housing Commission homes. There has been a big increase over the last financial year. This backlog has resulted in a considerable lengthening of the waiting time for homes. In 3 years the waiting time for purchase homes has increased from 14 months to 44 months. For a family home containing 3 sleeping units the waiting period has been extended from 20 months to 44 months. The same situation applies in respect of two bedroom homes. Some applicants, approved by the State Housing Commission as emergent cases, have had to wait 3 months before getting a house. These people are living in caravans, on back verandahs or in condemned houses.

The Western Australian Government has failed the people in respect of housing and by its refusal to take action to curb rapidly rising land prices. The State Minister for Housing denies that there is a housing crisis, but for those people who cannot get a house it is a very serious crisis indeed. He claims that more finance is being spent on houses each year. That may be so, but I have already drawn to the attention of the House the fact that the estimates for 1969 show a decline on last year’s figures. Furthermore, as housing costs increase the amount allocated is less in actual value. Government housing, therefore, is losing ground to other public works, and the fault, to a large extent, lies with the Commonwealth Government. Insufficient Commonwealth finance is being provided.

Rapid development is taking place in Western Australia and more funds are needed for all forms of development. With limited funds being made available by the Commonwealth Government, something has to miss out and housing is suffering as a result. The Government regards housing finance as an economic weapon. When the economy is a bit slack finance is provided for additional housing to relieve unemployment. When the economy has recovered and the need for housing is at its greatest the Government cuts back on housing finance. Finance for housing should be based on the needs of the community, and should not be used as an economic weapon in the stop-go policy of this Government. The State housing position has suffered as a result of the decrease in the allocation for war service homes in Western Australia. This allocation has dropped by about 25% in the past 5 years.

The Minister for Labour and National Service (Mr Bury) claims that land availability is limited. It is not limited in Western Australia. Plenty of land is available close to Perth, but it is held by speculators and so is out of reach of people with limited means. Land prices are rising rapidly in Western Australia. Land speculators are making huge profits at the expense of the home builders. One source claims that since 1950 building costs have jumped many hundreds per cent. In some areas the price of land doubles every 5 years and in other areas it is doubling every 3f years. The McCarrey report, which was referred to by the honourable member for Fremantle (Mr

Beazley), blamed speculators for the soaring price of land for housing and made certain recommendations as to how the Government should combat speculators, lt suggested that the Government should release the land for home builders and should tax speculators’ profits so heavily that they would quit the market. Premier Brand, as usual, dithered on this matter. He imposed small extra taxes on unimproved land and released some land, but the action taken was too little too late and prices are still soaring.

A survey of urban land prices in Australia shows that land prices in the residential areas are higher in Perth than in any other capital city. Representatives of building companies in Western Australia said only last month that land increases had forced them to increase the minimum deposit on houses by up to $ 1,000 in 18 months. This is due to land speculation.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member’s time has expired.

Sir JOHN CRAMER (Bennelong) 4.47J - lt is difficult to understand why the Opposition has chosen this subject for debate as a matter of public importance. 1 do not suppose that ever in Australia’s history has this country been better provided with homes than it is now. Statistics show this quite plainly. When the Government came into power in 1949 there was one dwelling house for slightly more than every four people but today there is one dwelling house for slightly more than every three people. The construction rate is proceeding at a rate to provide one dwelling house for every increase of two in the population, including the natural birth rate and the immigration programme. So it cannot be said, in all truthfulness, that there is an urgency about this matter. I am not trying to deny that there are problems but it is simply playing politics to bring this subject forward as a matter of urgent public importance. The Opposition is playing politics by introducing matters of public importance in respect of each Ministry in turn. This seems to be the pattern.

The Leader of the Opposition (Mr Whitlam) introduced this matter. T wish that I had time to deal effectively with what he said because he made mis-statements and misleading statements. He spoke, for instance, of this Government changing the Commonwealth and State Housing Agreement by not continuing the rebate system in relation to loans. What he did not say was that the Government reduced the interest rate and made money available at 1% below the prevailing long term interest rate. This means, in effect, that the States, which are the recipients of money from the Commonwealth, have in hand sufficient money to deal with rebates. Indeed, it is their function and not the function of the Commonwealth Government. The Leader of the Opposition deplored the fact that 30% of the money allocated under the Commonwealth and State Housing Agreement was given to building societies. Does he say that to the people of Australia? Does he say that to the tens of thousands of people in every State in Australia who have been able to become home owners?

Every family wants to own its own home. The Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement has given the opportunity to tens of thousands of people to become home owners, but the Leader of the Opposition thought that it was a dreadful thing to give 30% of housing funds to young people to enable them to become home owners. He spoke of an increase in rentals from $6 to $15. This only indicates the difference in the value of money. He is trying to deceive the people that rents have risen from $6 to $15. This is not what it is at all. It is only the difference in the value of money. The Leader of the Opposition was completely misleading in many of the things he said. He was misleading in his statement that a uniform code throughout Australia would result in a saving of $600 in the cost of the construction of a home. I am in favour of a uniform code, and some savings would be effected, but I challenge the Leader of the Opposition to state in specific terms the kind of uniform code that will save $600 on each house. He cannot do it. It is a stupid statement, and one that he has drawn out of the air. I ask him to come into the chamber and state a uniform code in specific terms. I am simply saying that he is trying to deceive the people.

The honourable member for Fremantle (Mr Beazley) did make a sensible contribution. I agree with him that we will perhaps have to consider raising the limit of $15,000 for the purchase of a home and land under the homes savings grants scheme. It has been raised before and it may have to go up again. But perhaps the honourable member for Fremantle is not aware that 80% of the homes purchased in Australia cost less than $15,000. That is a statement that can be proved by statistics. That percentage does not indicate that there is very much wrong with the limit of $15,000, although I personally would like to see it go higher because it would give a better opportunity to young people to get the kind of home they, want and to which they are emitted.

The honourable member for Stirling (Mr Webb) spoke of the serious position of housing in Western Australia. I do not know whether he has looked at the figures for the Commonwealth allocations over the last 3 years. Western Australia received $9,170,000 in 1966-67, $10m in 1967-68 and $11,500,000 in 1968-69. That does not indicate that there has been any withdrawal or reduction of funds to the Western Australian Government. That Government has spent the money. I was under the impression that Western Australia was the first State in Australia to come out of what was a housing shortage. The honourable member for Stirling spoke critically of flats and said that they will be the slums of tomorrow. I am not particularly fond of flats, but let us be realistic about this. In the great cities of the Commonwealth and in the great cities of the world, it is found that at least 25% of the population needs to live in flats because of particular circumstances. The people who make up that percentage would be elderly people, widows, widowers and others in the community who cannot support and maintain a home in its own grounds. Therefore, flats are a necessity in Australia, as they are in every other country in the world, so do not let us belittle them too much. As a matter of fact, as cities grow, we must build into the air. We must have greater density in living. We have to do something about our cities spreading, but that is another problem that we do not have time to deal with today. lt is true that housing is a State responsibility. I do not mean that the Commonwealth should avoid any responsibility in this field, but housing is controlled functionally by the States. It is true too that the Australian Labor Party must carry the blame for the damage it did to housing when it was in power. The purpose of the legislation introduced by the Australian Labor Party when it was in power was shown by the Leader of the Opposition today. He wants the Commonwealth to have complete control over housing. He wants everything to be done by the Government, with Government money, and he wants everything to be owned by the Government. In other words, he wants to socialise the industry. This is his attitude and he does not deny it. This was the attitude of the Labor Government that was in office before this Government took over in 1949. What was the result of Labor’s policies? The main result was to destroy completely the incentive to invest in real estate in Australia, and no one can deny it. The results have followed us down through the years. The Australian Labor Party should hide its face in shame because of what it has done to the incentive to invest in real estate. It has destroyed the opportunity for thousands of people in this country to get homes at a reasonable rental, which is the only real problem that Australia is suffering from today.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– It seems to me to be a very odd thing that whenever the Government has a debate on housing it always somehow or other works in the honourable member for Bennelong (Sir John Cramer) as one of the contributors to the debate. He is a person who has waxed fat on the profits he has made out of selling houses to other people.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! I suggest to the honourable member for Hindmarsh that he pay attention to the Standing Orders of this House.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– Very well, Sir. He is a gentleman whose occupation before he came into the Parliament was that of a real estate agent and whose occupation is still the same. He made the statement that there is no urgency in housing. If there is no urgency in his housing needs, let me remind him that there is a dire urgency and a very great urgency in the housing needs of hundreds of thousands of other people in the community who are not as well off as he might be. There are hundreds of thousands of young married people who have no home and who are not likely to get a home for a long time to come. There are hundreds of thousands of old people who are without homes. For the honourable member for Bennelong to get up in this place and to say, with the support of those behind him, that there is no urgency is an absolute disgrace to everybody who accepts him as a member of his Party. The honourable member has done less than justice to this debate. He accused the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Whitlam) of making stupid statements and drawing statements out of the air without any support. That is one of the most ridiculous comments I have ever heard. There is no other member on the Government side of the House who would contribute or support a statement of that kind because, whatever most members on the Government side think about the Leader of the Opposition, they all agree upon one thing, except the honourable member for Bennelong. They all agree that there has never been a man in this Parliament who has known more about the problem of housing than the present Leader of the Opposition. On the subject of housing, he is the best versed member who has ever been in this Parliament in the 20 years that 1 have been here, and it gives me no small measure of pride to have been chosen by him to act as the Opposition’s shadow Cabinet Minister for Housing.

To make reckless statements that the Leader of the Opposition wants to socialise industry and to have everything controlled by the Government runs counter to the facts. The Leader of the Opposition has never said that the Government ought to control the housing industry. On the contrary, he has said that what the Government ought to do is to bring in legislation that will make it possible for every Australian citizen to own his own home. That is the aim of the Labor Party. That ought to be the aim of the Government but quite obviously it is not the aim of the Government. No urgency in housing, says the honourable gentleman. What a ridiculous statement to make. The Minister who preceded him said that 71% of the people of Australia own their own homes. They do not own their own homes. Seventy-one per cent of the people of Australia may be buying their homes but they do not own them, and that is the problem. Many of them will never own the homes during the terms of their natural lives. They will die still owing money on the homes that they are attempting to buy. Why is this? It is because of the exorbitant rates of interest that they are compelled to pay for the money they have to borrow to buy houses coupled with the exorbitant price of the land they have to buy in the first place in order to build houses.

It is of no use for the Government to blame high prices, as did the Minister for Shipping and Transport (Mr Sinclair). The real cause of the high cost of building homes today is the high price of land. The price of land has skyrocketed during the last 20 years, in which this Government has been in office. We heard the ridiculous statement by the honourable member for Bennelong that the cause of the housing shortage is Labor maladministration, although we have not had a Labor Government for 20 years. How silly can a person get when he blames the Labor Party for the housing problem when there has been a Liberal Government in power for the last 20 years? If there is anything wrong with housing today it settles right at the doorstep of this Government, because for 20 years this Government has had control of the treasury bench. It is this Government that has fixed the rate of interest. It is this Government that has decided how much money is to be made available to the States and it is this Government that is entirely responsible for the fact that still some 30% of ex-servicemen are without war service homes finance.

We have to do more than has been done by the present Government, and a Labor government will be dedicated to the task of seeing that every person in Australia not only gets a home of his own but gets it at a price that is within his pocket and at a rate of interest that is within his possible repayment level, so that he can pay for his house before he dies. This cannot be done now. The first thing that has to be tackled is the price of land, and it can be tackled by imposing a heavy unimproved land values tax on vacant land held by land speculators who buy up land in broad acres, cut it up into subdivisions and then hold it out of use, thus creating an artificial scarcity of land until some poor devil of a working man comes along and pays a price that is four, five or six times greater than was paid for the land in the first place. If we could impose a heavy unimproved land values tax on these speculators we would force them to put their land on the market, and every extra block of land that can be forced on to the market reduces the pressure upon those who are trying to buy land. That is what we have to do. I invite honourable members to look at the position in Western Australia, where vacant building blocks are selling for as much as $6,000. How on earth can a working man find $6,000 with which to buy a block and then meet the cost of building a house upon it?

Mr Peters:

– That is cheap compared to blocks in Victoria.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– I am obliged to the honourable gentleman for the interjection because I understand that in Victoria prices are higher still. It is true that there is a limited supply of land. The amount of land available in the world is limited to the amount that we now have. Therefore we have to make the best use of it. We cannot allow speculators to hold land out of use because they want higher prices. Neither can we allow land close to the centre of cities to be used for housing unless it is used for high rise flat development. I agree with the honourable member for Bennelong in respect of one thing, that is, that there is a place for flat construction in every capital city. If land in old residential areas close to the heart of any capital city is now occupied by little, broken down cottages, these have to be demolished and the land set aside for high rise flat development. With every 100 flats of high rise construction in an area of the kind that I am talking about we reduce to the same extent the pressure for housing blocks elsewhere. There are many people living in cities, such as school teachers and professional people - people who work in the heart of great cities - who prefer to live in high rise flats close to their places of work, free from the problems of transport, rather than live 20 miles out of a city such as Sydney. So there is a place for this kind of construction.

But what is the use of encouraging high rise flat development if we do nothing at all to deal with the land speculators who are reaping the profits from the additional houses that are built? It is no good pro viding money for homes if skilled labour and building materials are not available. All that will result is an increase in the price of the houses that are built. There will not be more houses. It is of no use, moreover, to do anything in the way of increasing the number of houses built if nothing is done to control the price of land that is yet to be bought for home construction purposes. That, I hope, will be what the Labor government will do in the near future. I say in conclusion that if any Australian wants to own a home at a price that he can pay, at a rate of interest that he can meet, he has only one chance of doing it and that is to vote for the election of a Labor government at the next election, and he ought to take the first opportunity open to him in the by-elections that are now coming forward to indicate to the rest of Australia that that it what all sensible Australians should do.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member’s time has expired.

Mr STOKES:
Maribyrnong

– Over the past 14 years in this place I have listened to many attacks on the Government by the Opposition which reached the heights of sheer hypocrisy, but when the Opposition dares to challenge this Government on the question of housing it reaches the nth degree in hypocrisy. This matter was introduced by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Whitlam), supported by two members from Western Australia, with the honourable member for Hindmarsh (Mr Clyde Cameron) jumping at shadows on his old hobby horse of class distinction, which shows, as the honourable member for Hindmarsh said in conclusion, that this is a little prelude to the Curtin by-election. Whatever it is, let us analyse what the Leader of the Opposition said, particularly bearing in mind the well known quotation from a former Labor Government Minister, Mr Dedman, that the Labor Party did not want people to be buying their own homes, that it did not want to create a nation of little capitalists. That still applies. That is still the philosophy of the Labor Party. The Leader of the Opposition said that many people in Australia are wretchedly ill-housed; those, I think, were his very words. Over 71% of the people are either buying or do own homes of their own choice, which they have chosen because they prefer that type of place, where it is, with that number of rooms, and everything else about it. So only 30% are renting homes or do not own homes, but according to the Leader of the Opposition many thousands are wretchedly ill-housed.

Let us go on to another matter. He said - this struck me as being very quaint - that the value of the houses of people who do own their own homes would be diminished through the lack of urban development. This seems to me to be a very strange thing, because I have heard the honourable member for Yarra (Dr J. F. Cairns) in this place over a period of many years demand of the Government that any increase in property values because of urban development be subject to some form of taxation. So here again we find a difference between the Leader of the Opposition and the honourable member for Yarra. The Leader of the Opposition referred to the high interest charged under the Commonwealth and State Housing Agreement. He made great play of the fact that the Chifley Government had provided for 53-year loans with an interest rate of 3% and of the fact that over the years the present Government had increased that rate by nearly 50% up to 4i%. Let us look behind what he said. One always has to look behind what is said by the Leader of the Opposition who, according to the honourable member for Hindmarsh, is a great authority on housing. Quite clearly the bond rate in 1947-48 was 3i% to 3i%; so the rate of 3% was only i% or at the most i% below the bond rate. We have been charging an interest rate of 4i% as against the bond rate of 5.25%. Recently when the bond rate on long term securities rose to 5.4% the interest rate on housing loans was maintained at 4)%, which is 1.15% below the bond rate. So much for some of the airy-fairy things which the Leader of the Opposition referred to. The honourable gentleman deplored the building of high rise flats. I agree with him on this. I myself like to see homes built. However, there is a need for this type of flats to be built. I remind the honourable member that, with a Labor Government in office in Western Australia, high rise flats were built in a Perth suburb for political considerations - so that there would be a strong Labor vote to return Labor’s candidate to office. It would seem that when you want high rise flats for political considerations, you have to have them, irrespective of the requirements of the people concerned.

The Leader of the Opposition made some comment about migrants returning to their home country in huge numbers because they could not afford to purchase homes in this country. What a stupid thing to say. The majority of migrants who come from Europe to this country have lived their lives in rented accommodation; they never had the chance of buying their own home. If they do get the chance when they come to Australia they buy their home. Many thousands of migrants have bought homes in my own electorate as well as in many other parts of Australia. The migrants who return to their homeland go back to squalid rented housing apartments. Another point the Leader of the Opposition slipped in because we are nearing an election related to the single person who owns his or her own home and has to pay rates without receiving a supplementary allowance. This is a social service matter. If we were to apply the means test, what would occur as far as housing is concerned would be only a drop in the bucket. Apparently this is something which he thinks might catch a few votes at the Curtin by-election.

The Leader of the Opposition spoke about soaring land prices and the availability of money for land development. I agree that land should be developed in certain areas, but land values in Australia still do not exceed an average of 20% of the total cost of the land and the building. We should not criticise the high cost of land without looking at the cost of building. It is the high labour cost in building which has brought about the high cost of housing today. The ratio between the price of land and the overall cost of the land and the building has remained constant. Building is largely a craft based industry which produces a one-off article. As someone has said, it takes a lifetime to pay for one’s own home. We should get away from this craft based industry. We should took to the new, cheaper, materials which are available and not to orthodox materials such as bricks, mortar and timber. Surely scientific research can provide materials which can be used for building and which will be cheaper than those in use today.

Our aim should be to cut out this high cost of labour on the building site such as for the bricklayer and other workers. We should treat the site as being an assembly point and should bring prefabricated units onto it. This is the only way in which to get away from this craft based industry. We should remember too that there are now fewer apprentices entering the building trade and that the work force of from 75,000 to 80,000 will diminish. As time goes on these people will go to other industries which provide higher wages and a continuity of work where they will nol have to go from job to job as in the building trade. We will find that as the craft element in the building trade drops the cost of erecting buildings will be reduced, lt is of no use crying out that the cost of land is preventing people from owning their own homes. The cost of labour will have to be cut and the types of material now used will have to be changed if housing is to bc available to everybody at reasonable cost.

Opposition . members who have already spoken have not made any dent in this Government’s housing record, which is one of the greatest ii: the world. Honourable members on this side of the House stand by that record very proudly. This is not a matter of public importance at all.

Mr IRWIN:
Mitchell

– In speaking on this matter I speak with some experience. I have heard a lot of twaddle and nonsense uttered this afternoon. Mr Speaker, I have just been informed by the Leader of the House (Mr Erwin) that it was agreed that only a certain number of members should speak on this matter.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The Chair is not aware of any agreement.

Dr J F Cairns:
YARRA, VICTORIA · ALP

– May we have some idea of what is happening?

Mr SPEAKER:

-I have called the honourable member for Mitchell.

Mr IRWIN:

– I regret I did not know of this agreement. The time for the debate had not expired so I took the opportunity to rise to speak. I have a worthwhile contribution to make.

Mr Connor:

– I rise to a point of order. It was agreed that a certain period of time should be alloted for this debate. I take the point that that time has now expired.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The time normally allotted for such a debate would not expire until 5.46 p.m.; so there is still time for further debate.

Mr Connor:

– I take it that the same latitude will be given to the honourable member for Yarra.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The time allotted under the Standing Orders has not yet expired. Any arrangement entered into has nothing to do with the Chair.

Mr IRWIN:

– Two difficulties that have arisen with regard to housing are the control of banking and the control placed on land in New South Wales. The control of banking highlighted the coming into being of fringe banking institutions, which were allowed to lend money to home builders and other people at extortionate rates of interest. 1 am pleased that the Reserve Bank has now admitted its failure in this regard. How it ever could be proved to me that money loaned by a fringe banking organisation was less inflationary than that loaned by the trading banks is beyond my comprehension.

The other control that 1 wish to speak of, which eventuated in New South Wales, concerns the Cumberland County Council and later the State Planning Authority. When the Cumberland County Council came into being, it acquired thousands of acres of land, which it called green belt, and put it under the counter long enough to create a scarcity of land. Once controls are introduced and land is put under the counter, a blackmarket arises. This is what we have in New South Wales. This situation was brought about by a Labor government. In the western areas of the metropolis of Sydney there are thousands and thousands of blocks of land on which homes should have been erected. And people would have erected homes on them but for what is called zoning. This land has been forced to lie idle over all these years. My low wage earner friends owned this land. They had the great privilege of paying taxes on it.

What happened because of zoning? The Valuer-General gradually reduced his valuations to S20 per block. In a great many cases, the Cumberland County Council and the State Planning Authority resumed this land at S20 per block. It is lying dormant. The point is that each owner had to pay municipal and water rates on the land held up to the date the State Planning Authority took over the land. The minimum rate was 2 guineas. The individual had to pay water and municipal rates. But from the day the State Planning Authority took over that land, the local council received no rates whatsoever.

When one hears people who are inexperienced in this matter speaking on the subject, one is shown how difficult it is to get a full understanding of the problems. I wish to speak about the futility of making more money available for home builders. By doing so, we are only saddling them with more debts to repay. Only a certain number of homes can be built in Australia each year. If we endeavour to exceed that market, with the labour shortage and with material shortages, all we do is to inflate the price of a home. As a result, young married people and low wage earners are forced into a difficult position. What we need is a common sense approach. We need to get rid of the controls and use all these thousands of blocks of land.

I know of thousands of young married couples who need this land. If the State Planning Authority of New South Wales would lift its embargo on the land in the western suburbs of Sydney, young married couples could be allowed to buy the land which the present owners would be prepared to sell for $400 per block. Roads have been formed which would need to be constructed to a better standard and electricity would need to be reticulated to the blocks. In many cases, a water supply is available already. The people who owned this land either have forfeited it to the State Planning Authority or are paying their rates in the hope that, some day, somebody will give them permission to build homes on that land.

What a wonderful opportunity this is. Many wholesome young married couples come to me each week wanting me to endeavour to get them a home, a flat or somewhere else to live. If this land were available, I could arrange with building societies and the banks to build homes for these people. If the homes were built, it would be the job of the water board and other instrumentalities to supply those homes with the services required. Under the Socialist legislation under which New South

Wales works, developers have to supply all the services. They do not mind because they tack the cost of the services on to the price of the land and make their profit of 10% or 15% on top of that amount. They do not mind providing the services at all. The point I wish to stress is that the low wage earners and young people who are buying this land that the developers have made available pay all the initial costs involved in providing water, electricity, kerbing, guttering and roads. But they still must pay the same rates as people in settled areas. This is not giving the young people a fair go. In Sydney at least, the demand for expensive and middle class homes have reached saturation point. At the present time, hundreds of these homes that have been built for 3 or 4 months have not been sold. The time has arrived when we should concentrate on building homes for the low wage earner, the young married couple and the aged.

Mr SCHOLES:
Corio

– A few minutes ago, we heard a remarkable speech from the honourable member for Maribyrnong (Mr Stokes). He made some rather fantastic comparisons with figures which gave, I think, some insight into the gymnastics which figures can be made to perform. He said that persons purchasing bouses - and I happen to be one who is purchasing a housing commission house in Victoria on a long term basis - and paying interest of 4i% - I would say 51%, because that is what I am paying to the Victorian Housing Commission - are better off than they would have been in the 1940s when the interest rate was 34%. I do not think that I am any better off - and 1 doubt whether any other person purchasing a house thinks that he is better off - because the present rate of interest is closer to the bond rate than it might have been in 1948 or 1949. The facts are that it costs at least 2% and most likely closer to 3% more to borrow the money to purchase a house today than it did in 1948 or 1949. It is nothing more or less than a pure cash.

The honourable member for Maribyrnong made another statement which is not borne out by the facts in the State from which we both come. He said that the only way to cut down on the cost of housing was to cut out on-site erection. The Victorian Housing Commission and (he Victorian Government adopted a process to do just this. They built what they called industrial homes that were to cut down on the cost of on-site erection. These were largely aluminium buildings which could be put up, it was said, very cheaply and more quickly than other buildings. They take a lot longer to repair, I can assure the House. The fac! is that 300 of these buildings were erected in Geelong amongst the normal brick veneer housing commission houses. These homes were readily available to people who were desperate for housing. A person was told that he could have one of these places in a couple of months or could wait a couple of years to get into a brick veneer home. An aluminium home costs $300 more than a brick veneer house of the same size would cost. So much for this claim of reduced cost because of on-site construction.

It is most likely reasonable to say that a deal of prefabrication is valuable in housing, but I think that we must remember that with prefabricated houses as with motor cars the range of choice is almost nil. Most likely there are only two or three models from which a person can select. It should be remembered also that people live in houses all their lives. They cannot change a house every 2 years or 3 years as they might change a motor car. If a man could convince his wife - and I am sure that I could not - that she should have a house of a standard pattern which might be completely unsuitable for the particular needs of the family merely because it was a few hundred dollars cheaper to erect, I would be very surprised. This is one matter in respect of which people are entitled to be treated as individuals. People spend about two-thirds of their lives in one residence. A woman probably spends longer in one residence.

Because rented accommodation is not available to those who seek it, 70% of people own their homes. I think most of them are satisfied with their homes but many of them would not have purchased homes or would have had homes vastly different from those in which they live if they had been able to exercise any choice in the matter. When I married I was in the position of most working people. Working people newly married must take a home wherever they can get one. There is no real choice in the matter although some people can exercise a choice. At this stage in life it is imperative that you obtain a home. No married couple wants to live in somebody else’s home for any length of time. Many of the 70% of people who now own homes would have had a house vastly different in design to the one which they now occupy and most likely situated in an area closer to their employment if at the time of obtaining their home they had been able to exercise a choice.

Reference has been made to high rise flats. This type of building would appear to be a fairly good means of providing mass housing in inner urban areas. But the building of high rise flats merely provides accommodation; it does not provide homes. People who obtain accommodation in these buildings will live there for a long time. In these circumstances it is vital that better facilities for recreation and other things should be provided than are normally provided in a general housing development, where families have available to them an alternative to living inside the building. People who live in a house may obtain relief from the four walls of the home by going into the backyard. The husband or the wife may have a garden. These things are not possible in flats, so far more has to be provided by way of diversion and community activity in areas where buildings of this type are to be predominant. The honourable member for Maribyrnong drew attention to the oft repeated statement that has been attributed to the former honourable member for Corio, the honourable J. J. Dedman, that people should not own their own homes.

Mr Jessop:

– That is what he said.

Mr SCHOLES:

– But what else did Mr Dedman say? Has the honourable member ever bothered to find out, or does he think that it is not reasonable to inquire what else was said? It is my belief that where it is economically possible and sound to do so, every person who is financially able should own his own home. But many people, because of the type of employment in which they are engaged or because they cannot plan their movements 50 years into the future, are not able to afford the capital outlay involved in purchasing a home, For instance, many people at Wonthaggi in Victoria who have purchased homes costing £3,000 or £4,000 find that because of changed circumstances employment is no longer available in the area. They have a capital investment in their home which is far too great for their economic circumstances, and there is no way out for them. A similar situation could develop in the Latrobe Valley with the introduction of natural gas. Employment in the Yallourn brown coal mines could slacken. People in the area could find that they own homes which are of no value to them because employment is not available in the area.

It. is not unusual for this Government to offer people alternative jobs in another area of a State, as it did in Geelong. People who are offered a job in another area cannot sell the homes in which they have lived and they cannot afford to buy a second home. If they accepted work in another area they would have no accommodation. So they are forced onto the employment market, often at an age when they find it impossible to enter into a contract lo buy a home. This is a real problem. It is a problem that should be looked into far more sympathetically than Government supporters have suggested today. Everything is not all right. Homes cannot be acquired easily by young people. Often young people have little or no choice in the matter of a home. It is perfectly proper for the Opposition to raise this matter at this time. We hope that the Government will note what we have said but we express disappointment in the speeches that we have heard from the Government side of the chamber. These have indicated that everything will be as before and that those who can make the most profit out of the poor unfortunate people seeking homes will be the most praised.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Drury)Order! The discussion is concluded.

page 1091

CUSTOMS TARIFF BILL 1969

Bill returned from the Senate without requests.

page 1091

HEALTH INSURANCE

Ministerial Statement

Debate resumed from 25th March (vide page 829), on the following paper presented by Dr Forbes:

Report of the Committee of Inquiry into Health Insurance - Ministerial Statement, 25th March 1969- and on the motion by Mr Erwin:

That the House take note of the paper.

Mr SCHOLES:
Corio

– The report of the Nimmo Committee on health insurance is fairly revealing. Not the least revealing facet of the report is the fact that the Committee has pointed to limitations which it felt were placed on it by its terms of reference. The Committee was able to investigate and make recommendations only in respect of voluntary health insurance schemes. This meant that it was not able properly to canvass the field of health insurance in Australia. So although the Committee’s report contains some very good suggestions, it cannot be regarded as having any validity within our health structure. Had the Committee been given the terms of reference which the subject warrants - terms of reference which would have led to the production of information valuable to the Government - the Committee’s recommendations would have been based on the needs of our health services rather than on a very limited consideration of those needs.

The report contains many and varied recommendations. The Government has not told us whether it intends to adopt or reject those recommendations, and we recall that the Government has done nothing about the recommendations of the Vernon Committee which inquired into the economy. We are not aware of the Government’s intentions with regard to the report of the Nimmo Committee. Some of the matters disclosed in the report are worthy of our consideration. The first I have already mentioned - that the Committee felt that it was restricted. The terms of reference did not enable the Committee to deal properly with the subject before it. For a number of years Australians have been told that we have the best health services in the world. With all respect I suggest that such a statement is a lot of rubbish. The fact is that too many Australians are not able to afford the medical care which they need. Evident within the medical profession is the concern that liberalisation of the financing of health services would make it easier for people on low incomes to obtain those services and would lead to such a call on the services as would make them ineffective. Most, if not all, of the treatment given under health schemes is based on the recommendations of a person’s own physician. There is no way within the Australian Constitution, or under any suggestion that has been made, to my knowledge, by any responsible body in Australia whereby doctors can be forced to participate in a health scheme which they do not feel is adequate to their requirements. But I think it is strange that the doctors’ own association has reflected on the characters of the members of the profession by suggesting that they would act irresponsibly and give treatment to people merely because they requested it. I believe that the medical profession’s fear in this regard is groundless if the members of the profession are prepared to play their part in providing health services. I do not suggest, and I do not think anyone would, that any service provided by the medical profession should be free or even nearly free, but it should be possible to devise schemes whereby people would be able to receive treatment when they require it.

I saw a very good cartoon in the Melbourne ‘Sun’ this morning. It depicted an Indian being spoken to by his medicine man. The medicine man said: ‘Your complaint requires a very delicate and complex operation but in your case you will not be needing it.’ The patient asked why and the medicine man said: ‘You cannot afford it.’ This is the situation in the Australian community today. Too many people either fail to have treatment because they cannot afford it or go fairly deeply into debt in obtaining treatment. In their efforts to pay for the treatment they are endangering their own health and probably the health of their families because of worry. I wonder how many breadwinners in the community who need intensive medical treatment fail to obtain it because they know that if they do so they will probably be unable to find employment afterwards, and will be unable to meet the cost of the treatment and also earn enough to keep their families. In many rases the final result is that the life of the person concerned is shortened by many years or he becomes an invalid at an early age and so unable to provide for his family in any case.

Our health system is in need of thorough and proper investigation. On 25th March the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Whitlam) indicated that the report we are now discussing vindicated the stand taken by the Opposition over a number of years. I do not know whether we are still being told that we have the best health system in the world.

This report does not say so. But one thing is absolutely certain: Some changes will have to be made. What we of the Opposition hope, and what I think all members with some thought for the agonies of people such as those 1 have referred to would also hope, is that more than a mere patch-up job will be done on our health services at this time. There are large numbers of people who at present are not receiving sufficient health treatment. A statement was made a few weeks ago to the effect that if the geriatric treatment now being given were increased considerably - and money would have to be made available for that purpose - this might at least partially overcome the problem in that field. We must have regard to the plight of families of low income earners and even of those in the middle income group when a member of the family is stricken with a long term or serious illness. We must have regard to the very young who are unable to care for themselves and have no economic basis on which to obtain or seek to obtain treatment for themselves, and in many cases do not have parents sufficiently affluent to afford the type of treatment needed.

It is reasonable to suggest that the public hospitals system of Australia should be developed to such a degree that people who are not able to afford to obtain from the doctors the treatment which they need may receive adequate treatment through the public hospitals system. The public hospitals at present are providing reasonable services but they are suffering from lack of funds. No one would be stupid enough to suggest that the costs of medical treatment are not rising and will not continue to rise. The only way to stop health costs rising is to reduce the services to such a level that they would be practically non-existent.

Obviously the cost of administering public hospitals will continue to rise and more money will have to be found to provide health services. One big problem is that under the present set-up of voluntary contributions all charges are made on a fiat rate basis. In actual fact this is not a flat rate because as I shall demonstrate later, the cost decreases according to the increase in a person’s income. The higher a person’s income the less he has to pay for health insurance. This is exactly the reverse of the accepted practice in the community with regard to income tax and all other kinds of charges. The result of this situation is that many people are under-insured. Without having any accurate knowledge of the exact situation I suggest that perhaps 50% of people in our community are underinsured under the voluntary scheme. They are in fact gambling on their future health. They are gambling that they will not become ill. But of course the fact is that they will become ill. This may happen late in their lives or early in their lives, lt is almost impossible to say what proportion - it would be a very small proportion - of people manage to get through their lives without some serious illness. 1 mentioned that the cost of insurance decreases with increase in* income. 1 think 1 should explain that. Under the present income tax laws the amount of money paid for health insurance is deductible for income tax purposes. A person with a low income may be paying as little as 10c in the $1 in income tax. If he is fully insured for medical benefit purposes he pays about $70 a year for that insurance. His deduction for income tax purposes would be only £7. Therefore, he would be paying $63 for an insurance cover of $70. A person at the other end of the tax scale who is paying approximately 70c in the $1 in taxation is in the position where his contribution would be less than $30 for a health insurance cover of $70. So the person most able to pay for health insurance is the person who is paying the least.

This situation has caused very serious problems within the whole of our health framework. Hospitals, because of the methods by which they are financed, depend on being able to collect their fees. Doctors are not benevolent societies and they cannot be expected to work for nothing. Therefore, the people who are most in need of doctors’ services quite often are the ones least able to pay. We have the situation in which doctors, because economically they are not able to carry a large number of non-paying patients, are forced to refuse treatment to people. They are being placed in the position in which they have to be virtually the executioners. They have to say to people: ‘If you cannot pay I cannot treat you’. 1 do not think that any human being would want to place a doctor in that position, but in our society we cannot provide free hospital and medical services forever without somebody suffering fairly dire economic troubles.

We need a system by which the finances which are necessary for our health services are available at a cost which all people can afford, irrespective of their means. In order to achieve this system it will be necessary to examine a far greater range of health propositions than has been done by the Nimmo Committee. The Committee’s inquiry was restricted to the existing health insurance structure and to the question of what modifications can be made to it. It might be that the existing structure best suits Australia’s purposes, although I doubt it. A health insurance structure based on contributions from wage-earners, employers and others who wo u I’d benefit because of the availability of services and the fact that costs would be automatically met might well be the type of system which would be better fitted to provide the necessary finance. If this is so, such a system should be properly and adequately examined. 1 believe that the Government cannot deal with a question such as the health services available to the community by placing restrictions on the committee which it appointed to investigate what changes should be made. The trouble with the report of the Nimmo Committee is that the Government made up its mind that it wanted before it set up the Committee, and it tried to frame the Committee’s terms of reference in such a manner as to get the answers it desired. Unfortunately for the Government the Committee showed more integrity and more depth of thought, lt has brought down a report which I think the Committee itself indicates is inadequate, because of the terms of reference, and it indicates that nothing proper can be done about this question until such time as a full and proper inquiry is conducted into the whole range of health services, whether they be voluntary or involuntary. I ask the Government to give this matter far more serious consideration than has been given to it up to date. 1 suggest (hat if the Government is not prepared to accept the report of the Senate Select Committee on Medical and Hospital’ Costs it should appoint a committee to cover the whole field of health services so that the recommendations which come to the Government and to the Parliament are based on the needs of the whole of the health service system rather than on the Government’s wish to patch up a system which has failed miserably to provide health services at costs which the community can afford.

Sitting suspended from S.55 to 8 p.m.

Dr GIBBS:
Bowman

– I congratulate the Government for its decision to institute this inquiry into health insurance. This was a timely decision as it is no secret that weaknesses were beginning to appear in the scheme - weaknesses which are partly due to the fact that health care is not the sole concern of one central government but is fragmented between the States. Indeed, the States ar? far more concerned with the organisation and administration of hospital services than is the Commonwealth.

I wish, too, to congratulate the Nimmo Committee on its report. Whilst I do not agree with that report in its entirety 1 agree with most of it and say now that the Committee has carried out its task with assiduousness, with clear-mindedness and with objectivity. I utterly deprecate the efforts of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Whitlam) to draw inferences from the report which are simply nol there and also his use of his usual approach to a problem of this kind by using quotations out of context to convey an entirely different meaning. His speech was a very uninspiring political tirade and therefore does not merit any detailed dissection. But two of his points in this speech must be answered. Firstly, the Leader of the Opposition said:

On nearly every page, the report reveals glaring inadequacies. . . .

This is simply not true. The Leader of the Opposition also said:

The Committee has, however, been precluded from carrying through its inquiries to their logical conclusion by the Government’s insistence that it make only such recommendations as may be accommodated within ‘the context of a voluntary health insurance scheme’.

The only inference to be gathered from this and his subsequent remarks is that, given a freer rein, the Nimmo Committee would have declared in favour of a scheme similar to that recently espoused by the Opposition.

Since this was also referred to by the honourable member for Corio (Mr Scholes), I feel that I should deal with it.

The Labor Party’s scheme is supposed to result in economies and it is based on one which was developed in Canada. It is interesting to note that a number of Canadian States have opted out of this scheme and that only one, Manitoba, has any use for it at all at present. This is not much of a recommendation from a country which has had practical experience of such a scheme. The report of the Nimmo Committee, in Appendix C under the heading Future of National Plan’ says:

Although the national medicare programme in Canada is just getting under way its long term future has been placed in doubt by an announcement made by the Prime Minister during the Committee’s visit to the effect that the Dominion Government intended to limit its financial support to the first 5 years’ operation of the scheme and thai thereafter the full financial responsibility would have to be assumed by the Provinces whose share of taxation would be increased at the expense of the Dominion Government.

Proposals are also being put forward for changes in the arrangements between the Dominion and Provincial Governments in relation to hospital finance and taxing rights. The Province of Quebec has decided to discontinue its participation in the hospital finance agreement.

Furthermore, still in Appendix C, we learn that one of the principal lessons to be drawn from Canada’s experience is that:

While the arrangements for financing hospital and medical costs through taxation, compulsory premiums, etc., have appreciably lowered the cost of collection of health finances, Canada is experiencing great difficulty in keeping in check the growth of the costs of hospital and medical services. The increasing costs of health services are a matter of considerable concern to both the Dominion and Provincial governments. There is much public and political debate about how these increasing costs can be financed and much attention is being given to the development of methods whereby the growth of costs can be held down.

Surely this gives the lie to any suggestion that the Committee would have recommended the Labor Party’s scheme if its terms of reference had been wider.

Both the Leader of the Opposition and the honourable member for Corio have poured scorn on the suggestion that the Australian scheme is the finest in the world, so I must spend a few moments on this question. For years I have been making a study of health schemes throughout the world, in theory and at first hand. It is impossible to deal with this matter in depth in a 20-minute speech. But 1 can say that all of the schemes I have studied have very serious basic deficiencies. When the Socialists introduced the national health scheme into Britain, they expected a flood of people who had been unable to afford treatment heretofor and that the health of the community would improve thereafter. They were completely wrong both in this prediction and in their prediction of the cost of the scheme which was many times greater than their most pessimistic predictions. I discussed the scheme with the then chief medical officer of the British National Health Scheme, Sir George Godber, and he stated that, after 15 years of operation, the national health scheme had not improved the health of the community. I worked in Britain under the national health scheme and personally came across several cases who had been lost in the system. They had precancerous or early cancerous illnesses when last seen. When rediscovered they were inoperable. If that was my experience there must be many, many more cases like those unfortunates I have mentioned.

At most, one new hospital has been constructed in Britain in 40 years and at any one time there is a huge waiting list of patients awaiting admission to the hospitals. I could speak at greater length about this but I think I have shown enough to indicate that the scheme is far from ideal.

I would now like to discuss the report itself. The report shows a rational approach to the problems which have arisen in the scheme. In particular, it points out the great desirability of relating payments made under the insurance tables to the actual costs which an insurer can anticipate should he fall ill. In order to do this, one must have a good idea of what the doctor will charge and what the hospital will charge - that is, a table of most common doctors fees must be introduced, and there must be some stabilisation of hospital fees. This has been suggested. I cannot but agree with these recommendations. I go further and suggest that hospital fees be reviewed at fixed intervals and that medical tables be adjusted automatically at this time. I believe that doctors fees should be automatically adjusted in conformity with economic indi cators which have been agreed upon as between the doctors and the national health service and that any adjustment be made automatically at fixed intervals, lt may be that a period of 3 years is too long, especially in relation to hospital costs as these are increasing at the approximate rate of 10% per annum. But I believe it is most logical to adjust the health insurance tables at a fixed time when the review is made of hospital and medical costs.

The elimination of multitudinous tables which bear no real relationship to medical costs is an obvious and logical step. However, to ensure the success of these measures, the agreement of the States, which actually control the hospitals, is essential. If agreement is not reached with them, there is very little that the Federal Government can do. This points up a very real problem which has arisen in Australia, with its vast areas and differing conditions. Hospital systems which differ widely one from the other have sprung up in the various States. The time has certainly come when Australia’s hospital systems must be rationalised - I say rationalised, not nationalised. I recommend that an agreement be reached between the State and Commonwealth governments whereby a national hospital policy can be formulated. The Federal Government should also appoint a hospital research committee which would investigate not only problems such as the standardisation of hospital buildings and hospital costs generally but also the various means whereby economies could be effected and it would also keep in touch with trends in overseas countries. I believe that if this is done we can certainly slow down the escalation of the costs of health care. For example, if we had a national policy we could have standardised hospital buildings and a modular form of construction could be undertaken. This would certainly save enormous sums of money - a third or more of building costs - and if they were constructed in conformity with the latest labour saving designs better treatment would be available at a lower cost. The siting of new hospitals could be determined on the basis of greatest need, actual and projected. The new and rather esoteric techniques which are very expensive must be rationalised. For instance, a heart transplant service is unnecessary and undesirable in every large hospital in Australia.

I suggest that if this degree of centralisation of hospital services is achieved, tremendous savings will be effected and yet the day-to-day operations of the services at State, regional and local level need not bc interfered with, leaving an important degree of autonomy at these levels. While I am on the subject of hospitals I must say that I was very gratified to see that this report recommended the payment of the full hospital benefit in respect of all public ward patients in Queensland. Queensland has been suffering financially for some time by virtue of its free hospital scheme. I am very glad to see that the Committee recommends that this disability be remedied, and 1 earnestly request the Government to accede to this recommendation. 1 disagree with the foundation of a national health insurance commission as recommended by the Committee. I do not think it would solve anything. Its proposed disciplinary powers could become very undesirable and I can see the real danger of a system of control doctors being instituted. Such doctors interfere gravely with an effective doctor-patient relationship and are an undesirable feature of very many socialised medical schemes, especially many of those operating in Europe today. I welcome the Committee’s suggestion that the lower income families should be assisted with their health insurance payments. This is a marvellous suggestion. I. have been advocating it for some time. Payment by the Government of the health insurance premiums of those on the basic wage would remove the major cause of worry from this group of people.

The recommendation that employers should deduct insurance premiums from employees will make for greater economy in the scheme, and I think we should consider whether these firms should not be encouraged to make some contribution to the insurance payment of employees on the basic wage level. It would be to the benefit of all concerned if they could be persuaded to do this. The collection of premiums by employers at no cost is certainly one factor which would make for greater efficiency in the operation of these schemes.

I welcome the Committee’s other recommendations in this regard. One was that there should be a rationalisation of schemes and that only one open scheme should be allowed to operate in any one particular area. I think this is excellent. We have seen how the operating costs of these schemes have been increased by their competition and their advertising, particularly in New South Wales. The Committee recommends that in this particular State the Hospitals Contribution Fund of New South Wales and the Medical Benefits Fund of Australia Ltd be given separate areas in which they should operate. My personal feeling in this matter is that the two funds should be merged. I know it has been suggested that it may be very difficult to achieve this merging in a satisfactory way but I think that any such problems would be temporary if it were gone about in the right way. It would be rather unweildy to have two funds operating in separately defined areas within one State. I think that the two funds should be merged, but I also favour the continued operation of the friendly society funds and the smaller closed funds which usually operate within certain companies for the benefit of their employees. These latter funds are extremely economical in operation and it is claimed that one reason for this is that they insure only low risk patients. This is not strictly true as the families of these people also are insured. Many of them have children, and childhood is one stage at which very many medical calls are made. But it should be made a condition of the operation of these closed schemes that they continue to insure former employees after they have retired. 1 have also thought - this was not mentioned in the Committee’s report though I appeared before the Committee and made the recommendation - that some economies could be effected if the processing of claims were done by one central institution. This institution could, and should, be made up of a board of management appointed from all of the health schemes so that it is fully representative of all of the schemes. This could ensure considerable economy of scale. Because of the greater volume of work involved, the use of computers probably would make for further economies. An objection to this is that different schemes have different policies in deciding claims and that whereas one scheme would reject the claim of a patient as not coming within the ambit of its insurance another scheme would allow a payment in that case.

This matter could be easily overcome by having the borderline cases marked by the computer and sent back to the different insurance schemes. Then the returned doubtful claims could be determined by the funds according to their own policies. This would overcome the problem and it would make for very considerable economies in the operation of the scheme.

Mr Curtin:

– Would the patient die waiting?

Dr GIBBS:

– That is an absurd interjection. The honourable member obviously does not understand that claims are processed after all treatment has been given. 1 thoroughly recommend this most important report. I know it will take some considerable time before the Government can come to any firm conclusions in this matter, but basically the report offers a great future for the health care of the people of Australia. It is offering the most efficient scheme possible which will still retain the proper doctor-patient relationship, it will still offer a free enterprise scheme and yet will overcome some of the disabilities which have grown up in the old system, lt will also have the economies which such schemes have in contradistinction to nationalised health schemes which always result in’ increasing consultations, increasing costs and, therefore, increasing embarrassment to Governments. This has resulted in enormous problems overseas. In Britain, for example, there is no longer any health ministry and health care is submerged within a general ministry of social welfare. Insufficient money - even less money than before - is made available to the scheme, to its detriment. I thoroughly commend this report and sincerely hope that the Government will adopt the major recommendations of it.

Mr BRYANT:
Wills

- Mr Acting Speaker, one always feels that the honourable member for Bowman (Dr Gibbs), when he approaches the subject of health, is more interested in the accountancy of the problem than with the health of the people. He is more concerned with the ideology behind it than with what happens to people in illness. The Australian Labor Party is concerned with what happens to people in illness and the contribution that the community can make to co-operative organisation when people are seriously ill. It is almost a continuing ideology on the part of honourable members opposite, particularly those who are associated with the medical profession, to spend a good deal of their time thumping the British health service.

So it is appropriate at this moment for me to remind the honourable member for Bowman of what Lord Hayter, the leader of the British Hospitals Equipment Mission, had to say when he was in Australia He spoke of the ignorance in Australia of the United Kingdom health plan. He said that he was astonished and worried at the ignorance of Australia regarding the British national health service. He said that a recent poll had shown that of all the social services the one the people would least like to lose was the health service. Those of us who have had anything to do with people who have migrated from Britain are quite convinced of that. This is one of the great concerns of new arrivals from Britain. They find that the threat, if it is a threat, or the cost, if it is real and immediate and urgent, of health services is such as to intimidate them and make them want to go back home. Another comment by the honourable member for Bowman makes me worry a little about him. I can only remind the House of a remark that was made by the honourable member for Melbourne Ports (Mr Crean) about one of the honourable member’s predecessors from the medical profession in Queensland. Fortunately, they are not all of the same sort. The honourable member for Melbourne Ports said he hoped that a former honourable member was better on the body physic than he was on the body politic.

If I heard the honourable member for Bowman correctly, he said that only one new hospital had been built in Britain in the last 40 years or so. I do not know how big their hospitals are. Lord Hayter said that £250m a year was being spent on new hospitals. That one hospital must be pretty big. He also said that in the past 10 years 70,000 new hospital beds and 500 new operating theatres had been established in England and Wales. If the honourable member for Bowman cannot get that simple statistic right, how can we rely upon his judgment at all when it comes to an evaluation of the medical services? I am quite convinced by all the reports that in his own field of surgery he is an expert par excellence. At least nobody can say that that is not the case. As I understand it, that is his professional status. But when it comes to the application of politics, accountancy or the simple attitudes of humanity, he seems to lose ground seriously.

The honourable member mentioned one or two other things. He criticised the way in which the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Whitlam) had spoken about the health scheme earlier. 1 remind him that the Leader of the Opposition had been pretty accurate in his predictions of what the Nimmo report would contain. He said a fair while ago that the funds all compete with one another for members through lavish advertising campaigns and promotional activities and that they erect prestige office buildings on mid-city sites, and so on. This is almost a paraphrase of what the report later brought down about the funds. Of course, the Government has perpetrated this fundamental error in the health service. The Government has not approached it from the point of view of maintaining the objective, to use a military analogy. The Government should ask itself what is best for persons who are ill so that they can be brought back to good health. It is more concerned with what is best to preserve the free enterprise ideology of honourable members opposite.

All the things that Lord Hayter said about the British health service would probably be applicable to Australia. He said that nationalised services cause costs to rise, ls this not the case in Australia? Has our scheme found a solution to any of the problems of health services? Of course, it has not. The honourable member for Bowman brings a very narrow professional view to this question of a health service. The honourable member and a great number of people in the medical profession, at least in their public pronouncements, are more concerned with the preservation of what they call their professional ethics and their professional mystiques than they are with supplying a full-time, thorough-going medical service to the people of Australia. [ am always interested in the values that the community seems to have inflicted on it. lt is a materialist society, and the health service, as it is managed through the present system, is materialist in its concept, lt is competitive in its concept.

Dr Gibbs:

– Does the honourable member favour the Russian scheme?

Mr BRYANT:

– 1 will tell the honourable member a little about the Russian system in a moment if he will only wait. But 1 suppose he will say that the Russian system cannot be any good because the Russians are Communists. In this society, if an accident occurs on the road and the motor car bursts into flame, the first thing on the scene is the fire brigade to put out the fire that is damaging the property. Next on the scene are the police to see who has caused all the trouble. Then the tow-trucks will arrive. Eventually, an ambulance or a doctor will come to attend to the suffering humanity. The things for the protection or care of property will be there first; the things concerned with people will turn up last. If it is a Saturday afternoon or a Sunday afternoon, the members of the medical profession will probably all be off duty playing golf. I do not blame them for that, lt is the fault of the system and not their fault.

The honourable member said that the health of people in Britain had not improved over the last 20 or 30 years. I suggest that he go to the Library and get hold of the books and the references on the matter. After all, this is the only way that I or anybody else can tell, ls it not true that the child mortality rate in Britain has fallen in recent times? Is it not true that life expectancy has increased, the amount of chronic illness has been lowered and that the general standard of physique of the people is better than it was 30 or 40 years ago? ls it not true that great numbers of people 20 or 30 years ago were suffering great physical hardship because of inadequate medical services? The point that he failed to make is that it is true that the British national medical service, call it what you will, costs less per head of population than the Australian service, i think that is disclosed on page 9 of the report of the Nimmo Committee. From this point of view, most of the criticism By the honourable member of the approach of the Australian Labor Party to health is quite invalid.

The scheme thai Australia has now is really a kind of escape from reality which was perpetrated back in the early 1950s by the late Sir Earle Page. He was trying to dodge all the necessary, direct responsibility of the Government for the individual and to hide behind some of the mystique of the Liberal philosophy. The responsibility, according to the honourable member for Bowman, is upon the individual to go off and join a fund, lt does not matter if, like a million other Australians, he cannot afford to raise the necessary cash or if for some reason or other he has been away from home and has forgotten to make his payments or has overlooked the simple fact that his children have moved out of a certain age group. The medical benefit funds are competitive, so anybody who is big enough can start a fund. So we have innumerable funds. Even honourable members opposite admit that this is one of the most serious difficulties and disadvantages of the present system.

Then honourable members opposite talk glibly about freedom of choice. We must preserve the freedom of choice. They are all commendable ideals, but they certainly have degenerated into a series of cliches so far as the average citizen is concerned. What the average citizen is concerned with is a proper medical service at a price that he can afford. Whether it is possible to supply this is difficult to say. It may well be true that no country has adequately covered all the difficulties of such a scheme and that some professional values may well have to be disadvantaged to give people full access to a medical service. But so many of these things are contradictory of other elements of Liberal philosophy. While in the area of medical services, honourable members opposite talk about freedom of choice and about the competitive nature of the system. In so many other areas, when they are associated with other people such as the trade union movement or the young men being sent to Vietnam, they are full of compulsions.

What should a health service do? We should be asking ourselves what is the objective of a health service. The objective is to see that when a person is in sickness or has had an accident or is old and needs specialised medical service it is as freely available to him as the fire brigade or the tow truck is to the damaged or burning property. This seems to me to be a simple objective. I am afraid that the present medical services of Australia are being afflicted by the same kind of contradictions and difficulties that were afflicting the education system back in the 1870’s or thereabouts before the governments got round to establishing a thorough-going national - call it nationalised if you like - education scheme. When we examine the attitudes of honourable members opposite we should ask: What are we doing for the weak, the poor and the sick? We can only agree with what the report of the Nimmo Committee said about the present system.

Somebody by interjection said something about Russia. I am one who is not afraid to visit Russia, and indeed am not afraid to visit any other place, as long as people are not using live ammunition, ft happened that in 1 964 I was passing through Irkutsk. That is in Siberia and a long way from anywhere. My wife was ill. So the guide said: ‘We had better get a doctor’. 1 am accustomed to the Australian system and as it was Saturday afternoon I did not expect to get a doctor very easily. Brought up in the toughened system of a competitive capitalist society, one gets a doctor only when he is really ill. Five minutes after the guide said that we had better get a doctor, the doctor turned up and 10 minutes later the prescription turned up. Already, of course, as I found out afterwards, the Russians have solved one of the great difficulties of health schemes. They pay the doctors about the same salaries as they pay plumbers. I am not advocating such a system but in fact if you want instant service that is probably the only place where a medical service will turn up faster than the fire brigade. Some honourable member opposite such as the Minister for Social Services (Mr Wentworth) will at some stage, I have no doubt, try to take this out of context and say: ‘Bryant is advocating the Russian system’. That is not quite so. I simply point out that there are places in the world which can supply people with instant medical services. The objective seems to be achieved from my own personal experience.

What has the Committee said about the present system? It has said that it is unduly complicated. That is true enough. Yet for years people opposite would never admit this when we tried to bring it before them. There is competition and, of course, it is wasteful. This report admits that one of the mystiques of the Government’s whole system - competition - is in fact a very expensive operation. In some ways this scheme is still exclusive. There are one million Australians who are unable to afford to participate in it. It is quite inadequate. The funds maintain high reserves and they do not need to do so. There is a high cost of administration and the whole scheme that we have had for 17 or 18 years is in fact wasteful. It is what one might call a fragmented non-system in which the Federal Government, the State Governments, health services, private enterprise doctors, and some repatriation services compete to do something for the suffering citizen. We on this side of the House, of course, think it is time we abolished’ competition of this sort.

The Committee recommends that that be done and that the tremendous number of tables! - they number 101 - be reduced to three. It recommends that there be subsidies and that the National Health Insurance Council include unions, employers and local government instead of having the existing scheme manipulation by the hospital benefit societies. This still seems to be an escape from reality. What the Australian Labor Party wants, and what I think is a reasonable aspiration for a society such as ours, is a totality of medical services. Of course, there are some commendable objectives in the British scheme. In fact, any human being who steps ashore in the United Kingdom is entitled to some kind of medical service. We apply that principle in some ways. The last arrived migrant is entitled to qualify for unemployment benefit as soon as the specified term is up. We say that no medical scheme is adequate in this country unless it covers the totality of the population. It must be equally available. Therefore it should not impose any sort of financial hardship upon people. I would think that at this time one of the great demands in this community is that there should be security for the family man and for the individual and unless a scheme is prepared to supply this it is inadequate. I am afraid that even the recommendations of the

Nimmo report are only playing with what is, after all, the major objective of a health scheme.

I would like to challenge a view which seems to be expressed particularly by medical people, an irrational fear of what one might call national service. The people opposite are very keen on national service for other people in another context. They all have a great respect for people who have achieved high rank in national service. There is no suggestion that a public servant who works as an engineer is any less competent than the person who works in private enterprise as an engineer, lt may well be difficult - it has proved difficult - in some public services to supply some of the things that professional people are entitled to demand in their employment, that is that their professional competence is adequately employed, that they get a reasonable salary and that there is freedom to practise in accordance with the ethics of their profession.

If there has been a failure to achieve this in any public medical service in this country it is the fault of the medical services themselves. I know that there is a continuing contest between the administrator or secretary of a hospital, in many instances, and the medical practitioner. I believe it is up to the members of the medical profession themselves to solve these simple problems. I refuse to believe that one cannot be professionally competent and professionally satisfied in a government service and that a medical service cannot supply all of these things. We are moving towards a stage where we shall have to establish full time, properly skilled clinical services which are available 24 hours a day 7 days a week without having to break up the family life of a medical man and without having to make him work 40 or 50 hours a week - giving him a reasonable salary, reasonable professional satisfaction, proper security and time off at some stage every so often to get his professional competence to the stage at which we want to keep it.

I would like to contest the jargon with which my friend the honourable member for Bowman (Dr Gibbs) challenges these views of ours. He says that he wants medical services rationalised, not nationalised. I was a member of a nationalised service. I was a member of the education service in Victoria for more than 20 years. 1 was a member of the armed services for some time. Of course, nearly all services and private practices in many areas are full of their frustrations, delays and annoyances. In a community such as ours it must be possible to supply the kind of background which will’ enable the objectives to be fulfilled. We on this side say that this ought not to be a great difficulty. There ought not to be difficulty in supplying such security to the average citizens. This report is an indication of great dissatisfaction on the part of the Government at last with the medical benefits system as it presently operates.

I am a beneficiary of the Repatriation Department in a part time way. The kind of service that that Department is able to supply to the person who is qualified for its benefits ought to be readily available to the people of Australia. I can see no reason why the kind of total protection that the repatriation system is able to give to those who are fully qualified for total benefits ought not to be as readily available to every citizen. I think this objective can be achieved with proper economy. I think within certain limits it is a fair statement about the British system that it has been able to approach a total medical service with reasonable economy - more economically than the one we have been able to contrive here. 1 believe it is possible to supply a total medical service which does not prejudice the professional competence and professional satisfaction of the medical profession. Until the Government comes along with something which supplies this kind of system to the people of Australia it cannot expect our full support. I hope honourable members opposite will devote a fair amount of study to the British system and also to what the Labor Party has to offer in its platform.

Mr WILSON:
Sturt

– The honourable member for Wills (Mr Bryant) has cursorily referred to the subject matter of the debate. He spent most of his time expounding the Opposition’s theories as to the desirability of a nationalised health scheme. He has challenged the integrity, the ethics, the industriousness and the concern for its patients of the medical profession of Australia. He has put forward no constructive viewpoint as to the recommendations of the Committee set up by the Government to examine the present workings of the national health scheme. He has run from this because he has recognised that the Government has appreciated that after 16 years of operation it was necessary that there be a comprehensive and complete review of the operations of the scheme so that recommendations could be submitted to the Government to ensure that the scheme suited the requirements of the nation in the year 1969 and in the 1970s. As the Minister for Health (Dr Forbes) himself pointed out in the statement bringing in the paper which we are debating tonight, the recommendations of the Committee had a main theme, the need for a much closer relationship between hospital and medical fees and contributors’ benefit entitlements. 1 think it can also be said that one of the main themes of the report was that there is need for a considerable reduction in the gap between the cost of medical services and the benefit entitlements. It can also be said that there must be some limitation on the contribution rates so that they are related to the ability of the contributors to pay. The recommendations of the Committee are contained in a detailed and comprehensive report.

With regard to the hospital insurance scheme, the Committee has recommended that in place of a multitude of tables three tables be substituted, these three tables to relate to the type of hospital care available in public wards, intermediate wards and private wards. The Committee has recommended that there be a linkage between hospital benefit tables and hospital fees, and also that every Australian citizen should have standard ward accommodation available without a means test. T believe that these three recommendations relating to the hospital insurance scheme can and should be supported so that through the combined assistance of the Commonwealth, the Stales and benefit organisations total hospital costs incurred by patients can be covered by their insurance and the contribution made out of general tax revenues either by a State government or by the Commonwealth Government.

One of the matters dealt with in the report was that of over-insurance. It has been said that in some areas people overinsure and make a profit out of their insurance. The Committee has recommended that this not be permitted in the future. 1 would concur in this recommendation provided the limitation is brought in with many other alterations which must necessarily bc made. Under the scheme as it operates today many people over-insure so that in the event of increased hospital costs occurring at the time of their hospitalisation rather than at the time of their insuring they will be adequately covered. They also over-insure to make certain that they will have sufficient to cover the large gap - a gap which the Committee recommends should be closed - between the medical expenses and the benefit entitlements.

The Committee, in dealing with overinsurance, considered the possibility of its encouragement to over-use of hospital facilities. This is a very significant factor. The Committee did point out however that it could find no real evidence of over-use of hospital occupancy as a result of people being able to make a profit out of overinsurance. I think it can also be said that, if as a result of the recommendations of the Committee people are enabled, as they should be enabled, to insure to cover the total cost of their hospitalisation, they would be encouraged to stay in hospital if they would suffer loss by moving from hospital. There is no doubt that many people, having had treatment in a modern sophisticated hospital, then require care in a less sophisticated institution, such as in a nursing home if their ailment has become chronic, or at home if in the view of their medical adviser their care can be appropriately afforded in their own homes in surroundings in which they should be rehabilitated as soon as possible. But if by going to a nursing home, if by going to a home where they are looked after by home care services, a burden of cost would then be imposed upon them personally they would be encouraged to stay in hospital just as people who have chronic illnesses are encouraged to stay in sophisticated hospitals which care for the acutely sick when they could be cared for in nursing homes of adequate and proper standards. A big step in the direction of providing for this transition from hospital to nursing home was taken recently with the introduction of the supplementary nursing home benefits.

The point I make is that the nursing home benefit must be kept under close scrutiny and proper relationship with the benefits that provide hospital care. Otherwise the financial burdens imposed upon a patient receiving a particular type of care will cause restraints upon his proper movement to a place where he can receive care which is more appropriate to his illness. These types of care - hospital care, nursing home care and home care - are not substitutes for one another. They have a proper place in the total care of patients. I urge the Government and the Minister for Health, when looking at the recommendations of the Committee for increasing the security of people with respect to hospital insurance, to bear in mind the importance of making appropriate amendments in the ancillary and supportive areas of medical and hospital care.

With regard to medical insurance, the Committee drew attention to the gap between the cost and the benefit - a gap which has grown over the years - and it has put forward a number of proposals as to the manner in which this gap should be reduced. The Committee has proposed that there should be a proper relationship between fees and benefits, and details of this proposal are clearly set out in the report. The Committee dealt with the need to impose upon patients a charge so as to discourage frivolous and unnecessary demands on these services, but a charge not so high as to discourage the use of medical services when they are properly required. I question the proposal of the Committee to have a fixed charge of $1 levied on patients over the whole range of medical services. A charge of SI may have a relationship to certain consultation fees and to certain charges for procedures today, but in 10 years time $1 may have quite a different relationship. Furthermore, I think the types of services provided by the medical profession vary. Some of them are patient initiated procedures, and it is in this area that it is important that there be some levy to discourage the frivolous and unnecessary demands on the services; but there is a strong argument which could be advanced for having no such charge in relation to services that are provided as a result of medical recommendation - in other words, those services and procedures that are undertaken as a result of professional advice and on the initiative of the patient’s doctor rather than on the initiative of the patient.

I ask the Government to look into this question, in particular 1 urge the Minister for Health to consider whether the fixed charge even in relation to patient initiated services is the appropriate way of providing the restraint which the Committee recommended should be provided. It may be better to have a percentage of the charge imposed from time to time. Over the years charges will undoubtedly vary as the cost structures of the economy alter.

The other aspect with regard to the fee that is to be imposed in this case to which I wish to draw the attention of the House and of the Government is a concern at the burden that a fixed fee, at $1 per consultation, would impose upon large families. I refer to the burden that would he imposed not merely on families of low incomes but on large families generally. In dealing with the question of low income families, the Committee suggested that these families were illness prone. Undoubtedly, one of the reasons for their proneness to illness is the number of members in the family. Such a high fee for an ordinary consultation in a doctor’s surgery could impose a substantial burden on families with large numbers of children or young children during those years when the children are prone to sickness. So, I draw this aspect to the attention of the Minister so that he may take it into account when reaching conclusions as to the recommendations of the Committee.

The Committee gave certain views as to the honorary and concessional element in services that are provided by the medical profession. The Committee pointed out that the effect of the medical profession provided concessional services and honorary services is to distort the fee structure and to increase the fees charged by the profession to fee paying patients. I draw to the attention of the Minister the fact that the existence of these concessions and honorary services also inhibits the expansion of the pensioner medical service on the basis of merit because it places in the hands of the medical profession a claim to a right to determine need on the basis of the concessional fees as it sees them.

I believe that, in providing a pensioner medical service, it must be the Government that determines the merits of a particular case as to whether or not the service should be extended to a greater class of people. These honorary and concessional’ services insofar as they affect the fee structure in services provided by medical practitioners also impose burdens on the great majority of Australian families, not merely those that are in receipt of such high incomes that they have no need to worry, nor those who are so poor that they are supported by the social welfare net that the Committee proposes should be established for them, but on the great bulk of young Australian families, lt is on this group that a heavy burden will bc imposed if this distorted fee structure is allowed to continue. 1 urge the Government in looking at the report of the Nimmo Committee to examine if from the viewpoint of the financial burden now imposed upon young families by the costs of medical and hospital insurance.

The Nimmo Committee has made certain recommendations as to the benefits to be payable in return for hospital insurance, lt has also made recommendations so that the liability of patients in respect of care from their doctors should be known to them in advance. In this matter, there are two matters to be looked at. They are the cost of insurance and the cost to the patient over and above the benefits paid by benefit organisations. These two matters must be looked at together to ensure that an undue burden is not placed upon families. 1 turn now to the proposals of the Committee in relation to the assistance of low income families. Why has the Committee recommended a fixed amount of $4 as being the allowance for each additional child, or a deduction as the family becomes smaller? This is an absolute amount. If there is to be an amount. I believe that it should be a relative amount, one related proportionately to the income of those families. It seems to me that inherent in the proposals of the Committee are some of the dangers and problems that now exist in the medical benefits scheme so far as the pensioner medical service is concerned. Here we have a situation where it pays people to divest themselves of their assets in order that they may receive a small pension so that they can have the medical security that the pensioner medical service offers.

In looking at the proposals of the Nimmo Committee, we must ensure that there is not discouragement to incentive to the families on low incomes to improve their lots. It seems 10 me somewhat strange that the Committee should recommend that these families should be assisted in the manner in which it proposes. Undoubtedly, these families should be assisted. But 1 would suggest 10 the Minister that he give serious consideration to a form of negative income tax to help these families, for it would be rather strange if we relieved a family of its liability to pay for medical and hospital insurance and, at the same time, imposed upon that family - husband, wife and two children in receipt of the income suggested by the Nimmo Committee as the break-even income - a tax liability of $98 a year. It seems to me that, by using the tax structure as a means by which assistance can be given to these families, we can ensure that there is over every income range a proper incentive to those families to improve their position, so that we do not by encouraging them by various means to improve their position at the same time weaken their position as a consequence of taking away the medical security and the hospital security which the proposals relative to the low income families would contain.

I turn briefly now to the question of ancillary benefits. I am sorry that the Committee did not include in its recommendations many of those benefits including dental care for young children while they are dependent upon their families and many of the services which by themselves are totally uninsurable but which in themselves form part of total health care. I hope that the Minister will carefully examine this aspect - 1 urge him to do so - before he makes any alteration by taking out of the medical and hospital insurance field many of the ancillary benefits now covered. I would urge him to consider, in attempting to assist the young family man, the inclusion of other benefits particularly in relation to the care of young children, such as a dental scheme.

Dr J F Cairns:
YARRA, VICTORIA · ALP

- Mr Deputy Speaker, the subject really before the Hour this evening is an examination of the quality, effectiveness and adequacy of hospital and health services in Australia. A number of subsidiary questions have entered into this debate. The first one is the nature of the criticisms by the Opposition of the existing scheme and whether those criticisms are valid, in particular, the sorts of criticisms that were made by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Whitlam). The second subsidiary question that has arisen is: What is the extent and nature of the criticisms of this scheme that is provided in the report of the Committee of Inquiry into Health Insurance, known as the Nimmo Committee? I think that a third question that has come up in this evening’s debate is this: ls it reasonable to suggest that, if the Nimmo Committee had had open terms of reference, it would have recommended some other scheme? 1 wish to have a look at each of these points in turn.

I submit firstly that the report of the Nimmo Committee is a detailed criticism of the Government’s health scheme, listing hundreds of defects, deficiencies, failures, excess costs and inadequate benefits. The report fully confirms the position taken by the Leader of the Opposition. When I examine some of these criticisms in detail in the next few minutes 1 suggest that even honourable members opposite will agree that they confirm most of the criticisms made by the Opposition over a long period of time, lt is proper to say that the report contains on almost every page criticism quite basic to the scheme. The scheme is in such a condition that it might have been reasonable, had the Committee had power to do so, to expect that the Committee would have submitted an alternative.

Let us look at some of the criticisms. So far the honourable member for Bowman (Dr Gibbs) and other Government supporters have not even looked at the report to test the validity of the comments of the Leader of the Opposition. Let us examine the Committee’s findings as listed on page 9 of the report. They are:

  1. The operation of the health insurance scheme is unnecessarily complex and beyond the comprehension of many.

The Opposition has said this dozens of times.

  1. The benefit? received by contributors are frequently rauch less than the Coll of hospital and medical treatment.

Hundreds of times we have made that criticism in this House.

  1. The contributions have increased to such an extent that they are beyond the capacity of some members of the community and involve considerable hardship for others.

We have said that dozens of times in the House.

  1. The rules of many registered organisations including the so-called ‘special account’ rules permit this allowance or reduction of claims for particular conditions.

The application of these rules has caused serious and widespread hardship.

Many times have we said that in the House.

  1. An unduly high proportion of the contributions received by some organisations is absorbed in operating expenses.

This has been one of the main points made time and time again by the Leader of the Opposition.

  1. The level of reserves held by some organisations is unnecessarily high.

Many times this argument has been submitted by the Opposition.

  1. The cost of illness may include, in addition to hospital accommodation and treatment and medical services, a wide range of other services which have never been covered by the health insurance scheme.

Time and time again we have made that criticism. The finding continues:

These ‘other’ services include nursing home accommodation and treatment, physiotherapy, home nursing, chiropractors’ services, chiropodists’ services, optometry and dentistry. While future increases will be necessary from time to time as costs rise, health insurance contributions are in present circumstances as high as most people are prepared to pay and as many people can afford to pay.

Time and time again we have made those criticisms and they appear on every page of the Committee’s report. It is studded with them. Has the honourable member for Bowman not read the report or is he still trying to make an ideological case in favour of the private enterprise system of which he is a part? Of course he is.

Let me take honourable members a little further through the report.

Dr Gibbs:

– Do not mislead us, as Gough did.

Dr J F Cairns:
YARRA, VICTORIA · ALP

– Paragraph 3.3 on page 15 of the report reads:

With the passage of time the pursuit of sectional interests appears to have superseded this ideal.

In this House the honourable member for Angas (Mr Giles) and the honourable member for Bowman, who have been interjecting, are spokesmen for sectional interests. Paragraph 3.4 of the report reads:

Although the scheme has operated for sixteen years the obligations that each of the parties could reasonably be expected to bear to ensure its success have not been denned.

They have not been defined after 16 years. I would expect a person with the privileged background of the honourable member for Angas or the honourable member for Bowman to have done a little in 16 years to help to define the ideals of this system, which the report states have not been defined, instead of speaking up here for a sectional interest. That interest is not the interest of the poor, the sick, the ill and the neglected; it is the interest of the wealthy.

Dr Gibbs:

– Are you trying to create a class war.

Dr J F Cairns:
YARRA, VICTORIA · ALP

– The honourable member for Bowman and the honourable member for Angas are living examples of the class war. Instead of representing the people who should be helped by the health scheme they represent those who live on it.

Throughout the Nimmo Committee’s report one can find criticisms of the Government’s health scheme, as the Leader of the Opposition has pointed out. Nothing has been said by Government supporters this evening to contradict those criticisms effectively. Of course this is the nature of the report. The Minister for Health (Dr Forbes) has not said whether the Government accepts the report or how much it accepts. On 25th March the Minister, in presenting the report to the Parliament, gave no indication as to whether the Government accepted the report. He did not indicate how much was accepted or how little the Government may consider implementing. On the following day I asked the Minister a question, which he refused to answer. He said that he had already made a statement on the matter on the preceding day. Referring to the statement we find that the Minister said only:

Examination of the report will be put in hand immediately and the Government will, at the earliest opportunity, initiate discussions with all of the parties concerned to consider the practical implications of the recommendations made by the Committee.

The honourable member for Bowman rightly recognised that this will take a long time. On behalf of the Opposition I ask the Minister or some honourable member opposite who may have authority to speak - we know that this does not go very far - to answer a number of questions. Firstly, docs the Government accept the report? If not what part does it reject? Secondly, if there is to be an examination of the report, how long will it take? I remind the House that the Leader of the Opposition said thai if the recommendations regarding shortcomings in the health scheme, which have been known for a long time, had been put into effect earlier, much of the suffering and financial anxiety that ordinary Australians have undergone in recent years would have been prevented. How much suffering and financial anxiety is to continue while the Government has the report under examination? How long will the examination take? When does the Government intend to implement the report? These are questions to which everybody in the House and in the country should expect answers without delay.

The general recommendations of the Committee range from recommendations such as those contained on page 9 of the report. These are recommendations which, if put into effect, would take the supervision and control of the health service completely out of the hands of the Department of Health and put them in the hands of a national insurance commission of five members. This is a pretty fundamental criticism of what has happened to date. It is a severe blow to the Department and to Ministers who have been in charge of the Department over the years. Supervision of the health scheme is the Department’s biggest work, but the Committee appointed by the Government has said that in some ways things have been so bad that supervision and control of the health scheme should be taken away from the Department of Health. Could there be anything much more fundamental that that. I ask the honourable member for Bowman and the honourable member for Angas? Could there be any more fundamental criticism of what has been happening? Honourable members opposite seem to have missed this point. The Committee’s recommendation is a severe blow to the Department and everything that the Government has done. The

Committee does not give reasons for its very far reaching recommendation except to say that it wants independence. What has gone wrong? What has been wrong with the supervision of this scheme by the Department of Health - supervision which the Government’s own Committee says should be taken from the Department and put in the hands of an independent commission of five?

What is so seriously wrong with the administration of the scheme that this is the case? When a committee like the Nimmo Committee makes a recommendation as far-reaching and as fundamental as this one we have a right to hear a little more about the reasons for it. What has the Minister to say in defence of his own Department and of his own administration? What has he to say in defence of his predecessors, going right back to Sir Earle Page? What would they have to say in their own defence against this fundamental criticism? I would imagine that the Minister for Civil Aviation (Mr Swartz), who is sitting at the table, would look rather seriously at a recommendation of a Government committee that the control of the airlines of this country should be taken away from the Department of Civil Aviation and given to some independent body. Yet that is precisely the kind of recommendation that is made in the Nimmo report in regard to the Department of Health.

Honourable members opposite are in some way trying to suggest that this report is not a fundamental criticism of the health and hospitals scheme in this country. Recommendations 5, 6, 7 and 8 of the Committee have to do with the working structure of the scheme. These recommendations go to the very foundation of the system when they refer to the public hospitals scheme. Recommendations 5 and 6 say that there should be a complete change in the way in which public hospital services are made available to people in this country and that the States be asked to undertake a number of things, the first of which is to make standard ward accommodation available to every member of the community regardless of means. To my mind this is opening the door to the basic requirements of a national health scheme. I believe that the Nimmo report, in the proposition it makes in recommendation 5, is recognising what the Opposition and the Labor Party have said for 25 or 30 years. I believe that this is where a national health scheme eventually has to start. In 1943 the National Health and Medical Research Council recommended a system which would have been put into operation before now if a Labor government had been in office. This system was to be based upon a large public hospital in the centre of an area with other smaller hospitals ringing the main hospital, and with clinical centres each manned by one medical practitioner and perhaps a nurse. These centres would be rendering the service of local doctors. This would be a scheme operated by salaried personnel, and which could be expected to attract people to serve in it because they desired to do so. As the honourable member for Wills (Mr Bryant) pointed out, there is no reason why we should not have the best and most efficient service possible in such a public scheme. What is contained in recommendations 5, 6, 7 and 8 is the development of that kind of scheme.

How much would the recommendations cost and how long would it take to put them into operation? We have had no indication of these things from any Government supporter. Recommendation 20 concerns the extension of hospital services to the lower income groups. The honourable member for Sturt (Mr Wilson) had something to say about this provision, lt has been estimated that there are about 1 million people in Australia for whom the hospital and health services are loo costly and to whom they are not adequately available. But the recommendations made by the Nimmo Committee are that there should be assistance to such people equal to the full amount of contributions for standard hospital and medical coverage available to the head of a family where the amount of income is related to the minimum wage. That would be providing a service for a very small section of the community, but even if this scheme were implemented it would cost tens of millions of dollars. If this kind of scheme were extended to cover the average income earner - which it ought to - instead of the minimum income earner the cost would be far greater.

I would say that the probable cost of implementing the recommendations of the Nimmo Committee in a year would pro bably be somewhere in the vicinity of $100m. If the recommendations in the report were adopted they might save SI Om or §20m but 1 would imagine that if one settled on the evidence we have at the present time and said it would cost nearly $10Om to implement the recommendations contained in this report to fill in some of the gaps that have been revealed in the Government’s own system, one would not be exaggerating the cost of it. Of course, when one sees the cost that is involved in filling in the gaps in a scheme of this kind we have to cast our mind back to what the report stated on page 9. It said:

Whilst future increases will be necessary from time to time as costs rise, health insurance contributions are in present circumstances as high as most people are prepared to pay and as many people can afford to pay.

What that statement means is that with the costs of the health and hospital scheme rising al something like 10% a year - far more steeply than most costs are rising - they are passing beyond the capacity of the Government to pay, and of the average income earner to meet. This is, I think, the conclusion of the Nimmo Committee. If this is the case I think it is perfectly reasonable - as the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Whitlam) said - that if the Nimmo Committee had been allowed to do so it would have recommended an alternative scheme. Nothing the honourable member for Bowman (Dr Gibbs) or any other speaker on the other side of the House so far has said, except by way of their own personal assertions, has shaken that contention.

Other speakers during the course of the debate have pointed out that health schemes in all parts of the world are costly, although it must be remembered that the one in England is less costly than Australia’s and provides a much more adequate cover for the people in it. These people are sufficiently satisfied with it, according to Lord Hayter, that only 2% of the population insured for hospital treatment. The other 98% were happy to rely on the national health service. Now that we have reached our present situation we see the problem the Government has to meet. What can be done about this problem? At this stage I do not think it is within the capacity of any individual to recommend an alternative system. The present system is so complex, so tied and checked - as was the intention of Sir Earle

Page when he introduced it so that it would protect, in his view, the medical profession - that it is hardly possible for an individual to put forward a blueprint for a new scheme.

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

Mr CORBETT:
Maranoa

– We have just heard the old story that has come from the Opposition over the years, that any scheme that has the benefit of private enterprise must be wrong. Opposition supporters like to think that a committee appointed to make an inquiry would have done exactly what they believe it should have done. They could not be further from the mark. Theirs was a very neat interpretation of what the Committee might have done. Opposition supporters criticise the fact that the Committee was not given a wider scope. As a matter of fact, the terms of reference included some sixteen matters contained in references A, B and C. There was a very wide scope for the Committee to deal with, and indeed it has dealt with a very wide range of matters concerning hospital insurance. Contrary to what has been said by the Opposition, the Committee has come up with the recommendation that the present health insurance scheme should be continued. The Committee made that recommendation after carrying out a very careful examination of the Canadian Scheme.

The honourable member for Bowman (Dr Gibbs) referred to the paragraphs on the last page of appendix C which deals with the doubts about the future of the plan and the doubts about the ability to finance it without a great deal of additional cost, and I do not intend to repeat what he said in that regard. Despite what has been said, the committee of inquiry has come down on the side of the present scheme which we have in Australia and it has made certain recommendations for its improvement. I believe no-one will suggest that any scheme which is introduced is not subject to improvement. Any scheme is likely to be improved in the light of further information obtained regarding it. 1 congratulate the Committee on its report, which is certainly a valuable contribution on a very important matter. I am confident that a study of the report - 1 know that the Government will give it the study it deserves - will result in improvements being made to the scheme, which has been operating satisfactorily, which has done a very good job and in which I believe we as Australians can take justifiable pride. I said that any scheme can be improved. That is what the Government aimed to do when it set up the Committee. Surely the very fact that the Government decided to institute this committee of inquiry indicates that it wanted to have examined carefully all aspects of the national health insurance scheme. The Government was aware of the fact that it was desirable to have the scheme examined in order to bring it up to date, so far as it was possible to do so. In this way the Government is able to gain the benefit of experience in this and other countries.

There is no doubt that good health is the greatest asset which an individual can possess. Good health is the greatest asset which a nation can possess. The collective health of the community is of vital importance to the nation, and the Government is well aware of this fact. The Government set out with the aim to improve our health insurance scheme insofar as it felt that it was possible to improve it consistent with reasonable cost. I remember an interjection by an honourable member opposite who asked whether we were concerned with fees and not with people. We are concerned with people, but we are also concerned to ensure that the costs of the scheme are within the capacity of people to pay. If we extend one avenue of Government expenditure to extreme limits it is obvious that we must cut back expenditure in other avenues or perhaps get into the position in which the United Kingdom now finds itself as a result of the vaunted activities of the Labour Government about which we have heard tonight. We could be confronted with wage pegging and the unemployment problems about which we hear in the United Kingdom. We do not want to see that position in Australia. If we are not to see it here, and if we are to have a stable economy, some reasonable control of Government expenditure in all areas must be exercised. However anxious the Government is to bring about the best possible national health insurance scheme - and it is anxious to do this - it must limit the cost of that scheme to a reasonable figure and have regard to our national capacity to support the cost of the scheme. This is the only limitation which the Government should place on the scheme, and I believe that it is the one which the Government is placing on it.

I refer again to the fact that we are considering the people. The honourable member for Wills (Mr Bryant) referred to the cutting back of fees, then he followed that up by spying that he did not go along with it. He also said that in Russia the remuneration of a doctor was equivalent to the remuneration of a plumber. If this were the case in Australia how many doctors would we have, and how many doctors will they have in Russia? The honourable member more or less admitted this problem in the name breath. The honourable member Ibr Wide Bay (Mr Hansen) ought to know, if anybody does, that it is very difficult to gel doctors to go out into country areas, even though the ‘ remuneration is quite reasonable. If a reduction is made in fees and if we are to ask doctors to work for nothing, or for next to nothing, we will nol get doctors to go into country areas. Even under present conditions there is a shortage of doctors in many of our country towns. We in the Australian Country Party do not want to see that position worsen.

I referred to a comparison of the Australian scheme with the Canadian scheme and also to the fact that the Nimmo Committee has recommended a continuation of the Australian scheme, with improvements. Where a scheme can be operated successfully by voluntary participation, I believe that is preferable, and it always will be, to a scheme that is based on compulsion. We have enough compulsion in this country at the present time. Of course, the Opposition will always lean to nationalisation in any field, irrespective of whether or not a voluntary scheme is operating successfully. Nationalisation is one of the main planks on which the Opposition operates, and it brings nationalisation forward on every possible occasion. In spite of what has been said, 1 believe that the cost of operating a compulsory scheme would escalate. The fact that we have a voluntary scheme and that there is some competition in that voluntary scheme helps to control costs. We will not see an escalation in costs which we would see if we introduced a compulsory scheme under Government control. This has happened in many cases. We find costs continuing to rise and there is not the control over them which there is with reasonable competition.

The Nimmo Committee’s report also recommends that individual responsibility should be continued. The Opposition has said that the Nimmo Committee would have brought down an entirely different report if it had had the opportunity. How does the Opposition compare that statement with the Committee’s recommendation that individual responsibility should be continued? 1 believe very strongly that this policy of individual responsibility should be very much encouraged. In my opinion there is a deplorable tendency today for people to lean constantly on the Government for everything. This is not a good national outlook. It is better to have people carrying responsibility themselves. This can be done through the present voluntary scheme, with the introduction of the improvements which are required in the scheme - and I agree that improvements are needed. I go along with the principle of giving whatever assistance is possible to those people who find the greatest difficulty in meeting their costs under the scheme.

In spite of the fact that we have advocated, and do advocate, the present scheme as it stands, with the improvements which might be accepted by the Government as a result of the Nimmo Committee’s report, the Government still accepts the responsibility to exercise sufficient control over the operation of the health insurance funds in order to protect the people who contribute to the funds. To that extent, I believe it is a wise precaution. I believe it is a good idea to have that control, because it is something which tends to keep the operation of the funds under scrutiny and thus ensures the subscriber’s protection. Proposals have been made by many people regarding national health schemes. Of course, some schemes are astronomical in cost: they are out of the question. I suppose that people who think that costs do not matter at all would accept these schemes. The Government, of necessity, has to try to provide a scheme which will give the highest level of health insurance and at the same time not unduly use funds which are needed for so many other Government purposes. The Government also has to keep a stable economy. 1 would like to assure the Opposition that nothing is cf greater benefit to the working people of this country than a sound and stable economy. It is under a stable economy that people can afford to have these national health schemes and to continue them in a sound way. There is no way in which the workers of this country can be better protected than by having a stable economy. This is what the Government intends to do; it is what the Government has tried to do in many fields, including the field of national health. This is the reason why it limits in some way some benefits it would like to provide.

The Opposition, of course, with characteristic disregard of sound finance would suggest a scheme irrespective of cost providing it could bring some political advantage. I believe that healthy competition is the best guarantee of low cost operation. This opinion is borne out on page 52 of the Nimmo Committee report where it says-

Mr Hansen:

– You are supporting the free hospital scheme in Queensland?

Mr CORBETT:

– The Government in Queensland is doing a pretty good job in that field. I shall refer to that later. In the meantime, on page 52 the Committee said:

The Committee found no support at all for the often expressed view that the number of different organisations adds to the cost of the scheme. We examined the operations of a large number of friendly society and closed funds and found that their service to contributors was extremely good and that they had been the most successful organisations in keeping management expenses within proper limits. They should be encouraged to continue.

Does that follow along the lines of the argument we have heard from the Opposition that the Committee would want some other scheme altogether?

The Committee has also referred to the reserves of the funds. It has recommended that these reserves should be reduced. However, I would hope that great care will be taken in regard to the reserves of the funds. I believe it is important that these reserves should be kept at a level which will enable funds to cover emergencies and ease the burden of possible rising costs. The benefits that would accrue from the reduction of these reserves, to my way of thinking, do not justify too substantial a reduction in this field. The Committee of inquiry referred to this matter and said:

Although the reserves held by some of the organisations a’e substantial, the adjustments to contributions which would be likely if our proposal b adopted would be relatively small.

This is on its own admission-

Calculations made for the Committee indicate that few. if any, organisations will he able to make reductions exceeding tcn cents a week. This illustrates that although the question of reserve levels is an important one, it would be wrong to suggest that the policies adopted in setting aside reserves in the past have appreciably reduced the effectiveness of the scheme. A continuance of rising health costs seems inevitable and reserves held by organisations are of value to contributors in assisting a stabilisation of contribution rates. A reasonable policy for reserves being applied in this way should remove any significant problems in this area. 1 believe that it would be as well if the reserves were kept at a higher level than the Committee recommends. After all, the reserves will be there. I go along with the Committee in its suggestion that the investment should be of a trustee nature. I believe that this is a worth while precaution because of the possibility of epidemics or because of rising costs. These reserves would be a means by which the costs to the contributor could be cushioned. I believe that these reserves could well be held at a higher level than the Committee has recommended. Nevertheless the Committee commends the work that has been done in that field. The Committee states:

There has been little speculative investment by organisations and such industrial investments as have been made have generally yielded satisfactory results. However, the Committee considers that it is not appropriate that organisations of this type should depart at all from investments of a trustee nature. We recommend that a condition of registration applicable to all organisations be that their investments be confined to trustee securities under the laws of the State in which the organisations are located.

I believe that this is quite a good precaution to take.

Reference was made to Queensland. I believe that this is worth a mention. The Committee, in referring to this matter, states:

The Queensland Government has long pursued a policy of free treatment in public wards for everyone regardless of the patient’s financial state.

So long as this policy is pursued there is no real reason for Queensland people who are satisfied with public ward treatment to take out hospital insurance.

I would hope that the people of Queensland will take out hospital insurance and that they will have then the option of having either public ward treatment or treatment in private or intermediate wards. The Committee goes on to say:

In view of the Queensland Government’s policy there is no basis for an agreement between it and the Commonwealth Government on the lines we have recommended earlier. The Queensland Government’s policy gives full effect to the Commonwealth objective of affording the community adequate financial protection against the cost of hospital treatment. While the policy continues it is our view that the Commonwealth should pay its full benefit - at present $2 a day - to Queensland hospitals in respect of all public ward patients.

The honourable member for Bowman made reference to this and I am in full agreement with him. This is one of the recommendations that 1 hope will be adopted.

There were quite a number of matters that I would like to discuss but my time has almost expired. I want to conclude by saying that I feel that the Government and the Minister for Health are to be congratulated on instituting this committee of inquiry. I congratulate the Committee on the standard of the report it has brought out. I have no doubt in my mind that it will lead to a better health insurance scheme, and that it will contribute to the general health of the nation. It will, I hope, assist those who are finding some difficulty in meeting their payments. I realise that the Government will be limited in the amount of finance it can make available for this purpose. But all in all the Government has gone along in the right way. I believe that the report of the Committee, far from condemning what the Government has done, is in fact supporting it and merely suggesting improvements which should be made, I hope will bc made and I am sure will be made after the Government has had time to give the report full consideration.

I might say in reply to the honourable member for Yarra (Dr J. F. Cairns) that the answers to all the questions he asked will be provided by the Minister and the Government in due course when they have had time to study the report. The Government will apply the recommendations which in its view are acceptable and desirable. So the honourable member need not worry about not getting the answers tonight. If the answers are not provided tonight they will be provided at another time. Once again, the evidence of the Government’s intention to try to do the best it can under this scheme is the very fact that it appointed this Committee and gave it such a scope for its inquiry.

Mr McIVOR:
Gellibrand

– These promises are like snowflakes that soon melt away. That is the experience of the people of Australia as far as the national health scheme of this Government is concerned. It is not surprising to hear Government members decrying the report of the Nimmo Committee. Right down through the ages, every time emancipation for the masses has been mentioned, there have been people who have wanted to decry it and not give to people the things that humanity should give to them.

When the honourable member for Maranoa (Mr Corbett) refers to a stable economy, I want to say that the economy is not too stable for men on the basic wage who are facing large medical and hospital expenses and at the same time are trying to rear a family. I can take the honourable member into my electorate and introduce him to people who have their aged parents in private hospitals. It is costing one couple $65 a week to keep a man of 82 years in one of these institutions. Most probably it would cost only a couple of dollars a week to feed the poor old chap. People are getting into debt as they try to meet such expenses. Yet in this debate we hear diatribes such as that delivered by the honourable member for Maranoa (Mr Corbett).

Chapter 1 of the Nimmo Committee’s report is a summary of findings and recommendations. It sets out in a few lines the disgraceful inadequacies of the national health schemes in Australia. I want to refer to those findings. Firstly, in respect of terms of reference (A) and (B), in those findings were as follows:

  1. The operation of the health insurance scheme is unnecessarily complex and beyond the comprehension of many.

Can anyone disagree with that? Not one honourable member in this House could disagree with it.

  1. The benefits received by contributors are frequently much less than the cost of hospital and medical treatment.

Can anyone deny that? Certainly not!

  1. The contributions have increased to such an extent that they are beyond the capacity of some members of the community and involve considerable hardship for others.

None can deny that.

  1. The rules of many registered organisations including the so-called ‘special account’ rules permit disallowance or reduction of claims for particular conditions. The application of these rules has caused serious and widespread hardship.

Let any honourable member stand in this House and deny that finding too.

  1. An unduly high proportion of the contributions received by some organisations is absorbed in operating expenses.
  2. The level of reserves held by some organisations is unnecessarily high.

Indeed, this Government refused the Hospital Benefits Association permission to increase its benefits. The Government said: Wait until the Nimmo Committee’s report comes down.’ The report has come down and it has highlighted the fact that the reserves that many of these funds are holding are too high and should be distributed among the public by way of better benefits. The Committee’s finding in respect of term of reference (C) reads:

  1. The cost of illness may include, in addition to hospital accommodation and treatment and medical services a wide range of other services which have never been covered by the health insurance scheme. These ‘other’ services include nursing home accommodation and treatment -

And I have just referred to this - physiotheraphy, home nursing, chiropractors’ services, chiropodists’ services, optometry and dentistry. While future increases will be necessary from time to time as costs rise, health insurance contributions are in present circumstances as high as most people are prepared to pay and as many people can afford to pay.

That is what the honourable member for Yarra (Dr J. F. Cairns) said. Such is the indictment contained in these passages that one is prompted to say that they give off the sour smell of human failure. The Minister for Health* (Dr Forbes) can laugh at that.

It is not my intention to go into the recommendations contained in the report. Time does not permit me to do that. So many are the recommendations and so searching and critical are they that it would be impossible to go into them all in the time we have at our disposal. Suffice it for me to say that they reflect, to an even greater degree, the sad state of affairs of our national health scheme in Australia. It is my intention to touch on a few of the many deficiencies that exist in our health services, and my first comment will be related to paraplegics. I do not think that any other honourable member has referred to this matter. I direct attention to a submission to members of the Parliament from the Australian Paraplegic Council. In respect of rehabilitation centres and sheltered workshops the submission states:

At the present time nearly all the sheltered workshops in Australia are run by voluntary bodies-

Here again the people are carrying the responsibilities of this Government - and the result is that the workshops are too few in number because of the limited financial resources of these voluntary bodies and are uncoordinated. Present deficiencies of the sheltered workshops in most States mean that there are insufficient places for those who are in need of sheltered workshop employment and that the facilities offered are, in many instances, so sterile as to render the workshop unattractive.

Under the heading ‘Education’ the submission slates:

Many paraplegic persons are unable to return to their pre-accident employment for physical reasons. For example, a truck driver or a heavy labourer is no longer able to return to these occupations and must seek alternative and more suitable employment. All such people require the opportunity for retraining, and many of them, particularly those who are injured in early adult life, have an urgent desire to educate themselves to a higher level of employment than that which they followed prior to their accident. Several problems present themselves at the present time.

I wonder whether the Minister for Health is acquainted with these problems. The submission details them as follows:

  1. A parent is unable to claim an income tax deduction for a student who is over the age of 21 years.

The Australian Labor Party has stressed this factor time and time again in this House.

  1. The severely paralysed person who wishes to continue his education must have transport to enable him to attend a place of instruction, but a person who is not gainfully employed is unable to claim remission of sales tax on the purchase of a motor vehicle.

I have written tetter after letter about this to respective Ministers appealing to them to do something.

  1. A person over the age of 21 years is unable to commence an over age apprenticeship course, even though such training is physically within his capacity, and he would, if trained, make a valuable contribution to the national economy.
  2. It should be remembered that Commonwealth rehabilitation aid provided by the Department of Social Services is available only to a proportion of the community, such as invalid pensioners, migrants on sickness benefits who have not been resident long enough to qualify for naturalisation, and people of limited means specifically recommended by their medical practitioners. (However, the facilities of a Commonwealth rehabilitation centre are available to a person who has a compensation claim pending, but on the settlement of that claim the Commonwealth will seek reimbursement from the moneys awarded.)

The submission refers to employment and states:

The community is, in general, disinterested in the employment problems of the handicapped person.

That is a general statement but it refers primarily to this Government. It continues:

This disinterest is combined with a public ignorance of the fact that a handicapped person may be just as capable of performing a particular task as an able-bodied person. It would appear most unfortunate that a person with a physical disability is, in general, refused permanent employment in a government department, but may be employed in a temporary capacity only, even though this person has a static disability which does not affect his ability to perform the job and which will not affect his life expectation. In the absence of a positive lead from Commonwealth and State governments, it is not surprising that the attitude of the private employer is less enthusiastic than one would wish.

What an indictment by people who are unable to help themselves. In respect of long term hospital care the submission states:

There is no hospital in Australia which provides suitable long term care for paraplegic and quadriplegic patients between the ages of 16 and 65 years (60 years if female). It is emphasised that the majority of paraplegic patients will return home and to employment, but there is a hard core of those whose disability is so severe that they will be unable to return home, and will require long term nursing care for the duration of their lives. This hard core of severely disabled people, and the lack of suitable long term accommodation in Australia, leads to the following problems:

Valuable public hospital beds are blocked by these patients. In the Victorian Spinal Injuries Centre the true cost per bed per week is in excess of $210. Pure economics demand that these beds shall be kept for patients requiring active medical treatment or active rehabilitation. The cost of a long term nursing care bed can be, and should be, greatly less than this.

Some of these patients are almost evicted from public hospitals due to the pressure of acute work; these patients may then be admitted to either geriatric units in the capital city or to geriatric wards in a country hospital. This leads to the horrifying prospect of a severely disabled 20-year old being incarcerated in a ward with patients of 70 and 80 years whose mental faculties are deteriorating; the whole prospect is surely distasteful. Furthermore, one must add that the pressure on geriatric units is considerable–

I can give some details of that, Mr Deputy Speaker.

  1. . even if one is able to achieve a place for a young handicapped person in a geriatric unit it will frequently take several years to do so; in the meantime the patient is necessarily maintained in an active treatment bed in a spinal injuries centre. A patient with a long term disability, such as a quadriplegic, will also be unable to receive the necessary nursing care in a geriatric unit, as these units are usually staffed by what is virtually a skeleton staff, and certainly by a staff which is unable to provide the required quality of nursing.

This information should go on record because it is an indictment on a Government which says that it is doing all it can and is providing a national health scheme that is beyond criticism. Such is not the case. These people would not put this down in print if it were not true. They are speaking from their own experience and they know the problems that they are associated with. This Government is trying to deny that. It is a fair example of the attitude of the Government on many matters relating to public health. All care but no responsibility is the motto of the Government. I would like, but I do not have time, to read out the letter which was written to the honourable member for Bradfield (Mr Turner). I will content myself by leaving it at that. What is contained in that document from the Australian Paraplegic Council is indicative of the attitude of the Government to a lot of other things.

Many sufferers are relatives of persons of few means. When it is considered that in Melbourne alone 63,000 people are living in a state of poverty and that 40,000 of the 63,000 are children under the age of 15 years, it makes the claims of this Government that health services are adequate absolutely ludicrous. What about these people? The honourable member for

Maranoa spoke about a stable economy, but how could these people afford medical and hospital expenses? Yesterday I had occasion to try to obtain admission to the Mount Royal Geriatric Unit at Parkville for a man 92 years of age. Whilst I was successful, by the good graces of the medical superintendent, to have the admission of this man speeded up, I was astonished to learn that, as bad as I knew the position to be, it was almost impossible to gain entry for a woman into that hospital. The time lag was about 6 years. 1 mentioned the plight of these institutions during my remarks in the debate on the Home Care Programme for the Aged. I now take the opportunity to express my praise to the people who administer the Mount Royal Geriatric Unit and the home for the aged at Cheltenham and other geriatric centres. With the tremendous pressure there is on these people at all times from parliamentarians and others to get accommodation for the aged at these places and with the knowledge of the very limited funds that they have at their disposal, I say that their dedication is worthy of the highest praise.

In referring to the great limitations of accommodation al geriatric centres I also want to say that tonight we are discussing what is the greatest social issue of our time. The Nimmo report discloses without doubt that the Government has failed absolutely to come to grips with this great social issue. An indication of this can be gleaned from a statement by Professor Griffith, Professor of Hospital Administration at the University of New South Wales. He said:

To rebuild Australia’s sub-standard hospitals could cost the community more than $1.000m. lt is true to say that between I960 and 1966 hospital and medical charges rose almost three times as fast as average male earnings. Over the same period the combined weekly payments providing the maximum cover against both these expenses rose from 90c to SI. 70. Sir Earle Page said in 1953, when introducing the National Health Bill:

Thus, for a very modest contribution a contributor and hi» dependants will receive very substantial benefits which will cover the major portion of his medical expenses in the event of sickness leaving him with only a nominal sum to pay.

In regard to hospital, costs he said:

We desire to increase hospital revenues not only by direct assistance to the States but by the scheme of hospital insurance which we are convinced can extricate hospitals from their financial difficulties in the long term.

This was said in 1953, and the hospitals are still in financial difficulties. What about the nominal contributions and the substantial benefits? 1 am sure that many people in this country would like to see them. The Nimmo report shows quite categorically that the Government has failed miserably the people of this country in the matter of a national health scheme envisaged by the late Sir Earle Page. It is a well known fact that the burden of the average Australian in regard to health requirements relative to his income is twice as much as in Britain or Sweden, lt is 31% higher than in the United States of America and 11% higher than in Canada.

Referring to the aged, 1 stressed during my remarks on the Home Care Programme for the Aged debate that the staff of the Footscray City Council Home Help grew from three in 1959 to forty in 1968, and the cost to the Council rose from $4,550 in 1959 to $14,761 in 1968. Householders in receipt of this treatment paid in 1959 $924 and in 1968 $10,851. In the same time the Government grant increased from $3,402 in 1959 to $14,951 in 1968, but it was $10,651 below the contribution of the people and the Council. More revealing is the cost in 1967 to the 26 municipalities in the metropolis of Melbourne who were committed to the same scheme. In this case it cost the State Government $300,349. At the other end of the scale, however, it cost the councils $753,403 and the householders $205,074. These totals added together show that it cost the people from whose pocket the money comes in the form of rates to sustain local government the huge sum of $958,477 as against the State Government grant of $300,349. This refers to only 26 municipalities out of the 211 in Victoria.

Whilst I am not opposed to home care for the aged, 1 am opposed to this Government placing its responsibilities on the shoulders of the people. I am compelled to say that if money of this kind were channelled into geriatric centres what a transformation could be achieved not only for these institutions but also for the people they care for. I have a thought too for the relatives of the aged who care for them at considerable cost not only to their incomes but also to their own health. 1 know of many cases where the health of persons has broken down under the strain and they have found themselves in hospital. This of course means additional expense and worry to themselves and other members of their family. In conclusion, it should go on the record that the Nimmo report has rendered a service to this country. It has focused attention on the woeful mess that the national health affairs of this country are in due to the inability of this Government to cope with them. This is such a human problem and of such national importance that the glaring deficiencies that the Nimmo report has revealed can no longer be ignored.

Mr LEE:
Lalor

– Some members of the Opposition have been quite critical of the Government, but I do not think that their criticism is warranted because the Government itself is aware of some deficiencies in the national health scheme. Indeed, why would a report have been needed had this not been so? I was very gratified to see that the Prime Minister (Mr Gorton), soon after he became the leader of the Government, decided to appoint a committee to look into these problems associated with the national health scheme. This was one of his first acts as Prime Minister, and it highlighted his concern for those people in the community who were in difficulty in providing for themselves some insurance against, financial difficulties in times of sickness. Community life has become quite complex, and it is my view that in many ways we were much better off before the emergence of the welfare state. Life was at least much less complicated, but the welfare state was inevitable. We must balance the advantages of social security in times of sickness and trouble against the disadvantages of increased taxation for maintaining the funds necessary to meet the demands of people in difficulty and the countless Government forms people now have to handle.

In the days before the national health scheme those who could pay met their hospital and medical bills from their own pockets and those who could not pay were carried voluntarily by the doctor and the hospital, or their accounts were eventually wiped off as bad debts. The medical profession has always felt that it had an obligation to these people and very few have gone without medical attention, but this must have been a great worry to the people concerned. Despite this scheme, doctors and hospitals are still haunted by bad debts and one can imagine the difficulties that these unfortunate people have to face when they have to see their doctor again with an account still unpaid. Apart from the problem of chronic illness it seems to me that until we can provide for these people we are merely providing a scheme for those of us who can afford to pay for intermittent hospital and medical treatment.

This report has been eagerly awaited. Many people in my electorate have been inquiring about it. The Committee confirmed my feeling thai contributions have increased to such an extent that they are beyond the capacity of some people and involve hardship for others. This is undoubtedly true and I wonder whether a scheme is worth while when the very people who need it most are virtually eliminated by their economic position. It has been found that the operation of the health insurance scheme is unnecessarily complex and beyond the comprehension of many people. It is my view that the Commonwealth should interfere as little as possible with the lives and freedom of people, and in a sense this scheme is at present a restriction of our freedom. We have been caught up in a huge spider’s web of complexity in this health scheme. Poorer and less educated people are inclined to steer away from the scheme not only because of its cost but also because of its complexity. The harassed housewife involved in the struggle to feed and clothe her family should not have to be involved with what are to her difficult and complex forms to complete.

A doctor friend of mine has told me that bad debts are a terrible reproach to Australia generally and make general practice hardly worth while. This is a problem which it should be possible for any alterations to the national health scheme to rectify. It seems to me that the people involved must be protected and covered by new legislation, and I would hope that the Government would seriously consider this problem of those who cannot afford to be in the present scheme and also the problems of the doctors and the hospitals. I should hope that legislation will be introduced to ensure that these people are covered and protected, firstly by seeing that the needy have insurance cover. The solution of this problem would assist materially in keeping hospital and doctors’ fees to a minimum. It might even lead to negotiations for reductions in fees, as bad debts can become a very real problem. A serious matter has been raised on page 25 of the report, from which I would like to quote:

For a number of reasons, including the many uncertainties associated with hospital insurance, it has been the practice for some persons who can afford to do so, - to ‘over-insure’, i.e., to enrol in an insurance table providing benefits at a higher rate than the hospital fees they expect to incur in the event of illness. It has also been the practice in the majority of States for these persons to be paid the full amount of their insurance coverage when it exceeds the hospital account. Payments made in excess of hospital accounts are sometimes quite substantial. An estimate made for the Committee indicated that the total amount involved for Australia could be as high as $9m per annum.

The Committee believes . . that payments in excess of hospital accounts are contrary to the principles which should govern a scheme of this kind. Although the persons have been regarded as ‘insured’ or ‘covered’ for the full amount of their insurance’, their premiums do not in fact fully cover the excess payments. Their premiums are .subsidised in various ways by the Commonwealth Government through the hospital benefits scheme. We think that health funds can be put to better use than assisting to pay persons’ benefits in excess of the cost of their hospital treatment. In addition, it is possible that profit’ on the occupancy of a hospital bed may encourage over-use. We are unable to say whether cr not over-use has occurred to a significant extent because of this factor, but we nevertheless believe that any encouragement to it should be removed.

I agree with the Committee in this point of view. I believe that benefits should not be paid in excess of hospital accounts. Whether a person is over-insured in one organisation or in a number of organisations, over-payment should not be possible. In fact, it seems to me that where Commonwealth funds are involved, as in the present scheme, it should be, perhaps, a condition that a person insures in one scheme only. Problems associated with the collection of subscriptions to hospital and medical insurance schemes must give the organisa tions a great deal of difficulty and would surely be part of the reason for criticism in relation to overhead expenses. It seems to me that collection through employers should be encouraged, provided an employer was required to remit the proceeds to one organisation only. This arrangement should work very well, as it does with the group taxation scheme. I consider that small employers could, perhaps, be excluded.

I think that special credit should go to the Hospital Benefit Fund of Western Australia which seems to be a very efficient organisation. Its expense rate for the year 1967-68 was 6.2% of contribution income for the hospital fund and 10.86% of contribution income for the medical fund. This is the lowest expense rate reported by the Committee in both hospital and medical funds. Unfortunately, other figures are as high as 20.24% and 21.29% respectively. 1 am sure that the intense competition and the opening of many branch offices for the purpose of obtaining new subscribers and retaining old subscribers is largely to blame. This trend should be opposed. If funds cannot come within reasonable overheads they should go out of business. The Committee has reported, at page 53:

The majority of organisations appear to be managed economically and efficiently. But in gome areas the proliferation of branch offices, the relatively high rates of commission offered to agents and the extensive advertising undertaken, raise doubts as to whether due attention has been given by the managements of some organisations to economy of operation.

I suppose the intense competition makes heavy advertising necessary, otherwise an organisation would lose ground. But there are very many funds, and intensive advertising is a problem, and the Committee has come out against such competition. It seems to me that a condition of Commonwealth assistance should be to ensure that a code be evolved to maintain overheads and promotion to a minimum. It has been found in Canada that competition for membership between insurance organisations adds considerably to the cost of providing a health insurance service and for this reason competition is being terminated. Although generally I believe in competition, I think a large government scheme such as this requires that funds spent on promotion should be controlled.

I want to get back to the problem of low income families. If these people cannot be protected, and with them the hospitals and medical profession, from the bad debt problem, the scheme might as well be scrapped altogether. I feel that people in higher brackets really do not need a scheme such as this - at least to anywhere near the extent to which the poorer class of people needs it. I hesitate to suggest another spider web in which the public will become entangled, but if no other way can be found some provision has to be made so that these people who need hospital and medical insurance most will be adequately covered.

Some insurance funds have been good enough to provide me with some information. One of the largest funds has given me the combined salaries of the top ten executives. The average salary works out at $5,740. This is by no means an excessive salary for responsible people in charge of a large organisation. Mr R. B. Scotton of the Institute of Applied Economic Research at the University of Melbourne has done some interesting research into hospital and medical benefits. With the concurrence of honourable members I incorporate in Hansard a table supplied from a survey of living conditions in Melbourne.

This table shows the proportion of income units insured and uninsured in the Melbourne metropolitan area for 1966. For instance it shows the percentage of income units - in other words, family earning units in lower income brackets - which are not insured. In some of these lower income brackets as many units as 50% are not insured and even in the higher income brackets the percentages are reasonably large. la the $80 a week group the percentage not insured is 12.9%. In the $33 to $39 a week group the percentage of uninsured is 37.9%. In these days of high cost this group cannot afford not to be insured, particularly if they have a family and are prone to illness. In the higher income groups there is a much smaller percentage of uninsured, but even so the number is still considerable. Mr Scotton also pointed out that there has been a much larger increase in the cost of insurance cover for the lower income brackets. Referring to the fee structure of the national health scheme, Mr Scotton said:

Using taxable income as an indication of capacity to pay, we can measure the extent of regression by considering the percentage which net contributions bear to it. In the case of the Victorian contributor earning three-quarters of the average, the net contribution has risen since 1954-55 from 0.20% to 1.39% of taxable income.

That is a big rise in percentage of taxable income which has to go in contributions to the national health scheme. Mr Scotton continues;

Because of the change in classification, the calculated increase for the average earner has been even greater: from 0.16% to 1.45%. In the highest income range the net contribution has risen only from 0 21% to 0.24% of taxable income.

He wen! on to say:

Not only has the cost of insurance risen most rapidly for lower income earners but the absolute levels of contribution which they are called on to pay now involve outlays which are substantial in relation to their family budgets. lt is quite clear that the family budgets of these people are being stretched to the maximum, and in many cases the family cannot afford to be in the scheme at all. As I mentioned earlier in my speech, the Government concedes that faults have shown up in this scheme since it was first formulated, and indeed that is the reason why this

Committee was appointed. I commend the Government for taking this action, and I believe that nothing but good will come out of the inquiry.

Debate (on motion by Mr Collard) adjourned.

page 1118

INTERNATIONAL SUGAR AGREEMENT BILL 1969

Bill returned from the Senate without amendment.

House adjourned at 10.16 p.m.

page 1119

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS UPON NOTICE

The following answers to questions upon notice were circulated:

Education (Question No. 1073)

Mr Bryant:

asked the Minister for Education and Science, upon notice:

How many social work (or studies) students received Commonwealth scholarships in 1967 and 19687 How many of these received (a) living away from home allowances or (b) living at home allowances under the (i) Commonwealth university scholarship scheme and (if) Commonwealth advanced education scholarship scheme?

Mr Malcolm Fraser:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP

– lt is not possible, from the figures available, to indicate how many new Commonwealth scholarships were actually awarded to students in social work courses in 1967 and 1968. The total number of Commonwealth scholarship holders enrolled in social work and social studies courses in those years are:

1967 1968

Commonwealth university scholarships . . 452 520

Commonwealth advanced education scholarships 13 26

These figures include students enrolled in approved combined courses, comprising a course in social work for social studies and another degree course.

The number of these students who receive living allowances is not available. I am making arrangements to obtain this information in respect of scholarship holders in training in 1969. and shall pass it on to the honourable member later in the year. (Question No. 1074)

Mr Bryant:

asked the Minister for Education and Science: upon notice:

  1. How many eligible students applied for later year awards in each State in 1967 and 1968 under the Commonwealth university scholarship scheme?
  2. How many of these eligible students received later year awards in each State in 1967 and 1968?
  3. What are the criteria for awarding later year scholarships?
  4. Does the Commonwealth Scholarships Board or the Minister have a discretionary power in judging individual appeals for later year awards?
  5. How many eligible students applied for later year awards in each State in 1967 and 1968 under the Commonwealth advanced education scholarship scheme?
  6. How many of These eligible students received later year awards in each State in 1967 and 1968?
  7. Are (he conditions for receiving this award the same as for the Commonwealth university scholarship scheme?
Mr Malcolm Fraser:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP

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

I and 2. The number of eligible students who applied for later year Commonwealth university scholarships in each State for 1967 and 1968, and also the number of later year awards offered and accepted in those years are set out in the following table:

5 and 6. The number of eligible students who applied for later year Commonwealth advanced education scholarships in each State for 1967 and 1963, and also the number of later year awards offered and accepted in those years are set out in the following table:

  1. The conditions under which Commonwealth university and advanced education scholarships are made available are essentially the same, except that thelatter may be used only for approved courses of advanced education at institutions other than universities.

In addition the criteria for awarding later year advanced education scholarships are basically the same as those set out in 3. above for university scholarships. However, the number of later year advanced education scholarships offered in a particular State may also be affected if the quota of open entrance awards for that State is not filled. In this case, these unused scholarships are made available as later year awards to well qualified candidates. (Question No. 1075)

Mr Bryant:

asked the Minister for Educa tion and Science, upon notice:

  1. How many students applied for ‘independent’ scholars allowance status in 1967 and 1968 under the Commonwealth university scholarship scheme?
  2. How many received this status in 1967 and 1968?
  3. What are the criteria used for granting this independent’ scholar status?
  4. Does the Commonwealth Scholarship Board or the Minister have a discretionary power in judging individual appeals for independent scholar status?
  5. How many students applied for ‘independent’ scholars allowance status in 1967 and 1968 under the Commonwealth advanced education scholarship scheme?
  6. How many received this status in 1967 and 1968?
  7. Arethe conditions for receiving the hiatus the same as for the Commonwealth university scholarship scheme?
Mr Malcolm Fraser:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP

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

  1. Statistics of the number of students who submit applications for living allowance at independent’ rates are not available.
  2. The number of Commonwealth university scholarship holders receiving living allowance at independent’ rates at 30th June 1967 was 990. At 30th June 1968, the number was 1,174.

  3. The following categories of students may be granted living allowance at independent rates:

    1. Married scholars;
    2. Single scholars who have attained the age of 25 years before 1st January of the year for which living allowance is sought;
    3. Single scholars below the age of 25 who show that they have maintained themselves without assistance from their parents for a continuous period of 3 years immediately prior to making application for independence;
    4. Orphans; and
    5. Wards and former wards of the State.
  4. Yes.
  5. Statistics of the number of students who apply for living allowance at ‘independent’ rates under the Commonwealth advanced education scholarship scheme are not available.
  6. The number of Commonwealth advanced education scholarship holders who were receiving living allowance at independent rates at 30th June 1967 was thirty-eight. At 30th June 1968 the number was fifty-five.
  7. The conditions under which Commonwealth advanced education scholarship holders receive independent’ status are the same as those applying under the Commonwealth university scholarship scheme. (Question No. 1076)
Mr Bryant:

asked the Minister for Education and Science, upon notice:

Under the (a) Commonwealth university scholarship scheme and (b) Commonwealth advanced education scholarship scheme during each of the years 1967 and 1968-

How many married scholars received living independent’ allowances and what was the total expenditure on these allowances?

How many living allowances were paid under the category ‘Husband and wife both scholars’ and what was the expenditure on these allowances?

How many students received a wife allowance and what was the expenditure on wife allowances?

How many students received a child allowance, for how many children were the allowances paid and what was the expenditure on these allowances?

Mr Malcolm Fraser:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP

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

  1. The number of married scholars who received living allowance at ‘independent’ rates in 1967 and 1968 were- -

The amount expended on these allowances is not available. However, an indication of the amount expended may be obtained by applying the maximum rates of allowance to the numbers of married scholars in receipt of living allowance at independent rates in the years under consideration. These maxima are as follows:

It must be borne in mind, however, that the allowances are subject to a means test and the actual amounts expended would be less than the maxima. (ii), (iii) and (iv) Statistics compiled for the years 1967 and 1968 do not contain the details requested. 1 am making arrangements to obtain numbers of scholarship holders in 1969 in each of the four categories listed and shall pass this information on to the honourable member later in the year.

Expenditure under each category for 1969 will be available at the end of the year.

Means Test (Question No. 1112)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Minister for Social

Services, upon notice:

What are the terms and what is the cost of the means test proposals which the Australian Public Service Federation made to the Government in November?

Mr WENTWORTH:
MACKELLAR, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP; IND LIB from Oct 1977

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

The terms of the proposals made to the Government in November by the Australian Public Service Federation were that, pending a date for the total abolition of the means test, the following scheme should operate:

All males and females aged 65 years and 60 years respectively should be granted the fringe benefits available to aged pensioners.

A minimum age pension should be granted to those at present ineligible on the following basis:

Benefits under the National Health Act are the only fringe benefits to which a person in receipt of a pension under the Social Services Act is automatically entitled. To extend these to all persons of pensionable age would cost approximately $20m annually. Other fringe benefits provided by the Commonwealth such as concessional telephone rentals and concessional radio and television licences are all made available subject to additional qualifications related to the composition of the household in which the pensioner resides, and in these circumstances the provision of an accurate cost estimate is not practicable. However, the cost is likely to be of the order of $7.5m a year. The cost of granting the age pension on the proposed basis to all those of pensionable age qualified by residence and not resident in a mental hospital or prison. is estimated in the following table:

In addition, the majority of pensioners currently in receipt of a pension at less than the maximum rate would become eligible for an increase. It is estimated that this couldcost a further $20m annually.

Cockburn Sound Naval Base (Question No. 1125)

Mr Webb:

asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice:

  1. Did the British firm of Maunsell and Partners submit a favourable report on the feasibility of establishing a naval base at Cockburn Sound; if so, what is the action proposed?
  2. ls the Dillingham Corporation of America interested in building a drydock on Cockburn Sound; if so, are negotiations taking place?
  3. Are a naval base and docking facilities necessary on the west coast to protect Australia’s interests now that Singapore has passed from British control?
Mr Fairhall:
Minister for Defence · PATERSON, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

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

  1. The report of the consultants has been under study by the departments concerned. Views of the deportments will come before the Government in the course of its continuing defence review.
  2. lt is understood that the Dillingham Corporation has indicated an interest in the possibility of establishing a graving dock in Cockburn Sound and has been in discussions with the Western Austraiian Government.
  3. This matter is still under consideration.

National Service (Question No. J 131)

Mr Daly:
GRAYNDLER, NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice:

  1. What are the total casualties in all categories of national service trainees in Vietnam?
  2. What percentage of national service trainees in all categories have been casualties in the war in Vietnam?
Mr Fairhall:
LP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: 1 and 2. Total number of battle and non-battle casualties among national servicemen (all categories) who have served in Vietnam to 28th February 1969, and the casualties as a percentage of those who have served there:

National Service (Question No. 1132)

Mr Daly:

asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice:

What percentage of the armed forces in Vietnam has been represented by national service trainees in each year since the introduction of the national service scheme?

Mr Fairhall:
LP

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

Percentage of Australian servicemen in Vietnam represented by national servicemen in each year since the introduction of the national service scheme in June 1965:

Note- Between 30th June 1965 and 31st December 1965 two national servicemen served in Vietnam on attachment for short periods.

National Service (Question No. 1 134)

Mr Daly:

asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice:

  1. How many persons have been called up for national service training in each year since the introduction of the scheme?
  2. What is the total number to date?
  3. How many in each year have served in Vietnam?
  4. What percentage of each call-up has served in Vietnam?
  5. Of the total number called up, what percentage has served in Vietnam?
Mr Fairhall:
LP

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

  1. Number of persons called up for national service each year:
  1. Total number to 31st March 1969: 32,323.
  2. Numbers of national servicemen who have served each year in Vietnam:
  1. Percentage of each intake with service in Vietnam:
  1. Percentage of total number called up with service in Vietnam - 29.2%.

Social Services (Question No. 1138)

Mr Scholes:

asked the Minister for Social Services, upon notice:

  1. What special arrangements are made to assist children whose education is threatened because both parents are totally dependent on social service payments?
  2. If no such arrangements exist, will he consider the matter with a view to arriving at some scheme which will ensure that these children are able to complete their education?
Mr Wentworth:
LP

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

I and 2. Additional pension may be paid for children under 16 years of age in the custody, care and control of the pensioner. In the case of children who are continuing to receive full time education these provisions are extended to include children between the ages of 16 and 21 years. Child endowment is also payable for student children.

The question of whether some additional assistance may be provided for pensioners with children will be looked at in connection with the preparation of the Budget.

Winton Air Accident (Question No. 1144)

Mr Devine:
EAST SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Minister for Civil Aviation, upon notice:

  1. How many claims have been paid under the Air Accidents (Commonwealth Liability) Act 1963- 1966 to the relatives of those killed in the Viscount VH-RM1 accident at Winton on 22nd September 1966?
  2. On what dates were these claims paid?
  3. Are any claims outstanding; if so, why?
  4. Has court action been taken by some relatives against the company which operated the aircraft rather than accept compensation under the Act?
  5. If so, what cases have been heard and settled by the court and what was the result of the judgment in each case?
Mr Swartz:
LP

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

  1. Pursuant to the Civil Aviation (Carriers’ Liability) Act 1939-1962, amounts have been paid in respect of eleven claims submitted by relatives of those killed in- this accident.
  2. Because of the varied circumstances applicable to the claims, the dates on which they were paid range over some period, as follows: 1967- 20th July, 21st December, 22nd December.

13861/69*[42]

1968 - 6th February, 23rd February (two claims), 31st May, 16th September. 20 November (two claims). 1969- 20th February.

  1. There are five claims outstanding. These are all cases where there is a widow and one or more children of the deceased passenger, the settlements agreed upon earlier requiring the approval of a court Writs were issued at the request of the airline some considerable time ago, but the airline is still waiting on the representatives of the families concerned to take such further steps as may be required to apply for the court’s approval of the settlements.

The airline has made every effort to encourage and assist in the preparation of claims, and, in certain cases, has helped in the drafting of writs and other supporting documents necessary to bring the matters before the court.

  1. As indicated in 3 some court actions are involved in this matter, but these actions have not arisen as a result of dispute or because some relatives have chosen this course rather than accept compensation under the Act. Court proceedings have been commenced in eight cases at the .request of the airline, in each of which a widow and infant children were concerned. Agreement has been reached in all of these cases to settle the claims by payment of the sum of $15,000, the maximum liability established by the Act. It has then been necessary to obtain the approval of the court to these settlements and a court direction as to the proportions in which the amounts of damages are to be divided amongst the persons entitled to them pursuant to section 35 (9) of the Aci.
  2. Of the eight cases mentioned in 4, three settlements have been approved by the Supreme Court, the relevant orders being made in the terms requested by the parties, namely that a sum of SI 5,000 for damages be paid and accepted in settlement and divided in a particular way amongst the persons entitled.

Education (Question No. 1.148)

Mr Stewart:
LANG, NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Minister for Education and Science, upon notice:

  1. How many Commonwealth scholarships were offered to students in each of the States this year?
  2. How many of these scholarships were accepted?
  3. Were the scholarships which were rejected offered to students next in order? If not, why not?
Mr Malcolm Fraser:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP

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

  1. The number of offers which have been made this year in each State under the various Commonwealth scholarship schemes is set out in the following table:
  1. lt is not possible at this stage to give final figures of scholarships accepted. Arrangements will be made to supply this information to the honourable member when the figures become available.
  2. In respect of the majority of Commonwealth scholarships available each year, including open entrance scholarships under the university and advanced education schemes, the method employed to offer awards to scholarship winners enables quotas to be filled without re-offering awards which have been rejected. Under this method, known as the block offer method, the number of scholarships offered exceeds the quota to the extent of the anticipated number of rejections, a figure which is predictable from past experience. Scholarship rejections merely have the effect of bringing the number of acceptances into line with the quota and, hence, rejected scholarships are not reoffered.

This block offer method of offering awards has the substantial advantage over other methods of permitting awards to be offered quickly and in one operation. The benefit to applicants is fairly obvious; they know exactly where they stand as regards scholarship assistance at the time that the offers are made and can make their plans for the future in the light of this knowledge.

There are, however, certain types of scholarship, particularly later year and mature age awards, for which the block offer method is not suitable. There are several reasons for this. In the first place, examination results required for selection purposes become available irregularly over a period of months, with the last often being received not long before the start of the academic year. Secondly, the selection process is complex, involving comparison of students’ performances on an Australia-wide basis. Finally, since applicants are already committed to courses of study there is not quite the same urgency as with awards for new lines of study.

With these later year and mature age scholarships, offers are made progressively, starting with those to the best qualified applicants and gradually working downwards. Awards are not offered in excess of the quota and consequently those which are rejected are immediately re-offered to students standing next in order of merit. The process of re-offering rejected awards of this kind for 1969 has been proceeding in the normal way and quotas are now almost filled.

Child Endowment (Question No. 1159)

Mr Collard:
KALGOORLIE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister for Social Services, upon notice:

  1. Is it a fact that child endowment for die first or only child of a family has not been increased during the past 18 years?
  2. Is it also a fact that endowment for the second child has not been increased since the present Government came into power almost 20 years ago?
  3. Has child endowment for the third child been increased by only 50 cents during the life of the present Government.
  4. If so, by what amounts would the several payments need to be increased to give them the same purchasing power as they had in 1950 for the first child and in 1948 in relation to the second and third child?
  5. Does he intend to recommend such increases for the next Budget?
Mr Wentworth:
LP

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

  1. Endowment at 50 cents a week for the first or only child under 16 years of age in a family was introduced by the present Government in June 1950. It is relevant to mention, however, that since January 1964 endowment has been payable at $1.50 a week in respect of all student children between the ages of 16 and 21 years.
  2. Yes.
  3. Endowment for the third child under 16 years of age in a family was increased by 50%, or by 50 cents to $1.50 a week, from January 1964.
  4. Child endowment of 50 cents a week for the first child was paid from 20th June 1950. From 9th November 1948, child endowment was paid at the rate of $1 a week for all children under 16 years other than the first child. To maintain relativity, as measured by subsequent movements in the consumer price index, the current weekly rates would need to be increased by 57 cents for the first child, by $1 .48 for the second child and by 98 cents for the third child.
  5. The Government will, of course, review all social service payments, including child endowment, in connection with the preparation of the Budget, and announce its decisions in the usual way.

War Material and Equipment (Question No. 1199)

Mr Duthie:
WILMOT, TASMANIA

asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice:

  1. What was the value of war material and equipment imported into Australia during each of the years 1966-67 and 1967-68?
  2. What was the value of war material and equipment manufactured in Australia during the same years?
Mr Fairhall:
LP

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

The value of war material and equipment imported into and manufactured in Australia in 1966-67 was:

Joint Service College (Question No. 1205)

Mr Crean:
MELBOURNE PORTS, VICTORIA

asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice:

  1. Did he issue a statement on 18th July 1967 concerning long term plans for the establishment of a joint service college system and indicate that a committee would examine the matter?
  2. Who were the members of the committee?
  3. Has the committee yet submitted any recommendations or plans to the Government?
  4. Has the committee considered the value of the increased use of already established colleges as integral parts of the nearest universities using the existing educational and training facilities and combining them with a maritime, military and aviation environment?
  5. Has the committee considered the primary problem of integrating the three services by determining the point or stage at which integration should lake place (at graduate or post graduate level) or has the Government already decided this point?
Mr Fairhall:
LP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. In addition to the names of those 1 announced at the time - Sir Leslie Martin as Chair man, General Sir John Wilton and Sir Hugh Ennor - I have since appointed three other members to provide some additional expertise. The new members are Professors P. H. Partridge and G. H. Russell from the Australian National University and Mr G. E. Blakers, Deputy Secretary, Department of Defence.
  3. Early in its deliberations the Committee submitted an interim report to me seeking approval to a change in its terms of reference and foreshadowing some of its likely recommendations. The Committee is now preparing its final report and recommendations.
  4. The committee is looking comprehensively at all aspects of the problem.
  5. The committee is required to examine the question of the establishment of a joint college which would provide education at the tertiary level for officer cadets of the three Services. The wider question of whether the three Services should be integrated and if so at what point or stage, is not one which is appropriate for the Committee.

Loans on Mortgage (Question No. 1260)

Mr Barnard:

asked the Treasurer, upon notice:

Can he say how many insurance companies when advancing money by way of mortgage, insist upon the receiver taking out life insurance before the loan is approved?

Mr McMahon:
LP

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

Loans on mortgage advanced by life insurance companies fall into three main categories -

  1. Commercial
  2. Rural
  3. Housing

It is undertsood that a life insurance policy is not a usual requirement where the loan is made on the security of commercial property. As regards rural and housing loans it is a general practice to require the borrower to take out life insurance as collateral security. Most companies of longstanding by reason of giving preference to existing policyholders find that collateral security is provided by existing policies.

Taxation (Question No. 1261)

Mr Barnard:

asked the Treasurer, upon notice:

  1. When were superannuation and life insurance contributions made an allowable deduction for taxation purposes?
  2. When, and by what amount, has the maximum deduction permitted been increased?
  3. What percentage of the total deductions have deductions for life assurance and superannuation payments comprised?
Mr McMahon:
LP

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

  1. Superannuation contributions and life insurance premiums were first allowed as concessional deductions against income for the year ended 30th June 1915.
  2. Superannuation contributions were allowed as a separate concessional deduction for the years ended 30th June 1915 to 1935. The maximum deduction allowable was initially $100 but was increased to $200 for the year ended 30th June 1922 and subsequent years. Concessional deductions for life insurance premiums were fixed at a maximum of $100 for the years ended 30lh June 1915 to 1935.

For the year ended 30th June 1936 the provisions under which life insurance premiums and contributions to superannuation funds were allowed as deductions were amalgamated. The limit on the combined deduction was set at $200 and this limit applied for subsequent years.

Concessional rebates of tax were substituted for concessional deductions against income for the year ended 30th June 1942 and following years but the maximum amount of expenditure, by way of superannuation contributions and life insurance premiums on which a rebate of tax was allowed, remained at $200 until the year ended 30th June 1950 for which it was increased to S300. On the re-introduction of concessional deductions for the year ended 30th June 1951, the maximum amount allowable was increased to $400 and subsequent increases have been to $600 commencing with the year ended 30th June 1957, to $800 commencing with the year ended 30th June 1960 and $1,200 for the year ended 30th June 1968.

  1. Deductions for life insurance premiums and superannuation contributions are authorised under a provision of the income tax law which allows deductions also for premiums paid for insurance against sickness or personal injury or accident and deferred annuities as well as payments to sustentation. widows’ or orphans’ funds and friendly societies. Statistics of deductions allowed under the provision were last tabulated for the 1965-66 income year when deductions amounted to $450m or 22.8% of estimated total concessional deductions of $ 1,970m allowed under the concessional deduction provisions generally. These provisions relate to deductions in respect of the maintenance of dependants, medical expenses, funeral expenses, life insurance premiums and superannuation contributions, etc., payments to medical and hospital benefits funds and education expenses. Available statistics do not indicate the proportions of the $450m applicable to life insurance premiums as distinct from contributions to superannuation funds.

Employment (Question No. 1264)

Mr Barnard:

asked the Minister for Labour and National Service, upon notice:

  1. What is the total strength of the Australian work force?
  2. How many are (a) men and (b) women?
  3. What is the number of (a) employers, (b) self employed and (c) other employees in the work force?
Mr Bury:
LP

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

  1. At the 1966 census, which was the last time a complete count was taken, the Australian work force was 4,856,448.
  2. Of that number 3,421,808 were males and 1,434,640 females.
  3. Of the total 310,613 were employers, 384.227 were self employed and 4,038,553 were employees on wage or salary. The balance of 123,055 described themselves as unpaid helpers or were unemployed.

Social Services (Question No. 1265)

Mr Barnard:

asked the Minister for Social Services, upon notice:

In each of the past 10 years, how many applicants for an age pension have been rejected because they receive a superannuation payment?

Mr Wentworth:
LP

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

The information requested cannot be obtained from records now available in my Department. However when Commonwealth superannuation pensions were last increased 3,795 age, invalid and widow pensions were reduced and 360 cancelled in consequence.

Post Offices (Question No. 1269)

Mr Collard:

asked the PostmasterGeneral, upon notice:

  1. Does be recall saying during his speech when officially opening new post offices at Wyndham and Port Hedland that he was of the opinion that where and when possible, post offices in the north should be fully air conditioned and that he would give early consideration to the matter with respect to both Port Hedland and Wyndham?
  2. Has it now been decided to carry out such work at Wyndham, and is it intended to also air. condition the post office at Port Hedland?
  3. Have any decisions been made with regard to other post offices in the north and north-west of Western Australia? If so, what are those decisions?
Mr Hulme:
LP

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

  1. Yes. At the official opening of the new post offices at Wyndham and Port Hedland, I indicated that the Post Office, while desirous of maintaining general community standards in the facilities it provided, is in many cases restricted by the capital funds available to it Thus, while recognising the desirability of providing air conditioning at post offices in the northern parts of Australia, we have not been abb to provide it in all the places where it is justified.
  2. Yes. The air conditioning of the Wyndham and Port Hedland Post Offices is programmed to commence during the 1970-71 financial year.
  3. Yes. Following the approval by Cabinet towards the end of 1968 of the recommendations contained in the report to the Inter-departmental Committee on Air Conditioning of Commonwealth Government Buildings, action is in hand to review the overall position in respect of all Post Office buildings. In future, all new buildings constructed for the Post Office will be provided with the form of air treatment recommended by the Committee. Insofar as existing buildings are concerned, it to also proposed to progressively implement these recommendations after the review referred to above has been completed. However, it will be appreciated that the problem in respect of existing buildings is one of considerable magnitude, and the rate at which the programme of improvement can be implemented will be dependent on funds availability. In this regard highest priority will be accorded to those buildings in which comfort conditions are worst.

Social Services (Question No. 1285)

Mr Webb:

asked the Minister for Social

Services, upon notice:

  1. Can he say whether many children of civilian widows are forced to leave school without completing their education because of the financial circumstances of the widow?
  2. Will he give consideration to providing an education allowance for the children of civilian widows similar to that provided for the children of war widows?
Mr Wentworth:
LP

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

  1. No.
  2. A widow pensioner may receive additional pension for children under 16 years of age who are in her custody, care and control. In the case of children who are continuing to receive full time education these provisions are extended to include children between the ages of 16 and 21 years. These allowances are payable in addition to child endowment for student children.

The question of whether some additional assistance may be provided for widows with children will be looked at in connection with the preparation of the Budget.

West Irianese Refugees (Question No. 1303)

Dr J F Cairns:
YARRA, VICTORIA · ALP

ns asked the Minister for

External Affairs, upon notice:

What has happened to each of the Indonesians who recently travelled by sea on a raft from Merauke in West Irian and were later sent to New Guinea?

Mr Freeth:
Minister for External Affairs · FORREST, WESTERN AUSTRALIA · LP

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

All eight West Irianese are now at Weam in the Western District of Papua and have applied for permissive residence in the Territory of Papua and New Guinea According to the procedure established for West Irianese who cross the border into the Territory claiming to be refugees, the case for permissive residence of each individual will now be investigated in the Territory. In due course reports of these investigations will be forwarded to Canberra where decisions concerning the applications of these individuals will be taken by the Ministers for External Affairs and External Territories.

Ambassadors and High Commissioners (Question No. 1315)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Minister for

External Affairs, upon notice:

On what dates have new Ambassadors and High Commissioners presented their letters of credence and commission to the Governor-General last year and this?

Mr Freeth:
LP

– The following answer is now provided:

The Department of External Affairs issues from time to time a diplomatic list in which is set out the information required by the Leader of the Opposition. Since the publication of the new list in January 1969, the following additions should be made:

Ambassador of Spain - 6th February 1969.

Ambassador of South Africa - 7th February 1969.

Ambassador of Finland - 7th February 1969.

Vietnam (Question No. 1325)

Dr Everingham:
CAPRICORNIA, QUEENSLAND

asked the Minister for

External Affairs, upon notice:

What is the Australian contribution to Vietnam, up to 30th June 1968 or later, by way of (a) defence expenditure, (b) civil aid by Government decision and (c) civil aid by voluntary subscription?

Mr Freeth:
LP

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

The Australian contribution to Vietnam up to 30th June 1968 was:

Defence expenditure, $76.354 million (which represents the excess over normal costs in Australia of the military forces).

Civil aid by Government decision, $14,664,300.

Civil aid by voluntary subscription, estimated to be more than $750,000. (Question No. 1326)

Dr Everingham:

asked the Minister for

External Affairs, upon notice:

What progress has been made with (a) the architect’s plans for Bien Hoa hospital improvements and (b) training Vietnamese to service and maintainthe water, sewerage, electrical and X-ray plant and other improvements provided or projected as at 30th June 1968 or later?

Mr Freeth:
LP

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

  1. The architect’s plans for the Bien Hoa hospital improvements have been completed.
  2. The Australian construction team working on the improvements of the Bien Hoa hospital arc training their Vietnamese counterparts in the servicing and maintenance of the new facilities and satisfactory progress is being made.

Improvements to 30th June 1968 -

  1. New sewerage and water reticulation system for the hospital completed;
  2. improvements and additions to the surgical suite - including new rest room for the surgical staff, new toilet facilities and renovations to operating theatres and recovery ward - completed.

Improvements undertaken since 30th June 1968-

  1. New kitchen and laundry block with relevant equipment;
  2. second stage of renovations to surgical suite, including enlarged recovery ward and dressing clinics, new emergency theatre and plaster room and a new burns bath;
  3. additions and alterations to the X-ray block;
  4. new incinerator;
  5. extension to morgue;
  6. new tuberculosis and isolation wards arc to be erected during April 1969. ( (ii) to (v) are completed or are nearcompletion.)

Projected improvements to be started in May 1969-

  1. New covered-ways between wards and surgical suite;
  2. alterations and renovations to the outpatients and private ward;
  3. new roads and parking areas within the hospital complex. (Question No. 1327)
Dr Everingham:

asked the Minister for

External Affairs, upon notice:

What Vietnamese liaison and co-operation has occurred with Australian and other civil aid teams in medical and other fields, and, in particular, what are the plans for liaison with (a) medical students, (b) nursing students, (c) convent hospitals, (d) mental hospitals, (e) diplomatic officers, (f) military officials, and (g) other administrative levels?

Mr Freeth:
LP

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

There has been close liaison and co-operation at all levels and in all relevant fields of activity between the Vietnamese authorities and Australian civil aid teams and other Australian officials in

Vietnam responsible for administering Australia’s civil aid programme. The specific forms of such liaison and co-operation has naturally varied according to the field or project to which it has been related. Details of Vietnamese liaison and co-operation with other civil aid teams in medical and other fields are not known. (Question No. 1328)

Dr Everingham:

asked the Minister for

External Affairs, upon notice:

  1. What has Australia spent, up to 30th June 1968, on aid to Vietnam under the SEATO Aid Programme in the fields of (a) building tools and materials, blankets and other general welfare supplies, training and assistance, (b) rural and industrial supplies, training and assistance and (c) medical supplies, training and assistance?
  2. What has been the expenditure in other fields?
Mr Freeth:
LP

– The following answer is now supplied:

The answer to this question depends on how one defines the terms and classifications. Subject to that qualification, the expenditures to 30th June 1968 were divided as follows:

Building tools and materials, blankets and other general welfare supplies and assistance, $3,873,800;

rural and industrial supplies, no expenditure;

medical supplies and assistance,$1,558,400;

other, $2,461,800. (Question No. 1329)

Dr Everingham:

asked the Minister for

External Affairs, upon notice:

What amount was spent up to 30th June 1968 on training awards for Vietnamese students in Australia under the Colombo Plan in the fields of (a) engineering, (b) economics, (c) science, (d) education, (e) aviation, (f) medicine and (g) other tertiary studies?

Mr Freeth:
LP

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

Total expenditure on training Vietnamese under the Colombo Plan up to 30th June 1968 was $1,784,900. The numbers of students who had completed courses, or were undertaking training in Australia at 30th June 1968 are given below by fields of study:

(Question No. 1330)

Dr Everingham:

asked the Minister for

External Affairs, upon notice:

  1. What is the comparativecost of equipment supplied by Australia to Vietnam under the technical assistance programme up to 30th June 1968 in the fields of (a) education, (b) agriculture, (c) fire fighting, garbage disposal, roads and other local works and (d) medicine?
  2. What is the comparative cost in other fields?
Mr Freeth:
LP

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

Expenditures to Vietnam under Australia’s technical assistance’ programme to 30th June 1968 were:

Education, 8452,800;

agriculture,$386,800;

fire fighting, garbage disposal, roads and other local works, 332,300;

medicine, $86,800;

other, $2,295,900, comprised of:

telecommunications $564,483;

social services and community welfare, $1,633,726;

miscellaneous, $97,691. (Question No. 1136)

Dr Everingham:

asked the Minister for

External Affairs, upon notice:

Can the Minister give an assurance that Australia’s economic development aid to South Vietnam under the Colombo Plan, comprising the supply of more than $3.5m worth of goods up to 30th June 1968, as distinct from equipment supplied by Australia to South Vietnam worth more than$1m in the technical assistance programme under the Colombo Plan, was used for communal welfare and was not corruptly appropriated or wastefully neglected?

Mr Freeth:
LP

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

There has been no evidence that those goods supplied under the Colombo Plan aid programme were corruptly appropriated or wastefully neglected.

Market Square Post Office, Geelong (Question No. 1256)

Mr SCHOLES:
CORIO, VICTORIA · ALP

asked the Postmaster-

General, upon notice:

What progress has been made with plans to re-locate the Market Square Post Office, Geelong, in more adequate premises?

When is it anticipated that new premises will be in use?

Mr Hulme:
LP

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

  1. A substantially larger area than that occupied by the existing post Office is now being fitted out on the ground floor of the premises at No. 52 Yarra Street, Geelong. These are next to the existing office, and leasing arrangements have been made recently.
  2. It is expected that the Post Office will open for business at the new address on the 5th May 1969.

Television (Question No. 1154)

Mr Collard:

asked the Postmaster-

General, upon notice:

  1. Have any investigations been carried out in relation to the possibility of extending television to Carnarvon and Port Hedland?
  2. If so, has anything definite been established as a result of the investigations, and is it likely that television will be extended to those centres within the next 3 years?
Mr Hulme:
LP

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

There are difficult economic and technical problems associated with the provision of television service to relatively remote and sparsely populated centres such as Carnarvon and Port Hedland. Nevertheless, the Australian Broadcasting Control Board has the matter of the possibilities of the further extension of the television services under constant review and I have received a report from the Board concerning the extension of television to a number of remote parts, including Port Hedland and Carnarvon. The report will be submitted for the Government’s consideration. I am unable to make any comments on the prospects of provision of television to Port Hedland and Carnarvon until the Board’s report has been fully considered especially in view of the difficulties about the matter and the fact that other areas throughout the Commonwealth also have to receive consideration.

Postal Services (Question No. 1208)

Mr Daly:

asked the Postmaster-General, upon notice:

  1. What period should elapse before a first class mail letter posted at the General Post Office, Sydney, at 12.45 p.m. on a week day is delivered in Canberra?
  2. Has he received any complaints regarding delay in delivery of letters posted in Sydney for Canberra?
Mr Hulme:
LP

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

  1. A letter posted at the GPO, Sydney, at 12.45 p.m. Monday to Friday and eligible for air conveyance should be delivered in Canberra, City and suburbs, the following morning. A letter similarly posted on a Tuesday, Thursday or Friday and not eligible for air conveyance should also be delivered in Canberra, City and suburbs, the following morning. However, the latter article if posted at 12.45 p.m. on a Monday or Wednesday would be delivered one delivery later because there is no suitable rail service from Sydney to Canberra on Mondays and Wednesdays which permits mail being delivered the following morning.
  2. On some occasions this standard of service is not achieved because of mail volumes or staff shortages and some complaints have been received as a result. The numbers, however, are not significant in relation to the large volume of letter mail processed each day which is of the order of 2.5m items.

Postal Services (Question No. 1209)

Mr Daly:

asked the Postmaster-General, upon notice:

Can he say why a letter posted at the General Post Office, Sydney, on Tuesday, 25th February 1969, at 5 p.m. and correctly stamped, was not delivered in Canberra until Friday, 28th February 1969?

Mr Hulme:
LP

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

An ordinary letter posted at the GPO, Sydney, at 5 p.m. on Tuesday, 25th February 1969, should have been delivered in Canberra on Wednesday, 26th February. If the honourable member would make the envelope available, I would be happy to make further inquiries.

Australian Broadcasting Commission (Question No. 1204)

Dr Everingham:

asked the Postmaster-

General, upon notice:

  1. Are programme producers for the Australian Broadcasting Commission inhibited, as compared with those in commercial studios, by having to circulate a memorandum to the offices of at least four superiors before permission is granted to interview a parliamentarian?
  2. Were producers also hampered in providing scenarios for 3 days on one occasion because of the lack of an Authority to Incur Expenditure form which was needed to order printing of more such forms?
  3. Has discrimination been used against a female in any - recent appointment by the Commission?
  4. Will he consider the advisability of (a) indemnifying senior officials for reasonable delegation of authority to reduce ‘red tape’ and (b) directing that no unfair discrimination shall occur in appointments?
Mr Hulme:
LP

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

  1. No.
  2. No.
  3. No.

  4. –

    1. The authority to make decisions and incur expenditure is delegated throughout the ABC to responsible officers in accordance with sound administrative practice.
    2. No discrimination occurs in appointments. A number of senior radio and TV positions in the ABC’s service are occupied by females. For example, the Assistant Director of Education.

Prune Industry: Devaluation Compensation (Question No. 1194)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Minister for

Primary Industry, upon notice:

  1. Is it a fact that the Government has paid no compensation to the prune industry for its losses due to the devaluation of sterling?
  2. Would the amount involved have been approximately $27,620?
  3. As this industry usuallly exports 60% of the crop at world prices without any government assistance whatever, why was it singled out by being denied compensation?
Mr Anthony:
CP

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

  1. and 2. The claim submitted on behalf of the prune industry amounted to $27,620.23. The claim consisted entirely of immediate losses at devaluation, that is losses which could have been avoided if the exporters concerned had taken advantage of the forward exchange cover facilities provided by the Reserve Bank. As such, the losses were ineligible for compensation as they could not meet the basic criterion of being unavoidably the result of devaluation.
  2. The prune industry was not singled out in this respect. The Government decision to compensate for devaluation losses applied to losses demonstrably and unavoidably the result of sterling devaluation. Other industries also dependent on export markets claimed for immediate losses at devaluation which were likewise ruled ineligible. The forward exchange cover facilities of the Reserve Bank were available to the private exporters in these industries and consequently the losses claimed could not meet the basic criterion’.

Australian Agricultural Council (Question No. 1281)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Minister for

Primary Industry, upon notice:

What requests or suggestions were made at the meeting of the Agricultural Council in Hobart in March for legislative or administrative action by (a) the Commonwealth, (b) the Territories and (c) the States?

Mr Anthony:
CP

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

The following matters requiring legislative or administrative action were considered by the Australian Agricultural Council at its meeting in Hobart in March 1969:

Drought - Commonwealth and State Action.

Devaluation - Effects on Rural Industries - Commonwealth Action.

Wheat Stabilisation - Commonwealth and State Action.

Possible Marketing and Storage Difficulties - Wheat - Commonwealth and State Action.

Tobacco Industry - Commonwealth and State Action.

Cotton Bounty - Commonwealth Action.

Dried Vine Fruits - Statutory Marketing Organisation Proposals - Commonwealth and State Action.

Dried Vine Fruits - Stabilisation Scheme - Commonwealth Action.

Dried Vine Fruits Research Committee - Commonwealth Action.

First Shipping Date for Granny Smith ApplesCommonwealth and State Action.

Co-ordinating Committee on Pesticides - Commonwealth, Territory and State Action.

Control of Multi Resistant Cattle Ticks in Queensland - Commonwealth, Territory and State Action.

Export Abattoir Registration - Suspension - Commonwealth and State Action.

Imitation Meats - Commonwealth and State Action.

Australian Meat Research Committee - Commonwealth Action.

Dairy Farm Development - Commonwealth, Territory and State Action.

Reconstruction of Dairy Industry - Commonwealth and State Action.

Dairy Industry Equalisation - Commonwealth and State Action.

Imitation Milk - Slate Action.

Interstate Dealings in Milk - State Action.

Margarine - State Action.

Eighteenth International Dairy Congress - Commonwealth and State Action.

Excess Water in Frozen Chickens - State and Territory Action.

Broiler Stabilisation Scheme - State Action.

Release of Information - Commonwealth Action.

Commonwealth Extension Services Grant - Commonwealth Action.

Standing Committee on Soil Conservation - Commonwealth, Territory and State Action.

Eradication of Brucellosis and Tuberculosis in Cattle - Commonwealth, Territory and Slate Action.

Eradication of Contagious Bovine Pleuropneumonia - Commonwealth, Territory and State Action.

Interstate Movement of Livestock - Territory and State Action.

Third World Conference on Animal Production - Commonwealth and State Action.

Export Controls on Stockfeeds - Commonwealth, Territory and State Action.

Tractor Testing - Commonwealth and State Action.

Uniform Aerial Spraying Control Legislation - Commonwealth and Stale Action.

Plant Quarantine Publicity - Commonwealth, Territory and State Action.

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development - Seed Certification Scheme - Commonwealth and State Action.

Unregistered Cereal Varieties - State Action.

Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture and Animal Husbandry - Commonwealth and State Action.

Roads: Classification (Question No. 1107)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Minister for Shipping and Transport, upon notice:

  1. When was the definition of rural roads first inserted in Commonwealth legislation?
  2. Will road mileage statistics have been developed to match this definition by the time that legislation is introduced for the next period of the Commonwealth Aid Roads Act?
  3. Why have such statistics not been developed hitherto? (Hansard, 28th November 1968, page 3499)
  4. Have any steps been taken to develop such statistics? If so, when and how7
Mr Sinclair:
CP

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

  1. The Commonwealth Aid Roads and Works Act 1947 made provision for a specific amount to be expended upon construction, reconstruction, maintenance and repair of roads through sparsely populated areas, timber country and rural areas, or upon the purchase of road making plant in areas where the purchase of such was beyond the resources of local authorities. A proviso was added that the amount should not, except wilh the approval of the Minister, be expended on a State highway, main road or trunk road.

The 19S0 Commonwealth Aid Roads Act required a percentage of the grant to be expended on roads in rural areas (including developmental roads, feeder roads, roads in sparsely populated areas and in soldier settlement areas and roads in country municipalities and shires) but not roads, which were highways, trunk roads or main roads. The 1954 Commonwealth Aid Roads Act included a specific definition in the terms of the 1950 provision, and this definition has been included in all Acts up to and including the 1964 Act. 2, 3 and 4. Road mileage statistics in respect of rural roads as defined in the present Commonwealth Aid Roads Act have not been developed because the roads falling within this definition do not correspond precisely in the various States. In other words it has not been possible to arrive at a uniform system of classification of these roads throughout the Commonwealth.

Consideration is being given to the question of definitions of the various classes of roads for which provision will be made under the next Act. and to the development nf mileage statistics in respect nf such classes,

Melbourne- A Albury-Junee Railway (Question No. 1109)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Minister for Shipping and Transport, upon notice:

Now that two head-on crashes have occurred in the last two years on the single standard gauge railway between Melbourne and Wodonga, has consideration been given to duplicating that railway and also the railway between Albury and Junee?

Mr Sinclair:
CP

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

Melbourne-Wodonga Standard Gauge Railway

The Victorian Government Railways, which is predominantly responsible for construction and maintenance of this line, has not submitted any proposals for duplication of this line.

Albury-Junee Standard Gauge Railway

The New South Wales Government Railways, which is predominantly responsible for construction and maintenance of this line, regards the present single track as sufficient to handle the present volume of traffic. As advised in reply to an earlier question, work has been undertaken recently on extension to one crossing loop and plans for the building of two additional crossing loops are under consideration. If at any stage the New South Wales Government should suggest that there is a necessity for duplication of this line, then it would be considered by the Commonwealth Government.

World Health Organisation (Question No. 1235)

Mr Cross:
BRISBANE. QLD

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice:

In relation to the application of the German Democratic Republic to become a member of the World Health Organisation at the 21st World Health Assembly, did Australia (a) abstain from voting, (b) vote in favour of the application or (c) vote against the application?

Dr Forbes:
Minister for Health · BARKER, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · LP

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

Australia voted against the application of the German Democratic Republic to become a member of the World Health Organisation at the 21st World Health Assembly.

Health (Question No. 1236)

Mr Cross:

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice:

  1. When he answered Question No. 144 on 27th August 1968 (Hansard, page 60S) had the attention of his Department been drawn to detailed estimates by the Institute of Applied Economic Research of the University of Melbourne in December 1967 in the publication, The Cost and Sources of Finance of Australian Health Services?
  2. Does his Department regard these estimates as reliable?
Dr Forbes:
LP

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

  1. Yes.

    1. Yes. However, since the estimates covered only the years 1960-61 and 1963-64, they were not regarded as suitable for the purposes of answering Question 144, in which the honourable member sought details of expenditure by the Australian people on health services during each of the preceding 10 years.

Department of Health Publications (Question No. 1238)

Mr Cross:

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice:

  1. Has the Research Section of his Department published any reports or findings similar to the Public Health Service Publications of the United States Department of Health, Education and Welfare?
  2. If so, what are they?
  3. If similar reports have not been published, will he give consideration to producing such publications as a regular function of the Department?
Dr Forbes:
LP

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

  1. The Research Section of the Commonwealth Department of Health is not constituted on a scale designed to furnish comprehensive information in the manner undertaken by the United States Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, and, therefore, its reports and findings are not of comparable range and magnitude.
  2. During recent years, a number of articles prepared by the staff of the Research Section have been published in the quarterly journal Health*. The topics dealt with in these articles were as follows:

Medicare and the Pensioner Medical Service.

The National Morbidity Survey.

Private Nursing Home Costs.

Hospital Beds and Finance.

The Financing of Public Hospitals.

Hospital Insurance in Canada.

Dissections of Health Spending.

Home Nursing in Australia.

  1. While an undertaking cannot be given that reports in the manner of those prepared by the United States Department of Health, Education, and Welfare will be produced by the Research Section of my Department, it is intended that articles on suitable topics will be published from time to time.

Voluntary Fund for Health Promotion (Question No. 1239)

Mr Cross:

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice:

  1. How much has the Government contributed to the Voluntary Fund for Health Promotion since it was established in 1960 by the World Health Organisation?

    1. Can he say how much has been contributed by private organisations and individuals in Australia?
    2. What publicity ha> the Government given to the Fund?
    3. Do contributions by taxpayers lo this Fund attract an allowable concession for taxation purposes?
Dr Forbes:
LP

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

  1. The Government does not contribute to the Voluntary Fund for Health Promotion. However, Australia’s contribution to the World Health Organisation has risen from $277,984 in 1960-61 to $785,684 in 1968-69.
  2. It is not known if anything has been contributed by private organisations and individuals in Australia.
  3. The Government gives publicity through its distribution of World Health Organisation literature, particularly the publication ‘World Health’.
  4. This is a mailer for consideration by my colleague, the Treasurer.

Port Augusta- Why aiia Railway (Question No. 1286)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Minister for Shipping and Transport, upon notice:

Has the Commonwealth Railways Commissioner submitted his reports on the (a) survey and (b) priority of the proposed railway between Port Augusta and Whyalla (Hansard, 10th September 1968, page 877, 25th September J 968, page 1518 and 22nd October 1968, page 2217). If so, on what dale did he do so?

Mr Sinclair:
CP

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

The reports mentioned were submitted on 21st January 1969. They are receiving consideration by the Government.

Port Augusta-Alice Springs Transport (Question No. 1287)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Minister for Shipping and Transport, upon notice:

  1. On what dates and at what distances from Alice Springs have trains been stopped by floods on the Central Australia Railway since he answered my last question on this subject on 20th August 1968 (Hansard, page 359)?
  2. On what dates has the Inter-departmental Committee met to consider the report which the Commonwealth Railways Commissioner submitted on 26th June 1967 on alternative routes between Port Augusta and Alice Springs?
  3. When does he expect to receive the survey by Messrs Pak-Poy and Associates of passenger and freight traffic by rail, road and air between Port Augusta and Alice Springs?
Mr Sinclair:
CP

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

  1. In February 1969 one train was delayed for 4 hours 184 miles south of Alice Springs.
  2. Meetings of the Inter-departmental Committee have been held on 11th October 1968 and 26th February 1969. The Committee has set up a working group which has met on seven occasions, and will continue regular meetings until a report has been drafted.
  3. The report by Messrs Pak-Poy and Associates on the result of their survey will be supplied during April 1969, and will be used in the compilation of the Inter-departmental Committee’s report.

Home Nursing Subsidies (Question No. 1297)

Mr Charles Jones:
NEWCASTLE, VICTORIA · ALP

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice:

  1. How many organisations have received subsidy under the Home Nursing Subsidy Act 1956?
  2. How much have these organisations received each year?
Dr Forbes:
LP

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

Immigration (Question No. 1307)

Mr DalY:

asked the Minister for Immigration, upon notice:

How many assisted migrants from all countries have been admitted to Australia in each of the past 5 years?

Mr Snedden:
Minister for Immigration · BRUCE, VICTORIA · LP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: lt is understood that the honourable member requires total figures only. The numbers of assisted migrants who arrived in the financial years 1963-64 to 1967-68 and in the first eight months of 1968-69 were:

Immigrants from Japan (Question No. 1308)

Mr Daly:

asked the Minister for Immigration, upon notice:

  1. How many Japanese have been admitted into Australia in each of the last five years?
  2. Of those admitted, how many were (a) students, (b) tradesmen, (c) professional personnel and (d) other categories?
Mr Snedden:
LP

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

  1. During the last five years the number of Japanese who entered Australia under all categories was:

Prior to the Government’s review of immigration policy in March 1966 the entry of Japanese as migrants was confined to spouses, unmarried minor children, aged parents and fiances or fiancees of Australian citizens or of other persons having resident status in this country. The majority of Japanese admitted as migrants come within these categories. Since the policy review, however, there has been provision for the migrant entry of well qualified persons on the basis of their suitability as settlers, their ability to integrate readily and their possession of qualifications positively useful to Australia.

Between March 1966 and 31st December 1968 five well qualified Japanese (together with nine dependants) arrived. Their occupational classification and year of arrival are:

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 15 April 1969, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1969/19690415_reps_26_hor62/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant