House of Representatives
28 October 1971

27th Parliament · 2nd Session



Mr ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Lucock) took the chair at 10.30 a.m., and read prayers.

page 2661

PETITIONS

Lake Pedder

Mr WHITLAM:
WERRIWA, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I present the following petition:

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

That Lake Pedder, situated in the Lake Pedder National Park in South-West Tasmania, is threatened with inundation as part of the Gordon River hydro-electric power scheme.

That an alternative scheme exists, which, if implemented would avoid inundation of this lake.

That Lake Pedder and the surrounding wilderness area are of such beauty and scientific interest as to be of a value beyond monetary consideration.

And that some unique species of flora and fauna will be in danger of extinction if this area is inundated.

Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Federal Government take immediate steps to act on behalf of all Australian people to preserve Lake Pedder in its natural state. AH present and particularly future Australians will benefit by being able to escape from their usual environment to rebuild their physical and mental strength in this unspoilt wilderness area. And your petitioners as in duty bound, will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

Lake Pedder

Dr EVERINGHAM:
CAPRICORNIA, QUEENSLAND

– I present the following petition:

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

That Lake Pedder, situated in the Lake Pedder National Park in South-West Tasmania, is threatened with inundation as part of the Gordon River hydro-electric power scheme.

That an alternative scheme exists, which, if implemented would avoid inundation of this Jake.

That Lake Pedder and the surrounding wilderness area are of such beauty and scientific interest as to be of a value beyond monetary consideration.

And that some unique species of flora and fauna will be in danger of extinction if this area is inundated.

Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Federal Government take immediate steps to act on behalf of all Australian people to preserve

Lake Pedder in its natural state. All present and particularly future Australians will benefit by being able to escape from their usual environment to rebuild their physical and mental strength in this unspoilt wilderness area.

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

Petition received.

Lake Pedder

Mr GARRICK:
BATMAN, VICTORIA

– I present the following petition:

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

That Lake Pedder, situated in the Lake Pedder National Park in South-West Tasmania, is threatened with inundation as part of the Gordon River hydro-electric power scheme.

That an alternative scheme exists, which, if implemented would avoid inundation of this lake.

That Lake Pedder and the surrounding wilderness area are of such beauty and scientific interest as to be of a value beyond monetary consideration.

And that some unique species of flora and fauna will be in danger of extinction if this area is inundated.

Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Federal Government take immediate steps to act on behalf of all Australian people to preserve Lake Pedder in its natural state. All present and particularly future Australians will benefit by being able to escape from their usual environment to rebuild their physical and mental strength in this unspoilt wilderness area. And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.

Petion received.

Aid for Pakistani Refugees: Taxation

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

That death from mass starvation and disease is occurring among Pakistan’s refugees on a scale unprecedented in modern history.

That, as part of the world community, the Australian Government has an immediate responsibility for concerted action.

That present Government aid to the refugees in India is meagre and shameful for a country of Australia’s position and wealth. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled, should:

Increase monetary aid for the refugees in India to at least $10,000,000 immediately and make provision for a further and extra grant for the victims of the famine in East Pakistan.

Grant tax deductibility to donations of $2 and over to Australian voluntary agencies working with the refugee problem.

Ensure that the Australian Government does all in its power to help bring about a political settlement which would be acceptable to the people of East Pakistan.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

Aid for Pakistani Refugees: Taxation

Mr BENNETT:
SWAN, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I present the following petition:

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House or Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully sheweth:

That death from mass starvation and disease is occurring among Pakistan’s refugees on a scale unprecedented in modern history.

That, as part of the world community, the Australian Government has an immediate responsibility for concerted action.

That present Government aid to the refugees in India is meagre and shameful for a country of Australia’s position and wealth.

Your petitioners most humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled, should:

Increase monetary aid for the refugees in India to at least $10,000,000 immediately and make provision for a further and extra grant for the victims of the famine in East Pakistan.

Grant tax deductibility to donations of $2 and over to Australian voluntary agencies working with the refugee problem.

Ensure that the Australian Government does all in its power to help bring about a political settlement which would be acceptable to the people of East Pakistan.

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

Petition received.

Aid for Pakistani Refugees: Taxation

Mr SHERRY:
FRANKLIN, TASMANIA

– I present the following petition:

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

That death from mass starvation and disease is occurring among Pakistan’s refugees on a scale unprecedentedin modern history.

That, as part of the world community, the Australian Government has an immediate responsibility for concerted action.

That present Government aid to the refugees in India is meagre and shameful for a country of Australia’s position and wealth.

Your petitioners most humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled, should:

Increase monetary aid for the refugees in India to at least $10,000,000 immediately and make provision for a further and extra grant for the victims of the famine in East Pakistan.

Grant tax deductibility to donations of $2 and over to Australian voluntary agencies working with the refugee problem.

Ensure that the Australian Government does all in its power to help bring about a political settlement which would be acceptable to the people of East Pakistan.

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

Petition received.

Aid for Pakistani Refugees: Taxation

Mr KIRWAN:
FORREST, WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP

– I present the following petition:

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

That death from mass starvation and disease is occurring among Pakistan’s refugees on a scale unprecedented in modern history.

That, as part of the world community, the Australian Government has an immediate responsibility for concerted action.

That present Government aid to the refugees in India is meagre and shameful for a country of Australia’s position and wealth.

Your petitioners most humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. should:

Increase monetary aid for the refugees in India to at least $10,000,000 immediately and make provision for a further and extra grant for the victims of the famine in East Pakistan.

Grant tax deductibility to donations of $2 and over to Australian voluntary agencies working with the refugee problem.

Ensure that the Australian Government does all in its power to help bring about a political settlement which would be acceptable to the people of East Pakistan.

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

Petition received.

Aid for Pakistani Refugees: Taxation

Mr ENDERBY:

– I present the following petition:

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully sheweth.

That death from mass starvation and disease is occurring among Pakistan’s refugees on a seals unprecedented in modern history.

That, as part of the world community, the Australian Government has an immediate responsibility for concerted action.

That present Government aid to the refugees in India is meagre and shameful for a country of Australia’s position andwealth.

Your petitioners most humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled, should:

Increase monetary aid for the refugees in India to at least $10,000,000 immediately and make provision for a further and extra grant for the victims of the famine in East Pakistan.

Grant tax deductibility to donations of $2 and over to Australian voluntary agencies working with the refugee problem.

Ensure that the Australian Government does all in its power to help bring about a political settlement which would be acceptable to the people of East Pakistan.

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

Petition received.

Aid to Pakistani Refugees: Taxation

Dr JENKINS:
SCULLIN, VICTORIA

-I present the following petition:

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament Assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectively sheweth:

That death from mass starvation and disease is occurring among Pakistan’s refugees on a scale unprecedentedin modern history.

That, as part of the world community, the Australian Government has an immediate responsibility for concerted action.

That present Government aid to the refugees in India is meagre and shameful for a country of Australia’s position and wealth.

Your petitioners most humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament asembled. should:

Increase monetary aid for the refugees in India to at least $10,000,000 immediately and make provision for a further and extra grant for the victims of the famine in East Pakistan.

Grant tax deductibility to donations of$2 and over to Australian voluntary agencies working with the refugee problem.

Ensure that the Australian Government does all in its power to help bring about a political settlement which would be acceptable to the people of East Pakistan.

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

Petition received.

Education

Mr STEWART:
LANG, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I present the following petition:

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

That the Australian Council’s report on the needs of State education services has established serious deficiencies in education.

That these can be summarised as lack of classroom accommodation, desperate teacher shortage, oversized classes and inadequate teaching aids.

That the additional sum of one thousand million dollars is required over the next five years by the States for these needs.

That without massive additional Federal finance the State school system will disintegrate.

That the provisions of the Handicapped Children’s Assistance Act 1970 should be amended to include all the country’s physically and mentally handicapped children.

Your petitioners most humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled will take immediate step to

Ensure that emergency finance from the Commonwealth will be given to the States for their public education services which provide schooling for seventy-eight per cent of Australia’s children. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.

Petition received.

Refugees: Bangla Desh

Mr REID:
HOLT, VICTORIA

– I present the following pet ition:

To the Honourable Speaker and the Members of the House of Representaves in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respecfully showeth:

that death from mass starvation and disease is occurring among Pakistan’s refugees on a scale unprecedented in modern history.

that, as part of the world community, the Australian Government has an immediate responsibility for concerted action.

Your petitioners most humbly pray:

That the Australian Government take steps to offer employment, at least on a temporary basis, and in order to effect some relief, to academic and qualified persons among the persons from Bangla Desh.

Your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.

Petition received.

Contraceptives

Mr BERINSON:
PERTH, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I present the following petition:

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

That the Sales Tax on all forms of Contraceptive Devices is 271/2 per cent (Sales Tax Exemptions and Classifications Act 1935-1967). Also that there is Customs Duty of up to 471/2 per cent on some Contraceptive Devices.

And that this is an unfair imposition on the human rights of all people who wish to prevent unwanted pregnancies. And furthermore that this imposition discriminates particularly against people on low incomes.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Sales Tax on all forms of Contraceptive Devices be removed, so as to bring these items into line with other necessities such as food, upon which there is no Sales Tax. Also that Customs Duties be removed, and that all Contraceptive Devices be placed on the National Health Scheme Pharmaceutical Benefits List.

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

Petition received.

Contraceptives

Mr WEBB:
STIRLING, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I present the following petitions:

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

That the sales tax on all forms of contraceptive devices is 27i per cent. (Sales Tax Exemptions and Classifications Act 1935-1967). Also that there is customs duty of up to 47i per cent on some contraceptive devices.

And that this is an unfair imposition on the human rights of all people who wish to prevent unwanted pregnancies. And furthermore that this imposition discriminates particularly against people on low incomes.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the sales tax on all forms of contraceptive devices be removed, so as to bring these items into line with other necessities such as food, upon which there is no sales tax. Also that customs duties be removed, and that all contraceptive devices be placed on the National Health scheme pharmaceutical benefits list.

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

Petition received.

Contraceptives

Mr BENNETT:

– I present the following petition:

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

That the sales tax on all forms of contraceptive devices is 27i per cent. (Sales Tax Exemptions and Classifications Act 1935-1967). Also that there is customs duty of up to 47£ per cent on some contraceptive devices.

And that this is an unfair imposition on the human rights of all people who wish to prevent unwanted pregnancies. And furthermore that this imposition discriminates particularly against people on low incomes.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the sales tax on all forms of contraceptive devices be removed, so as to bring these items into line with other necessities such as food, upon which there is no sales tax. Also that customs duties be removed, and that all contraceptive devices be placed on the National Health scheme pharmaceutical benefits list.

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

Petition received.

Aid for Pakistan Refugees: Taxation

Mr PETTITT:
HUME, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I present the following petition:

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

that death from mass starvation and disease is occuring among Pakistan’s refugees on a scale unprecedented in modern history.

that, as part of the world community, the Australian Government has an immediate responsibility for concerted action.

Your petitioners most humbly pray:

that the Government grant income tax deductions for donations over 2 dollars made towards the relief of overseas disaster areas.

that this be effected with haste to ensure the maximum possible aid to those at present in refugee camps and those in danger of famine in East Pakistan.

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

Petition received.

Aboriginal Welfare

Mr KIRWAN:
FORREST, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I present the following petition:

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

That there is a crisis in Aboriginal welfare in the South West Land Division of Western Australia resulting from a population explosion, poor housing and hygiene and unemployment and unemployability.

That there is a need to phase out native reserves in the South West Land Division of Western Australia over the next three years.

That town housing must be provided for all Aboriginal families where the bread winner has permanent employment or an age or invalid pension entitlement.

That such housing must be supported by the appointment of permanent ‘home-maker* assistance in the ratio of one home-maker to every eight houses or part thereof.

That incentives of bousing, “home-maker’ services and training facilities must be created in centres of potential employment for those who are currently unemployed or unemployable.

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.

Your petitioners most humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled will give earnest consideration to this most vital matter.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received.

Social Services: Abolition of Means Test

Mr BENNETT:

– I present the following petition:

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

That due to higher living costs, including increasing charges for health services, most aged persons living on fixed incomes are suffering acute distress.

That Australia is the only English-speaking country in the world to retain a means test for aged pensioners and that a number of European countries have no means test.

That today’s aged persons have paid at least 71/2 per cent of their taxable income towards social services since the absorption of Special Social Services Taxation in Income Tax and continue to make such payments.71/2 per cent of all taxable incomes for 1966-67 amounted to $783,082,150 and this year will produce more than $800,000,000, more than sufficient to abolish the means test immediately.)

That the middle income group, the most heavily-taxed sector of the community, subsidises the tax commitment of the upper income bracket through the amount of social services contributions collected by the government and not spent on the purposes for which they were imposed.

That the abolition of the means test will give a boost to the economy by -

additional lax revenue from pensions.

swelling of the work force, and

increased spending by pensioners.

That it is considered just and right to allow people who have been frugal, have lived their lives with dignity and have been anything but an encumbrance on the nation, to maintain that digity to the end of their lives free from fear of penury.

Your petitioners most humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled will take immediate steps to abolish the means test for all people who have reached retiring age or who otherwise qualify for social service benefits or pensions.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

Eyre Highway

Mr BENNETT:

– I present the following petition:

To the Honourable the Speaker and the Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. We, the citizens of the Commonwealth of Australia, residents in the State of Western Australia do humbly petition and pray that all levels of Government responsible in Australia will take note of the wishes of we, the citizens, in so far as we request:

That the Commonwealth co-operate with all authorities to ensure the early sealing of the one East-West road link, the Eyre Highway, and that urgent consideration be given to increasing the maintenance of the road in the intervening period and endeavour to curtail the dreadful road toll, injury and vehicle damage.

That The Commonwealth consider this road as a Defence Measure for the whole of Australia and road link connecting the two coasts of the Continent, and consideration to the sealing from the aspect of the increase of Trade and Tourism within Australia, thus encouraging the retention of the finance in Australia which is now going overseas. Consideration be given on the grounds of a better understanding between the people of all of the States of Australia, because of their improved ability to travel and meet one another.

That Consideration be given to one of the most heavily taxed groups within the community, the motorist, and be given the opportunity to enjoy some of the tax fee as charged, by being able to travel with reasonable comfort and safety on the major highways of Australia.

That Consideration be given to returning specifically for this purpose the increased revenue received from the increase in petrol tax.

We, the petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives in the Parliament assembled would take immediate steps to ensure provision of funds to provide for the all weather sealing of this important highway,the Eyre Highway, linking East and West and your petitioners as in duty bound, will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

National Service

Mr DOBIE:
Assistant Minister assisting the Prime Minister · COOK, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– I present the following petition:

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

That the National Service Act, under which young men who have objections to participating in the Vietnam war, are gaoled, should be repealed; and

That Geoff Mullen, and other young men currently in gaol for refusing to fight in Vietnam, should be immediately released.

Your petitioners most humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled, will take immediate steps to release Geoff Mullen and other non-compliers with the National Service Act, and will repeal the National Service Act. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.

Petition received.

page 2666

QUESTION

SHIPPING

Mr DUTHIE:
WILMOT, TASMANIA

– I ask the Acting Prime Minister a question in his role as Minister for Trade and Industry. Is the Acting Prime Minister aware that the Federal Government has subsidised the AustralianSouth American Shipping Line to the extent of $1,101,000 in the last 5 years? Therefore, in view of Tasmania’s desperate economic position, with nearly 3,000 unemployed, contributed to in part by the Australian National Line’s shipping freight increase of 25 per cent in the last 12 months with its consequent effect on industry, will the Government again consider a shipping freight subsidy for the Tasmania mainland shipping service? What is good enough for South America should be good enough for Tasmania.

Mr Anthony:

– The Minister for Shipping and Transport will answer the question.

Mr NIXON:
Minister for Shipping and Transport · GIPPSLAND, VICTORIA · CP

– In relation to the first part of the honourable gentleman’s question, I think he will realise that the Government took a policy decision to subsidise the shipping service to South America to develop trade between this country and South America. The subsidy to South America has been at a reducing level and is expected to disappear entirely because the service is becoming viable, which demonstrates that there has been a growth of trade between Australia and South America. As to the second part of the honourable gentleman’s question, I think he ought to realise that the Australian National Line was forced to increase its freight rates because of the high cost problem that it has been meeting over recent months. The honourable member will recall the difficulties we had at one time in getting the ANL ships back to sea because they were tied up at the wharves over strike problems. The combination of strike problems and wage demands has of course led to higher costs and then to freight increases for the ANL. As I have said before, this has had a vital effect on the freight problem, particularly in the State of Tasmania. While I am sympathetic to the matter of a subsidy for the ANL, I am afraid that this has not been Government policy nor do I expect any change in attitude to the service to Tasmania specifically.

page 2666

QUESTION

NAVY PROJECT: SOUTH HEAD

Mr BURY:
WENTWORTH, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Has the Minister for the Navy seen an editorial reference to the project on South Head as a Navy toy shed which could well be located anywhere else? Will the Minister say what is the precise purpose of this construction? Must it be at South Head?

Dr MACKAY:
Minister for the Navy · EVANS, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– I did read an editorial in last night’s ‘Sun’, which was at least vigorous and in places most misleading. It referred to the action information tactical trainer, which is to be placed on South Head, as a toy shed. There has been a great deal of confusion, as was evidenced by interjections from the Opposition this morning, as to whether this could be placed elsewhere in the locality around Sydney or whether it is. vital for it to be at South Head. I would like to take a minute to point out the precise purpose of this building. The situation today is that information coming into a modern warship comes through a tremendous number of different sensors and from different sources. As well as visual ones there are the sonar, radar and other sensors on the ship which convey information to the vessel about the environment. Some of this information, such as from a low trajectory missile, is of such a nature that action must be taken within split seconds if there is to be any effective defence.

It is a highly complicated and growing art in the Navy to differentiate between an aggressive or enemy attack, friendly targets and friendly evidence that is presented. This situation means that today the Navy must have a high degree of training. It is necessary for evidence and information to be sifted and brought to the most effective kind of evaluation as quickly as possible. This building will enable the Navy to keep personnel in a high degree of training similar to that which an airline pilot and crew receive in the simulator for their own aircraft. It is something which will link many ships together. It is necessary for the building to be placed in a position where the crews of ships may be trained during their periods inharbour and immediately after leaving harbour for the calibration of their instruments. It will be possible to inject into this system simulation of targets so that there can be co-ordinated training. It could not be placed other than at a major harbour. It must be placed where it looks to seaward as well as into the harbour and it must afford the crews of ships the kind of training to enable them to reach this degree of split second efficiency which is essential for their survival. It is regarded by the Navy as an esential part of its equipment and must be placed in a location similar to this at South Head. That is why this project must go ahead.

page 2667

QUESTION

PENSIONER MEDICAL SERVICE CARDS

Mr WHITLAM:

-I address my question to the Minister for Social Services. Has ha instructed his Department to withhold pensioner medical service entitlement cards from all single age pensioners who receive $13.80 or less a fortnight, from married couples of whom one is a pensioner receiving $15.50 or less a fortnight and from married couples, both of whom are pensioners, receiving$1 2 each or less a fortnight? Has he instructed his Department, moreover, to retrieve entitlement cards from all current beneficiaries whose pensions are below these limits? Is he aware that entitlement cards must be produced in most States as a qualification for train, tram and bus concessions and that he is therefore depriving many elderly citizens not only of proper access to health care but also of proper opportunities for travel?

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

-I am a little puzzled by what the Leader of the Opposition has said. Has he confused ‘less’ with more’?

Mr Whitlam:

– Probably. I meant ‘more’.

Mr WENTWORTH:

-I think that perhaps there is some confusion in the mind of the Leader of the Opposition. The question is a complicated one and I shall see that an answer is given to the Leader of the Opposition.

page 2667

QUESTION

PERFORMING ARTS EXHIBITION

Mr ERWIN:
BALLAARAT, VICTORIA

-I wish to direct a question to the Minister for the Environment. Aborigines and the Arts. Is the Minister aware of a movement to curtail provincial performing arts presentations despite the liberal allocation of funds to opera and ballet, having in mind that country taxpayers also subscribe to this allocation? Will the Minister consider restoring these visits to the larger provincial centres, having in mind that Ballarat is the largest inland provincial centre in Australia outside Canberra?

Mr HOWSON:
Minister for Environment, Aborigines and the Arts · CASEY, VICTORIA · LP

– I am well aware of the interest of the honourable member for Ballaarat in the arts, particularly in what he is trying to do to help the display of ballet in his city. I am sorry to hear that apparently there has been some reduction in the amount of money available for the ballet company to perform in Ballarat. I do not know the details but I will certainly get in touch with the Chairman of the Australian Council for the Arts and ask him for a full account of the situation. 1 will let the honourable member have a report as soon as possible.

page 2667

QUESTION

NATIONAL FILM AND TELEVISION TRAINING SCHOOL

Mr SHERRY:

– My question is also directed to the Minister for the Environment, Aborigines and the Arts. Did the Prime Minister in his statement on Tuesday night on the national film and television training school express the hope that the tabling of reports and other papers would ensure that ‘the whole matter can be looked at fairly and squarely’? Did the Prime Minister omit to table the letter which the Minister received from the Chairman of the Interim Council setting out the Council’s dissatisfaction with the reports of P.A. Management Consultants Pty Ltd? Did he omit to table the transcript of discussions between the Interim Council and P.A. Management Consultants and a supplementary report subsequently prepared by the consultants in collaboration with the Interim Council members? Will the Minister now, in conformity with the Prime Minister’s hope, table this additional indispensable material?

Mr HOWSON:
LP

– I think the honourable member is referring to some letters which came to me only over the weekend. I do not know whether he has the dates of those letters which he is referring to I had no knowledge of them until the Chairman of the Interim Council informed me that there was some additional information. I will certainly , have a look at the additional information that came in over the weekend and I will ask the Prime Minister or the Acting Prime Minister whether he would wish to table it.

Mr Sherry:

– The Prime Minister indicated that he wanted them tabled.

Mr HOWSON:

– This material was not available because it had not come in at the time when the Leader of the Opposition asked for the material. If the honourable member remembers, the Leader of the Opposition asked for all the material that was available to me at the time when he asked the question.

Mr Whitlam:

– Right.

Mr HOWSON:

– He asked the Prime Minister for all the material available at the time. Everything that was available at the time when the Leader of the Opposition asked his question has been tabled. Since then the Chairman of the Interim Council has sent me additional information, and I will be happy to have a look at it and table it if it will help. But first I would like to ask the Prime Minister for his views because, after all, he was dealing with the matter, not I, and I think it is right that I should ask him for his views. Is that not fair enough?

Mr Whitlam:

– Yes.

page 2668

QUESTION

RADIO STATION AT DARWIN

Mr ENGLAND:
CALARE, NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question, which I address to the Postmaster-General, relates to the new booster shortwave radio station at Darwin which came into operation on full power, I think, early last month, broadcasting the ‘Radio Australia’ programme to South-East and Eastern Asia. Are any reports yet to hand from our posts in the areas specified concerning the success or otherwise of this $8m international relations project?

Sir ALAN HULME:
Postmaster-General · PETRIE, QUEENSLAND · LP

– For some considerable time we did have difficulty in relation to the transmission of ‘Radio Australia’ from Darwin. The plant which had been ordered gave some trouble, but concentration by Post Office engineers, together with the contractor, enabled us to get this project completed and in full service comparatively recently.

Mr Whitlam:

– Did not some of the equipment disappear?

Sir ALAN HULME:

– Apparently the Leader of the Opposition has heard a rumour of which I have no confirmation. I am not aware of any equipment disappearing. But I would indicate that at this point of time the basic installation, including the aerial plant, has been completed. As from 1st July last the transmitter was operating at full power of 250 kilowatts. In September there was in fact an increase in transmission time to 20) hours a day to meet the Australian Broadcasting Commission’s programming requirement. Reports which have been received from overseas indicate that we are giving a very efficient, acceptable and satisfactory service to the areas of Asia which this equipment is intended to serve.

page 2668

QUESTION

BANKING

Mr BARNARD:
BASS, TASMANIA

– I ask the Treasurer a question. Were the trading banks notified of the Government’s decision to increase advance limits by $5m a week, before the Prime Minister’s announcement in the House on Tuesday? If so, what was their assessment of the feasibility of lending at the level proposed by the Prime Minister? Is this measure an integral part of the Budget strategy or is it, as the ‘Sydney Morning Herald’ suggested this morning, an admission of budgetary miscalculation?

Mr SNEDDEN:
Treasurer · BRUCE, VICTORIA · LP

– It is not a result of budgetary miscalculation. As a result of discussions which it had with the trading banks the Reserve Bank suggested that there should be facilities for the trading banks to lend more money through overdraft operations. The Reserve Bank agreed to it; the Treasury agreed to it; upon consultation I agreed to it and the Government agreed to it.

page 2668

QUESTION

MAKINE SCIENCE

Mr BONNETT:
HERBERT, QUEENSLAND

– I refer the Minister for Education and Science to the proposed establishment of an institute of marine science in north Queensland and ask: Is the project progressing as originally planned and can he inform me of the current situation regarding the project?

Mr Malcolm Fraser:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP

– Progress is being made with this particular matter. A report was available from the interim council when I assumed responsibility for this portfolio but it was not possible to process this as quickly as I should have liked because the chairman of the interim council was overseas on other business. As soon as he returned I had discussions with him and I am hoping that it will be possible to put something before the Government in the next few weeks.

page 2669

QUESTION

PAKISTAN

Mr GARRICK:

– In the interests of world peace I ask the Acting Prime Minister: What action is the Government taking to reduce the supply of arms from outside sources which is bolstering the military junta in Pakistan?

Mr ANTHONY:
CP

-The Prime Minister previously answered a question in the House on this matter and said that the Australian Government has been putting pressure on the Pakistan Government to try to come to terms with the Bangla Desh group in East Pakistan which is really the basic cause of the agonizing refugee problem which has been created in West Bengal. The Government will continue to do whatever it can to reduce the tensions in East Pakistan and to see that justice is brought about there.

page 2669

QUESTION

EXPENDITURE ON ART

Mr TURNER:
BRADFIELD, NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is addressed to the Minister for the Environment etc., etc. Since I find that many other citizens like myself have no music in their souls and are totally unmoved by such works of art as ‘Swan Lake’, I ask the Minister whether he will publish as soon as possible what did not appear in the estimates of his Department, namely, the expenditure of taxpayers’ funds on the various forms of art - opera, other forms of music, ballet, live drama and the promotion of film drama whether in the cinema or on television.

Mr HOWSON:
LP

– Yes, I will be delighted to publish that material. As the honourable member for Bradfield will recall, when I summed up in the debate on the estimates of my Department, I said that next year I would ensure that the Chairman of the Council for the Arts conveyed the material to me in such a form that it would be readily available in the Budget papers.

However, in respect of this year’s expenditure, I will certainly get the information and have it published as soon as possible.

page 2669

QUESTION

CRAFTS

Mr WHITLAM:

– Can the Minister for the Environment, Aborigines and the Arts assure the House that the inquiry into the role of the crafts as an art form, which was announced by the Prime Minister 2 nights ago, will not entail any interruption of or reduction in the programme of support for craft activity currently being carried on by the Craft Council?

Mr HOWSON:
LP

– Yes, already there are allocations in this year’s Budget for helping the crafts. The aim of this committee that has been set up is to consider further ways in which the crafts can be assisted in Australia. That is the main object of the committee.

page 2669

QUESTION

OVERSEAS AID

Mr LLOYD:
MURRAY, VICTORIA

– I direct a question to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Has the Australian Government ever offered canned deciduous fruit as aid to needy countries? If so, has any country ever accepted such aid or refused such aid?

Mr N H Bowen:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

-I am not aware of any requests having been received from recipient countries for canned deciduous fruit. We base our aid on the principle that we should consult very closely with the receiving countries on their wishes as to the type of aid they require. That is the basic principle. This matter therefore has not come up as a priority. However, in view of the fact that it has been raised by the honourable member for Murray, I will have my officers who deal with foreign aid matters bear it in mind.

page 2669

QUESTION

FOREIGN INVESTMENT

Mr HAYDEN:
OXLEY, QUEENSLAND

– I ask the Treasurer a question. Is it a fact that in 1969-70, 73 per cent of foreign investment in manufacturing industry came from retained profits earned in Australia, and was income payable abroad on previous investment of $260m, 420 per cent greater than the actual inflow of new foreign investment in this sector? By this I mean the capital that came into the country as distinct from the capital that was raised by retained profits. Will the Treasurer consider the formation of a suitable body to assess and advise the Government on the benefits and desirability of specific future foreign investment ventures, and will he especially consider ways iri which restraint at least can be applied against the tendency of foreign ownership to enlarge its control of Australian industry, with the majority of its capital coming from retained profits initially extracted from Australian consumers?

Mr SNEDDEN:
LP

– The question of foreign investment in Australia is of course one which is in everybody’s mind. We have benefited immensely from foreign investment in Australia. Our policy towards such investment has been very clearly enunciated over a period of time. The policy, I think, has been correct and the policy will be retained. I point out only one thing, and that is that when considering foreign investment in Australia it is very important to draw a distinction between what is national interest and what is natural sentiment, because they are vastly different considerations. Often it is difficult to satisfy national sentiment because essentially every Australian is a nationalist. Indeed, the people of every country are filled with national sentiment - the sentiment that they feel for their own country, but every country is in a different position from the others in regard to the development of its resources.

So far as my human eye can see into the future, Australia will be a hungry user of capital. We will not be able to generate in Australia the desired level of capital investment from our own resources. We will therefore be wanting to see overseas capital come into the country to enable us to develop the resources in the future. For my part I do not intend that there shall come from any statement I make a discouragement to the people of the world with capital to invest from coming and investing in Australia. This Government will always have a determination, when national interest is concerned, to stand ready to intervene to protect the national interest.

page 2670

QUESTION

ABORIGINAL LAND RIGHTS

Mr GORTON:
HIGGINS, VICTORIA

– My question is directed to the Minister for the Environment. The Minister may recall a question asked of him yesterday by the Leader of the Opposition concerning Aboriginal land rights. Arising from the Minister’s answer yesterday I ask him this: Am I to take it that he is stating (1) that there has as yet been no Cabinet decision at all on this matter or (2) that the Committee of Ministers has not as yet made any firm recommendation to the Government?

Mr HOWSON:
LP

– What I said yesterday was that this matter has not been concluded by the Committee of Ministers. When it has been concluded the advice will be tendered to the Prime Minister and he will, as he has promised, make a statement to the House.

page 2670

QUESTION

WORKING HOURS

Mr COHEN:
ROBERTSON, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I address a question to the Minister for Labour and National Service. Has his attention been drawn to a report in Time’ magazine of 18th October and a number of other reports of late in overseas newspapers stating that some SOO United States business and industrial firms have been experimenting with a 4-day working week without necessarily a reduction in working hours, which makes recruitment of labour easier, reduces absenteeism, increases productivity and improves employee morale? Has his Department investigated the introduction of these revolutionary working hours by employers and what initiatives has he taken to discuss the matter with employer organisations and trade unions?

Mr LYNCH:
Minister for Labour and National Service · FLINDERS, VICTORIA · LP

– I have not seen the reports from ‘Time’ magazine to which the honourable gentleman has referred but I will certainly take the opportunity to study those reports and provide him with a detailed answer in writing. May I say to the honourable gentleman that I believe that any alteration in working hours is a quite fundamental matter and therefore should properly be the subject of an application before the Arbitration Commission and should not, in fact, be the subject of action taken unilaterally by individual firms, because I believe that such action could be quite inimical to the interests of the Australian community at this time.

Mr Hurford:

– Why?

Mr LYNCH:

– The honourable gentleman asks me why. May I simply put to him one quick answer to his question and that is that the capacity of industries to provide a 4-day working week would vary considerably. The honourable gentleman, with his understanding of economics and industry, will well appreciate the difficulties which the essential industries, being required to work over a 5 or 7 day week would face if in fact there were to be a dispersion of the work force from those industries to the less essential industries, which could be those in the community able to afford a 4 day working week. What I am saying is that this is really a matter of some substance and should not be the subject of unilateral action but should be determined through the Arbitration Commission.

page 2671

QUESTION

FRUIT EXPORTS

Dr SOLOMON:
DENISON, TASMANIA

– The Minister for Trade and Industry may recall a question I asked his predecessor more than a year ago concerning the admission of South African citrus fruits to Japan and the possibility of Australian citrus and even pome fruits gaining similar entry. Can the Minister indicate whether this possiblity has become more likely, and if not, why not?

Mr ANTHONY:
CP

– The Government of Japan lays down sterilisation rules for the import of fruit and vegetables into that country, but the rules do not necessarily apply unilaterally to all countries. This is because of the different diseases and the different insects found in different countries. In imports from Australia the main concern of Japan is with the Mediterranean fruit fly and the Queensland fruit fly. Japan has laid down certain conditions for the sterilisation of our citrus and pome fruits exported to Japan. Unfortunately we have not been able to devise a satisfactory form of treatment for this fruit which would have the approval of the Australian fruit industry or the Japanese Government. Research is being carried out in regard to this matter and this work has been going on for a good many years. However, I cannot hold out any hope for a solution to this problem at the moment. We are hoping that we might find a suitable form of treatment but it has not been easy up to date.

page 2671

QUESTION

AID TO PAKISTAN REFUGEES

Mr BRYANT:
WILLS, VICTORIA

– I address my question to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. In making a decision about the pittance of aid to the people of India and Pakistan, was the decision based upon the needs of the people, as the Government understood them, upon the wealth of Australia, as we know it, or upon what would keep the people of Australia quiet in this situation?

Mr N H Bowen:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– This enormous problem which commenced earlier this year has been progressively deteriorating. Honourable members are aware of the facts. The Government has adopted the approach which I believe to be a proper one of keeping the matter constantly under review. We made a very prompt and effective initial contribution which went direct to those who were urgently in need. This aid included vaccines, shelter and so on. In fact other countries have since been copying some of our methods of giving aid. Since then we have kept closely in touch through our representatives, with the local authorities and with the United Nations authorities on the spot. We have progressively made grants to meet the situation as we saw it. As to the latter part of the honourable member’s question, we regard ourselves as representatives of the Australian people and we hope we interpret the wishes of the Australian people.

Mr Bryant:

– No, you do not.

Mr N H Bowen:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– We believe we do. We have shown over a good many years that we interpret them a good deal more effectively than does the honourable member for Wills. The honourable member for Wills, being on the other side of the fence, may wish to describe our actions as the result of pressure, but the fact is that we believe that what we have done has been a very proper response in the circumstances. As I said last night, it puts us fourth on the list of donors to this area, measured by the internationally accepted methods of measuring these things, that is as a percentage of the gross national product. The honourable member asks whether the action we have taken has been a reaction to someone fasting outside the House. May I say to the honourable member-

Mr Bryant:

– I rise to order.

Government Supporters - Sit down.

Mr Bryant:

– I will not sit down. The Minister has misquoted me. I asked whether this aid was considered sufficient to keep the people of Australia quiet.

Mr N H Bowen:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– The honourable member raised the question of quantum but he did make some reference to someone outside the House.

Mr Bryant:

– I did not.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for Wills will resume his seat. The honourable member will have an opportunity afterwards, if he feels he has been misrepresented, to make a personal explanation.

Mr N H Bowen:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

-I am going on my recollection of the question, and if I have misrepresented the form of it I apologise to the honourable member for Wills. As to the question of quantum, this problem is so enormous that the present calculation is that it would require $ 1,200m just to support the present number of refugees a year, and the number is increasing all the time. Nothing that we can do can be measured precisely against that figure as providing a solution to the problem. Therefore we have to make a judgment as to what is best at the time and what aid can be put effectively on the ground so as to make an actual impact quickly in the area affected. That is the way the Government has been reacting and it will continue to keep the situation under review. As the honourable member knows-

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– And take the matter to the United Nations and get the refugees back to their own country. But what are you doing?

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for Hughes will cease interjecting. I point out to the House that there are honourable members still waiting to ask their first question for this week and I am endeavouring to assist them. But 1 cannot help them if there are constant interjections which lengthen the time spent on questions and answers and also reduce the number of questions that it is possible for honourable members to ask.

Mr N H Bowen:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– Not only is this a very large question whichever way one looks at it but also the end of it is no! in sight. The basic problem, of course, is the political one in both East Pakistan and, to a degree, in India. Our efforts have been directed as far as possible to the basic cause. In my statement on 18th August in this House I listed the various initia tives that have been taken, and the Government will continue with those initiatives aimed at the basic cause. I believe that what we have done in dealing with what is a symptom has been a proper approach on the part of Australia up to this point of time. Contributions of $5im since May have put Australia fourth in the ranks of donors.

page 2672

QUESTION

POLLUTION: BOTANY BAY

Mr O’KEEFE:
PATERSON, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I ask the Minister for Shipping and Transport whether considerable quantities of petroleum products have escaped from pipelines in Botany Bay. Are these lines carrying petroleum from the Australian oil refineries terminal on the southern side of Botany Bay to the terminal at Banksmeadow on the northern side? Is this pollution causing great concern in the Botany Bay area and involving local authorities in considerable expense in cleaning up operations? Can the Minister inform the House of any steps taken to prevent further desecration of surrounding foreshores from this source?

Mr NIXON:
CP

– I am informed by Caltex Oil (Australia) Pty Ltd that a dredge operating under contract apparently to the Maritime Services Board fractured some fuel lines running across the bottom of Botany Bay in the area described by the honourable member. Damage was done to fuel, kerosene and petrol lines and the like and, unfortunately, some 2,000 gallons of fuel, oil and kerosene escaped before the stopcocks could be turned off. The Maritime Services Board moved very promptly to overcome the pollution problem caused and sent a helicopter, 6 boats fitted with boom sprays and a team of men to treat the area. My understanding is that the major pollution problem which could be caused from such a spill has been overcome by this prompt action. I will refer the last part of the honourable member’s question to my colleague in New South Wales, the Minister for Public Works and endeavour to obtain an answer for him.

page 2672

QUESTION

UNEMPLOYMENT

Mr BERINSON:

– My question is directed to the Acting Prime Minister. I ask: In view of assurances by the Government that it has ample room to manoeuvre against current unemployment trends, will the Minister indicate the point at which the Government is likely to exercise the freedom of action which it believes it has? Put in another way, what is the limit beyond which a further increase in unemployment would not be tolerated by the Government? If no such limit exists, why not?

Mr ANTHONY:
CP

– With any economic indicators it is not an actual figure which is so important but the likely trend. It is when the Government sees a trend that is undesirable that appropriate action needs to be taken. There is some concern at the moment over increasing unemployment in this country but, of course, when this is measured against our performance it is not really a matter of great concern. We have a record of having maintained in this country for over 20 years an employment level of more than 99 percent. No other country in the world can consistently show this sort of record. We have maintained this sort of record in a country in which the number of jobs has increased by about 2 million. The population has risen by 44 million, 2 million of them being migrants, yet we have practically maintained full employment over that long period of time.

It is true that only 98.5 percent of the people are fully employed at the moment and this is the worst position that we have had for a number of years. Certainly if the trend shows an increasing number of unemployed we will act. But at the moment we are endeavouring to restrain the economy in some undesirable areas that have been putting cost pressures on the economy. We need to stand fast until this is done.

There is far too much calamity howling by some sections of the community about the level of unemployment or stagnation at the moment. This only aggravates trie problem. What the Australian economy needs today is more confidence. We have all of the basic factors of one of the strongest economies in the world. It needs people to come forward and to have confidence to invest and to continue to operate normally. The situation will be aggravated if people are to be fearful or uncertain of the future. We will watch the unemployment situation closely and if the trend is one to give rise to growing COS.cern appropriate action will be taken.

page 2673

QUESTION

IMMIGRATION

Mr WHITTORN:
BALACLAVA, VICTORIA

– I ask the Acting Minister for Immigration whether he has interpreted a recent statement of public interest referring to immigration which says: ‘the avoidance of any discrimination on any grounds of race or colour or nationality.’

Mr LYNCH:
LP

– I assume that the honourable gentleman is referring to part of the Opposition’s immigration platform as adopted at the Launceston conference. The honourable gentleman has asked me a very difficult question because in fact he has asked me to interpret that policy. I must say that I would find it very difficult to interpret a policy which the Opposition itself cannot effectively interpret in a coherent and consistent fashion. It will be clear to this House, as in fact I believe it is clear to the Australian people, that there is no consistent, coherent voice on the Opposition benches in relation to its approach to Australia’s immigration policy. It will also be clear, I believe, that there are deep underlying divisions between Opposition members concerning this programme. There are divisions between the Leader of the Opposition and the honourable member for Grayndler, between the Leader of the Opposition and the right honourable member for Melbourne.

Mr Grassby:

Mr Acting Speaker, 1 rise on a point of order. A question has been asked of the Minister for Labour and National Service that is quite beyond the responsibilities of his office. He has been asked, in effect, for an opinion on the Opposition’s immigration policy. I suggest that if the honourable member wants an exposition of this policy he should wait until the estimates debate on immigration and he will hear it then. But it is quite improper to ask the Minister for Labour and National Service to give a certain opinion about a matter-

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

– Order ! The honourable member for Riverina will resume his seat. There is no point of order.

Mr Barnard:

– I wish to speak to the point of order. The honourable member for Riverina raised a point of order and, quite frankly, in my opinion and I am sure in the opinion of honourable members on this side of the House, there is some substance in his point of order. The Minister for Labour and National Service made no attempt to answer the question. He used it as an opportunity to engage in a political controversy. In these circumstances, Mr Acting Speaker, I believe that you cannot simply rule on this point of order without giving an explanation for saying that there is no point of order.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

-Order! lt has been the practice of the House tor a Minister to answer a question in his own way. The Minister for Labour and National Service is representing the Minister for- Immigration. In those circumstances and because of the Minister’s former association with that portfolio, I assess that the matter is within his jurisdiction. It was for that reason I ruled that the Minister was entitled to answer the question as he would have answered it had he been the Minister for Immigration.

Mr Bryant:

Mr Acting Speaker, are you then ruling that the Minister may now administer Labor policy because he is responsible to the House for public affairs? Unless he is responsible for administering a policy such as the Labor Party has promulgated, in what way is he responsible to the House for it?

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

-Order! There is no substance in the point raised by the honourable member for Wills. The Minister was not making a judgment upon a policy of the Opposition.

Mr HURFORD:
ADELAIDE, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– What was he doing?

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

– He was making a comment in exactly the same way as comments have been made from both sides of the House in relation to ministerial responsibility.

Mr Cope:

– Speaking to the point of order, Mr Acting Speaker, the Minister spoke about divisions in the Opposition in relation to this matter. Would the Minister tell us also why his Leader received 33 votes out of 67 with one abstention?

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

-Order! There is no substance in the point taken by the honourable member.

Mr Whitlam:

Mr Acting Speaker, I just want to test your ruling. I want to know whether it will be in order for any honour able member to ask the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration whether he has resolved his differences with the Minister for Immigration over migration and visits by New Zealand citizens.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

-Order! There is no substance in the point raised. The Leader of the Opposition knows that he cannot project something into the future.

Mr Scholes:

Mr Acting Speaker, you and Mr Speaker have ruled consistently in the past that it is out of order to ask questions of the Prime Minister which relate to Liberal Party policy as opposed to Government policy. I therefore ask: Is it consistent to allow questions which relate to Labor Party policy if we cannot ask questions relating to Liberal Party policy?

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

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

page 2674

AUSTRALIAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT IN EDUCATION

Mr Malcolm Fraser:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP

– For the information of honourable members, 1 present the first annual report of the Australian Advisory Committee on Research and Development in Education for the year ended 30th June 1971.

page 2674

HMAS ‘LEEUWIN’: REPORT BY HIS HONOUR JUDGE RAPKE

Ministerial Statement

Dr MACKAY:
Minister for the Navy · Evans · LP

– by leave - The House will recall my statement on 28th April when I announced that I had asked His Honour Judge Rapke, QC, of the Victorian County Court, to consider and report to me firstly, whether there is evidence of the existence of any forms of initiation or similar practices in HMAS ‘Leeuwin’ which involve organised physical violence, degrading or bullying behaviour, and secondly, whether there is evidence over recent years of any pattern of undue physical violence or bullying among junior recruits. Subsequently, on 30th April, I stated that in view of the increasing interest which had centred around the particular case of Junior Recruit Connolly, I had asked His Honour to examine this case first and without prejudice to his wider inquiry. On 6th May I issued a statement on the preliminary report presented by the judge on that case, and this was made available to all senators and members.

I have recently received from the judge his report on the wider inquiry in accordance with the terms of reference given to him on 28th April. The Judge has stated that the material on which his report and findings are based may be summarised as follows:

The testimony of 467 witnesses interviewed at HMAS ‘Leeuwin’, in Melbourne, Adelaide, Sydney and Brisbane, and on board HMAS ‘Sydney’, between 30th April and 3rd July 1971;

Written memoranda handed to him by witnesses or communicated to him by various authorities, particularly in answer to requests by him for special assistance on specific matters;

A detailed examination of the medical records of and from ‘Leeuwin’ relating to traumatic injuries treated in sick bay at that establishment and at hospitals ashore;

Seminars and information discussion groups conducted at ‘Leeuwin’ and Nirimba’ and on board ‘Sydney’;

Civilian, witnesses called mainly from those who responded to requests for anybody having any information on the subject of the enquiry to communicate with the judge, and also from persons who had been reported in the Press as the authors of information reported by the Press;

Experts in criminology and social sciences specially approached by the Judge.

As honourable members will recall, this inquiry was conducted in camera for the reason explained by me in a previous statement. I said:

The preliminary inquiry will be strictly private - as though the judge were talking with people in chambers. It would defeat the whole concept if the public or Press were present and these persons felt that they were speaking on the record.

As in the case of the first report dealing with the Connolly case, and for the same reasons, I do not consider that it would be desirable to make this report public. I shall, however, continue by practice of making a copy available in confidence to the

Deputy Leader of .the Opposition (Mr Barnard) and the honourable member for Fremantle (Mr Beazley), so that it may be known that nothing of importance is hidden which should be made public.

Before proceeding to the conclusions and recommendations of the inquiry, I should like to recall ito the House the great spate of national publicity - invariably in highly critical and condemnatory terms - which was given in late April and early May to various specific allegations published at the time. The judge investigated all these reports and interviewed the persons stated to have been the authors of information reported by the Press. It is worth referring to his findings on some of these cases in particular. One was the case of Leading Junior Recruit J. R. Russell, which I referred to in a statement in Parliament on 27th April last. The judge examined this case in depth and, though for good reasons I shall not repeat the detail from his report, I quote his finding. He said:

The Russell case is therefore unrelated to any organised violence. It is a case of a squabble over trifles getting out of hand and unexpectedly and unintentionally leading to disastrous results. Such an incident could arise at any place and at any time. The junior recruit who committed the main assault was punished. I saw him and he is a very sorry and a chastened lad who wrote his regrets to Russel who proudly showed me the note. Both boys are good types of recruits.

Another allegation which received wide publicity in early May was that ‘sadism is rife on HMAS ‘Sydney’. The judge examined this accusation in great depth, and has reported as follows:

The suggestion that the ship is in any way distracted by the juvenile activities occurring at Leeuwin’ is a figment of the imagination. As far as I have been able to discover in what I regard as a very comprehensive research into the matter under discussion there is not a shred of evidence to support the suggested sadism, or whatever other expression emanates from a journalist’s emotive mind, to describe the conduct referred to. I give the ‘Sydney’ a clean bill of health in the problem under survey.

Though not strictly related to the Leeuwin’ inquiry, the judge investigated a Press story on 28th April which reported that a former naval officer had claimed that a ‘barstardisation’ ceremony at the Royal Australian Naval College, Jervis Bay, had hampered the ‘Voyager’ rescue operation on 10th February 1964. The article reminded its readers that 822 men had died in this disaster, and the inference was obvious and powerful. His Honour has reported on this allegation as follows:

I find as a fact that the headline … of 28th April reading - ‘Initiation Hampered Rescue Craft’, and the subsequent report that i hour’s delay was caused to the rescue operations is entirely baseless and incorrect. I am not prepared to find that the person responsible for the . . . report was the author of a fiction not given to him by his informant, or whether the informant in his communications with the Press left a reasonable reporter with the impression conveyed by the dastarly headline and story. All in all it is illustrative of the bias against the good name of the Navy that marred so much of the journalistic contributions to the matters under investigation by me.

I come now to Judge Rapke’s findings on the terms of reference of his inquiry. As I have stated, these were:

  1. Whether there is evidence of the existence of any forms of initiation or similar practices in HMAS ‘Leeuwin’ which involve organised physical violence, degrading or bullying behaviour.
  2. Whether there la evidence over recent years of any pattern of undue physical violence or bullying among Junior Recruits. 1 quote the relevant passages from the report:

Organised initiation ceremonies, a format pattern of bastardisation, or any form of patterned violence or misbehaviour have never been a part of the programme, official or otherwise, at Leeuwin*.

The strict answer to the 2 questions which are contained in my terms of reference should therefore be no.

The inquiry revealed that in 1970, of all the cases of physical injury reported, and relating to more than 650 boys, 22 could be held to be caused by fighting or bullying. Again in 1971, nine such cases had been identified to date - of which three were minor, and in 2 cases the incidents were reported and the offenders punished. This tends to support the initial assessment I gave of the proportion of such occurrences.

The report then goes on to discuss the damaging effects of ‘unorganised and repetitive acts of bullying, violence, degradation and petty crime’ when they occur. Although those incidents apply only to a small minority, nevertheless they the Judge says, are pernicious in their deep effect on the young sailor at an early and impressionable time in his naval career’ and the ‘physical and mental damage to the victims was and is deplorable’. The Judge felt that losses by discharge could be greater than normal because of bullying; also because these practices could provoke some junior recruits to commit offences in order to obtain discharge, the formal reason for discharge in some cases reflected unfairly on the junior recruit involved. The Judge declared ‘the condemnation which you gave expression to is in my opinion well justified and the warnings of the action to be taken were necessary’. His Honour has devoted a considerable portion of his report to a discussion both of the problem, and of ways and means of improving the position. 1 do not propose to discuss in detail the many suggestions proffered by the Judge in his report. They cover a wide range of matters, directed to every phase of activity that has a bearing on the question. His proposals include:

Increase in the complement and continuity of the training and divisional staffs at the establishment, and improvements in their selection and training.

Increased supervision of junior recruits and greater participation by the staffs in junior recruit activities.

More intensified organisation of the recreation time of junior recruits and the provision of considerably increased recreational facilities.

Segregation of new intake* during their first two or three months.

Changes in the training programme with a view to providing the less studious recruits with more physically demanding activities.

Assignment of responsibilities to selected senior junior recruits for maintenance of good behaviour and order under a prefect type system.

All these matters and others that have come to notice, will receive urgent study by the appropriate Navy directorates and authorities. Some of the proposed measures for effecting improvements will be brought into effect quickly. Others are of a more long term nature, and some, regrettably, will be dependent on the provision of additional resources, both financial and manpower, which may not be readily available.

I have stated on previous occasions that physically violent, degrading or bullying behaviour will not be tolerated in the Navy, especially towards its junior members. I am determined that every possible effort will be made to stamp it out where it is found to occur, and to introduce effective measures to ensure its detection and eradication. I entirely concur in the following view expressed by Judge Rapke in the concluding remarks of his report:

It will be noticeable that no-one has suggested that the remedies can ever include the total eradication of the appetite for self-assertion that many lads possess. A check of this view with experts whom I have consulted and whose writings I have read support this. But the alternative view was that bullying, like the poor, will always be with us. I prefer the view that a quality of selfassertiveness (unless it has developed to the stage where serious criminal behaviour results) can be re-orientated and directed into useful and even leadership value for the Navy.

I was pleased to read in the report the Judge’s commendatory remarks about the sponsor system which has been in operation at Leeuwin for some time. Under this scheme local families generously extend their hospitality and friendship to individual junior recruits from other States. This has been highly valued by the naval authorities and the boys. The Judge has stated:

Its maintenance, extension, organisation and supervision should be encouraged. Much good can come from an early contact with suitable families in the Perth area and the meeting of junior recruit and sponsor should take place as soon as practicable after entry. Some evidence in this inquiry was commendatory of Leeuwin - when the media rejected the informants they turned to me and I was glad to hear them - and these witnesses included people who were sponsors as well as those who had cause to be grateful to their sponsors.

Finally, I would be remiss if I did not pay a tribute to His Honour Judge Rapke for the thorough and painstaking investigation he has undertaken, and the thoughtful and helpful suggestions he has offered. I assure the House that these will all be fully and carefully examined, and wherever practicable measures will be introduced to achieve necessary improvements.

In compiling his report the Judge has carried out faithfully my requirement - not so much as to assess HMAS ‘Leeuwin’ or its role in junior recruit training as to investigate fully and impartially the prima facie evidence relating to a number of unfortunate incidents. In so doing, he scrupulously avoided any action which might even have appeared to be collusion with the command at Leeuwin. Commodore Ramsay may have felt that, in this way, he in particular, was being treated with suspicion or was even under accusation. I want to take this opportunity of say that, from first hand knowledge, I believe the Commodore to be a dedicated and conscientious officer who has become a respected father figure is his command. That he has had to cope with a small minority of lads who have caused trouble is no fault of his and no more reflection on him than on the rest of our community. Every parent, every schoolmaster, indeed every responsible citizen shares his problems. The Commodore is, I hope, compensated by the greater privileges and pleasures of his successful endeavours which see the vast majority of young men emerge every year disciplined, enthusiastic and mentally and physically fitted for service of their country.

Mr Barnard:

– I ask for leave to make a statement on the same subject.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

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

Mr BARNARD:
Bass

– The statement of the Minister for the Navy (Mr Mackay) is a product of what has undoubtedly been a very thorough examination by Judge Rapke of extensive areas of naval practice. The preliminary report on Judge Rapke’s investigation into allegations of bullying at HMAS Leeuwin’ was supplied to me and to the honourable member for Fremantle (Mr Beazley) in May. I would like to say at this stage that the Minister is to be commended for the way in which he made this information quickly available to both myself and the honourable member for Fremantle. We were kept fully informed and I think this is to the credit of the Minister. He has said that Judge Rapke’s full report will be made available in the same way.

This investigation followed a rather different course from a similar investigation made into the practice of bastardisation at the Royal Military College, Duntroon. Here an independent inquiry headed by Mr Justice Fox was made into the allegations and a comprehensive report given to the Parliament. When the Minister announced the investigations into the incidents at HMAS Leeuwin’, the Opposition expressed the view that an inquiry similar to the Fox inquiry should have been instituted by the Minister. The virtue of this line of approach is that the evidence and recommendations are available in accessible form to all members of the

Parliament. This makes it easier for the Parliament to keep a check on the initiation and implementation of reforms designed to curb any harmful practices.

From my reading of the full preliminary report by Judge Rapke, the Minister summarised it accurately in the much briefer statement he made to the House. I am sure that a reading of the full report by Judge Rapke will reveal that the Minister has omitted nothing of significance in his statement to the House this morning. In the circumstances I think there is a strong case for the Minister to reconsider his attitude and make these reports public.

From my reading of the first report it contains nothing which could not properly be divulged. The main substance of Judge Rapke’s report was contained in the Minister’s statement; the remainder was largely an account of the evidence and the judge’s comments. This detail could have been made available for the benefit of members of the Parliament and the public who take an interest in the armed services. Obviously confidential information contained in the judge’s final report should not be divulged, but the bulk of the evidence and. the judge’s analysis could be released.

Judge Rapke had a unique opportunity to study many aspects of naval life which are causing concern. In the course of his examination and in particular his voyage on HMAS ‘Sydney’ he has acquired a mass of information which should be made available to those interested in the Navy and the quality of the Service environment and Service life. The honourable member for Fremantle (Mr Beazley) and I will know more about these matters when we have a chance to look at the full report. But I feel that both the Minister and Judge Rapke may have over-reacted to the publicity which accompanied the original allegations. This may have made them over-zealous to protect their service by not releasing parts of the report which could only help a better understanding of the Navy’s social and human problems.

From the content of Judge Rapke’s report as paraphrased by the Minister, it is appropriate that the investigation was made at this time. According to the judge there were 22 cases of physical injury resulting from fighting or bullying in 1970. So far this year there have been 9 cases; this reduction can be taken as evidence that these practices are being eliminated. The judge and the Minister conclude that these figures prove that there was no widespread pattern of bullying or barstardisation at Leeuwin’. I feel that the tally of 22 cases of physical injury resulting from bullying and fighting is not an insignificant one. Undoubtedly a pattern of bullying or bars.tardisation is much more subtle than the infliction of a degree of physical injury which warranted medical treatment.

This is only the tip of the iceberg; the fact that there were 22 injuries of this nature confirms that there was a measure of substance to the allegations, that it is most fortunate that these practices were exposed, and that Judge Rapke conducted his investigation and recommended measures designed to eliminate them. The judge’s proposals for better supervision and organisation of junior recruits at ‘Leeuwin’ seem to be soundly based. I agree with the Minister that it is regrettable some of the proposed improvements cannot be introduced because of lack of finance and manpower. This is one of the unfortunate by-products of the present squeeze on the services.

Both the Minister and Judge Rapke have been highly critical of the media treatment of the allegations, lt seems there were some highly misleading and over-sensational accounts of life at ‘Leeuwin’. Looking back over the Press accounts published in April, it seems that most were soundly based and responsible. It should be remembered that Press stories were responsible for the investigations into harmful practices at Duntroon and ‘Leeuwin’.

These investigations have lead to corrective measures and improvements in the life of cadets and junior recruits. Abuses that occurred in the media treatment of these allegations were more than outweighed by the benefits brought by the initial exposure.

In the main Judge Rapke has done an excellent job in the extremely demanding investigation given to him by the Minister. The judge’s love of the Navy and his emotional response to criticism of the Service have not prevented him from making a rigorous and dispassionate examination of practices harmful to the Navy. In his investigations the judge has accumlated a mass of detail about naval life and practice; as 1 said earlier this evidence should be made public. If the Minister will not consider this course of action then it should be made available to the Kerr Committee on service pay and conditions.

The Minister has expressed his confidence in the younger members of the Navy. From my own observation of them during a recent visit to the Naval College at Jervis Bay, 1 subscribe to his opinion of their calibre and his optimism about the future of the service. All the armed Services are undergoing fundamental changes; traditional customs and practices are under re-assessment. Admiral Crabb recently pointed to the need for elimination of much obsolete custom in dress and manners. In this time of change all vestiges of harmful practices sometimes given the dubious sanction of tradition should be eliminated with the utmost rigour. I agree with what the Minister has said about the comprehensive nature of the investigation and the dedication of Judge Rapke during the whole course of his investigation into what were at that time and, I believe the Minister would agree, still are very serious allegations. Judge Rapke has recommended corrective measures. Indeed, as I said earlier he has also made other substantial recommendations which could prove to be invaluable to those who take an interest in Service matters generally. It is only upon the question of publishing the report that 1 disagree with the Minister. I do not believe that there is anything in Judge Rapke’s report that could not be made public, indeed with great advantage to these people to whom I have just referred - not only to the Minister and to myself.

As I have already acknowledged, the Minister was good enough to keep both me and the honourable member for Fremantle fully informed, and I have already commended the Minister for his attitude and his actions in this respect. Nobody could have expected to have received more cooperation in this respect. Judge Rapke’s report was an excellent one. It fully covered the whole of the ramifications. Indeed, as I know only too well, he investigated individual complaints in order to ensure that they were satisfactorily investigated. I concede that this was done with great determination by Judge Rapke, because the cases that I sent to him as they came to me from individual sources were treated in the same way by Judge Rapke as were the cases which came to the Minister.

I conclude by saying that I hope that the Minister will reconsider his decision not to make the report public. I think that there is valuable information in it which could be used, I believe, very satisfactorily in many ways by those who take an interest in the future of the armed Services. I refer particularly to recruits who join the armed Services and who are so particularly important, as the Minister has himself stressed on occasions, if we are to build up in this country officers of the standing and calibre that one would expect to see in each of the armed Services. So I again appeal to the Minister to reconsider this one question. It is only on this one issue that I find any disagreement at all with the Minister. [ express my confidence in the report and in Judge Rapke’s investigation, and I am sure that the Minister’s competence will bring about the necessary recommendations.

Mr Beazley:

Mr Acting Speaker, I would ask for leave to make a brief statement.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

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

Mr BEAZLEY:
Fremantle

– I think that the Minister for the Navy (Dr Mackay) is to be congratulated on the manner in which the inquiry into this affair was held. I think that he struck a balance between directing the searchlight of truth on to HMAS ‘Leeuwin’ and at the same time respecting the code in the community that juveniles charged for any sort of misdemeanour or crime are entitled to secrecy of the proceedings in which they are charged, which is the normal procedure, for instance, in the children’s court. I think that the standing of HMAS ‘Leeuwin’ has been thoroughly vindicated. It is a quite remarkable institution. If any honourable members would like to look at the institution - I am not saying exactly look at it, although it would be very good if they went there - they would see that there are 650 young people between the ages of 15 and 17 years and learn that there is astonishingly little trouble there. It would be true to say that this is a testimony to the discipline of the place. It is also a testimony to the selection of the recruits.

HMAS ‘Leeuwin’ is an important institution because it can be found from reports such as this one that in events which have taken place in areas like the Gulf of Tonkin an ordinary naval rating who is a sonar operator can create an international misunderstanding if he is not competent in what he is doing. It is not merely important that officers should be thoroughly trained; it is now very important that the whole personnel of the Navy should be regarded as a highly expert body of men. HMAS Leeuwin’ is devoted to producing a highly expert body of men and I believe it is doing this in a highly expert way.

I wanted to say only one thing about initiation ceremonies which develop in all sorts of places where young people are involved. I know from the experience of my son being the President of the Guild of Undergraduates of the University of Western Australia that in that university the point was reached where the Guild authorities would disaffiliate any society which engaged in initiation ceremonies. The Guild decided finally that such ceremonies were intolerable. In his terms of reference Judge Rapke had to consider the following:

Whether there is evidence of the existence of any forms of initiation or similar practices in HMAS ‘Leeuwin’ which involved organised physical violence, degrading or bullying behaviour.

There is a curious way in which a matter like this will always appear in the Press. Some years ago some boys from ‘Leeuwin’ were at a dance and one of them very brutally assaulted the drummer of the dance band. He was legally sued. No particular searchlight was directed at ‘Leeuwin’ because of his behaviour. Had that same boy done the same thing to someone inside the college, somehow or other it would have been peculiarly and directly regarded as the responsibility of the Navy. In a way this is understandable. I am making the point that it will become a naval matter if the misbehaviour is in circumstances where it is not under civil or public scrutiny. The personal defects of the boy concerned are no greater if he directs that brutality at one of his fellows than if he directs it at a dance band leader in some other circumstances, but the Navy will find its prestige involved. For this reason I make this comment on initiation ceremonies. The judge’s terms of reference did not worry so much about initiation ceremonies but whether they involved organised physical violence, degrading or bullying behaviour. There is always a tendency to backslide when there are initiation ceremonies. They start as an ordinary, rather funny procedure. There is a tendency for older people to be rather sentimental about such ceremonies. They say that boys will be boys, that youth will be youth and that these sort of things will happen. They wink the eye and the idea begins to develop that here is a ritual in which the norms of behaviour can be exceeded. So the practice developed in the University of Adelaide, for instance, until there was a death. The practice has developed in a number of universities until there has been a death.

I believe it is important for those in any educational institution, and particularly where they have the authority of the Navy, to say quite simply and straight out that there will be no initiation ceremonies. Never mind the sentimentality about boys will be boys or youth will be youth. I hope it will be contrary to the regulations of HMAS ‘Leeuwin’ that there will be any initiation ceremonies of any kind. I am not saying that there have been, or that they are bad. I have total confidence in Commodore Ramsay and I have the highest respect for the institution. I am merely saying what I think is the path of wisdom about any sort of initiation ceremony. If such ceremonies are totally impermissible they cannot start to degenerate of develop in any direction. The parents who send their youngsters into an institution like this are not anticipating that their children will be put through any initiation ceremony other than the proper induction procedures of the Navy.

It could be disastrous if someone was injured in an initiation ceremony in any of the Service’s institutions and the institution, the Navy, the Army or whatever authority it was, was sued by the parents of that young person. In the resulting uproar the prestige of the institution would be damaged. Parents who are on the edge of a decision about allowing their children to go into HMAS ‘Leuwin’ - there are people in Queensland and Victoria who send their children thousands of miles away for the first time and they do so because of their complete confidence in the Navy - could be influenced by adverse publicity and the marginal decision would go against recruitment and against the development of an efficient service.

I believe that Judge Rapke’s report - the one that I have seen - and the indications given by the Minister rightly vindicate the institution. It has tremendous prestige. I know the excellent behaviour of the young people because, perforce, they ail have to live in my electorate. I hear the reactions of the people who are their sponsors. I see their demeanor in the streets of Fremantle and Perth and it Is habitually excellent. Sometimes, because they have their hair short back and sides, they have to take provocations and where I have actually seen this they have done it extremely well. I believe that they maintain a standard. It is unfortunate that there has been the occasion when the standards have been departed from and ‘Leeuwin’ has suffered from the way the matter has been written up. I think Judge Rapke’s report is a vindication. I think also that there is an element of warning. While it is important that initiation ceremonies should not involve organised physical violence, degrading of bullying behaviour, I do not think there should be any initiation ceremonies of any kind.

Dr Mackay:

– I seek leave to make a statement to answer two points that were raised.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Lucock)Is leave granted? There being no objection, leave is granted.

Dr MACKAY (Evans- Minister for the Navy) - I assure the honourable member for Fremantle (Mr Beazley) that as I understand it, and as Judge Rapke’s report would indicate, organised initiation ceremonies, or a pattern of bastardisation, etc., have never been a part of the programme at Leeuwin’. To the best of my knowledge from reading this extensive report and from assurances of the officers, there is no form of initiation at ‘Leeuwin’. From time to time there are instances of individual behaviour which would indicate that a person with some seniority, of months only, feels that he has, therefore, a prerogative to require a newcomer to do something subservient. This is not related to an official or unofficial initiation process of any kind. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Barnard) said that Admiral Crabb was responsible for introducing dress reforms in the Navy. This is not so; it was Admiral Dovers, the Admiral commanding the Fleet, who made certain such suggestions.

page 2681

COMMITTEE OF PRIVILEGES

Mr DRURY:
Ryan

– I present the re port of the Committee of Privileges relating to a letter to the editor published in the Australian’ of 13th September 1971 together with minutes of proceedings. This matter was referred to the Committee of Privileges on 13th September 1971.

Ordered that the report be printed.

Motion (by Mr Swartz) agreed to:

That consideration of the report be made an order of the day for Thursday, 4 November 1971.

page 2681

QUESTION

SPECIAL ADJOURMENT

Motion (by Mr Swartz) proposed:

That the House, at its rising, adjourn until Tuesday next at 3 p.m.

Mr BRYANT:
Wills

– I take it that this motion has to do with some event that occurs next Tuesday. A few days ago the House did not have half an hour to spare to discuss the question of refugees in Pakistan. The House never has sufficient time. On Tuesday millions will be gambled on a horse race, yet Australia can find only a handful of millions for people who are suffering.

Mr Giles:

– Where were you when this matter was raised?

Mr BRYANT:

– I went home for domestic reasons. I have left this House on very few occasions. It is only in the case of pressing emergencies that I do so. I do not really mind this place not working for half an hour on such an occasion or at any other time we feel it is desirable. But it sems to me to be an astonishing set of priorities. I just put on the record my disapproval of the fact that the country that can find so little for so much misery can find the time to do this. I hope that the Parliament will take a sharp look at its conscience before it starts tinkering with its procedures for an operation such ; as this.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 2682

BILLS RETURNED FROM THE SENATE

The following Bills were returned from the Senate without amendment or requests:

Phosphate Fertilizers Bounty Bill 1971

Livestock Slaughter Levy Bill 1971

Railway Agreement (Western Australia) Bill 1971.

page 2682

DRIED VINE FRUITS LEVY BILL 1971

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

Second Reading

Mr SINCLAIR:
Minister for Primary Industry · New England · CP

– I move:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

The purpose of this Bill is to impose levy, under certain conditions, on dried vine fruits received for packing. This arrangement is for the purposes of the stabilisation scheme referred to in my second reading speech on the Dried Vine Fruits Stabilization Bill 1971. This Bill is complementary to the Dried Vine Fruits Stabilization Bill 1971 and the Dried Vine Fruits Levy Collection Bill 1971. The Bill provides in clause 5 that, where the average return for a season in respect of a variety of dried fruit exceeds the base price for the season by more than $10, levy is imposed on that variety of dried fruit received for packing during the season. However, if varietal tonnage does not exceed 8,000 tons for currants, 60,000 tons for sultanas or 6,000 tons for raisins, no levy will be imposed, irrespective of the level of the average return.

Clause 6 prescribes the formula under which the levy will be charged. Sub-clause (2.) of clause 6 provides that the maximum rate of levy which can be charged is $20 per ton. Clause 7 of the Bill provides that the levy, if imposed, is payable by the packer of the dried fruit in certain circumstances with provision, under clause 11 of the Dried Vine Fruits Levy Collection Bill, for the packer to recover the levy from the grower. In other circumstances, namely when the grower receives the proceeds of sales of fruit other than through the agency of the packer, the grower is liable for the payment of the levy. Clause 8 imposes provisional levy in accordance with the provisions of the Dried Vine Fruits Levy Collection Bill 1971. I shall refer to the operation of the provisional levy in my second reading speech on that Bill.

Debate (on motion by Dr Patterson) adjourned.

page 2682

DRIED VINE FRUITS LEVY COLLECTION BILL 1971

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

Second Reading

Mr SINCLAIR:
Minister for Primary Industry · New England · CP

I move:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

This Bill is complementary to the Dried Vine Fruits Stabilization Bill 1971 and the Dried Vine Fruits Levy Bill 1971. The Bill provides the machinery arrangements for the payment and collection of provisional levy and levy to be imposed by the Dried Vine Fruits Levy Bill 1971. Clause 4 authorises the Minister to declare provisional levy which shall be payable within a prescribed time limit pending the establishment of final rates of levy. Sub-clause (10.) of that clause, however, provides that where a person has made arrangements that, in the opinion of the Minister or an unauthorised person, are adequate to ensure that any levy that may become payable by that person will be duly paid, the Minister or the authorised person may, by writing under his hand, exempt that person from liability to pay provisional levy.

In practice, as explained in my second reading speech on the Dried Vine Fruits Stabilization Bill 1971, it is proposed that the Commonwealth will again substantially operate the scheme through the Dried Fruits Stabilization Committee Ltd, which was the company which was established under the 1964-68 scheme by the Australian Dried Fruits Association, the major industry organisation, for the purpose, among other things, of facilitating the payments and collection of the levy. To the extent to which packing houses and selling agents in the industry may make arrangements with the proposed company on behalf of the growers, for such payments and collections, it is envisaged that provisional levy will be waived. It is thought that practically all, if not all, sections of the industry will operate through the company for stabilisation purposes and thus secure exemption from payment of provisional levy.

Debate (on motion by Dr Patterson) adjourned.

page 2683

DRIED VINE FRUITS STABILIZATION BILL 1971

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

Second Reading

Mr SINCLAIR:
Minister for Primary Industry · New England · CP

– I move:

The purpose of this Bill is to implement a scheme for the stabilisation of returns to dried vine fruits growers for a period of 5 years commencing with the 1971 crop. The scheme to which this Bill and the associated Dried Vine Fruits Levy Bill 1971 and the Dried Vine Fruits Levy Collection Bill 1971 now seek to give legislative expression has been overwhelmingly supported by a referendum of growers recently conducted by the Comonwealth. The degree of rank and file support is evidenced by the voting figures. Of the 5,004 growers enrolled 4,616 or 92 per cent cast their votes; and of these 4,560 or 98 per cent voted in favour of the scheme offered by the Government. It is therefore with considerable pleasure that I bring down on behalf of the Government legislation so obviously desired by the industry.

To assist honourable members to appreciate what the scheme contained in this legislation means to the industry I would propose to look briefly at the history of the industry over the last decade. In the 1961-62 season world prices for dried vine fruits fell to a catastrophic low. In the light of the then circumstances representatives of the various countries which exported dried vine fruits came together and, as a result the International Sultana (Raisin) Agreement was achieved in June 1963 largely through the efforts of the Australian Dried Fruits Control Board and particularly through the efforts of its then Chairman. Sir Eugene Gorman. The original signatories to the Agreement were Turkey, Greece and Australia - Australia participated at industry level with the endorsement of the Australian Government - and while the United States was not a signatory it adhered from the outset to the terms of the Agreement in every way. The implementation of the International Sultana (Raisin) Agreement had an impact on world prices, which picked up remarkably and the Australian industry was further helped by the implementation of the stabilisation scheme which covered the seasons 1964 to 1968 inclusive. This scheme was introduced by the Dried Vine Fruits Stabilization Act 1964 and auxiliary legislation following acceptance of the scheme by a majority of growers at a referendum. The Government made it a condition of this stabilisation scheme that in its closing stages and, if the Government was willing to continue the scheme, another ballot should be taken to determine whether growers wished its continuation, with or without amendment, for a further period.

In the event negotiations with industry leaders were opened by the Government towards the end of the former plan and in March 1970 a further plan was submitted to a referendum of growers but was not accepted by the industry. This plan, if accepted, was to have had retrospective application to embrace the 1969 season and to obtain for 5 years from and including that season. Of 3,745 growers of sultanas, raisins and currants, who registered to vote only 2,437 voted. Of these 1,578 recorded ‘yes’ and 859 ‘no’. Of those voting therefore 65 per cent favoured the plan but since the citerion for the acceptance of the plan was that there should be a majority of those eligible to vote and since those who vote ‘yes’ represented only 42 per cent of all eligible voters, no mandate for the plan was in effect given to the Government. Within a matter of weeks only of the industry failing to accept the offer of a new plan there came news of the generally unexpected possibility of the collapse of the International Sultana (Raisin) Agreement. It has been argued by some responsible industry leaders that had the referendum been held no more than 2 or 3 weeks later than it actually was held the deteriorating circumstances of the industry which developed might well have brought a completely different result from that referendum. This can of course be regarded only as a matter of personal judgment but it might well be argued that the overwhelming ‘yes’ vote at the recent referendum, held only 18 months after the earlier poll, does give support to this viewpoint.

In April 1970, only weeks after the referendum was held, a delegation from the Australian Dried Fruits Control Board including a senior officer from my Department who is the government representative on the Board, rushed to London at very short notice for an emergency meeting of the parties to the International Sultana (Raisin) Agreement. World prices for dried vine fruits were falling dramatically and some of the sales practices of member countries were being fiercely challenged by other members. Further meetings of the parties followed; in Madrid in June 1970; in Capetown in November 1970; and in April of this year in London. It was obvious at the conclusion of this London meeting that the International Sultana (Raisin) Agreement which had been achieved in 1963 was finished and there was no chance of its surviving, certainly in its then form. In June of this year representatives of the signatory countries, which had included South Africa from 1970, met for the last time as parties to the Agreement and formally resolved it out of existence. The only ray of light at all in this matter is the fact that the parties have agreed on the likelihood of their coming together in June of next year to review the events of the 12 months which will have passed by then without international agreement.

During its lifetime the conferences held under the Agreement were all chaired by Mr Setrakian of the United States, which is the world’s largest producer of dried vine fruits and which, as explained previously, while not a signatory to the Agreement, faithfully adhered to its terms during its lifetime. In a letter which Mr Setrakian wrote to the General Manager of the Australian Dried Fruits Control Board at the beginning of last year he said:

I fully agree with you when you say that unless some miracle or strong action is taken it looks as though the Agreement is finished. I think you will agree that the death of the Agreement will, using the words of Eugene Gorman, impose upon the sultana and raisin producers all over the wotld incalculable economic harm. Unless the position is corrected the whole Agreement could well collapse and in a good year we could see prices tumble to 1961-62 levels.

Events have now caught up with the prophesies of Mr Setrakian: The International

Sultana (Raisin) Agreement has collapsed and world prices are down to the 1962 catastrophic levels.

Late last year the Board of Management of the Australian Dried Fruits Association, known generally as ADFA, made a submission seeking to re-open with the Commonwealth negotiations for a further stabilisation scheme for this industry. The scheme which has just been so overwhelmingly accepted by the industry is the outcome of those discussions. The framework of the scheme and its machinery are broadly the same as in the 1964-68 scheme although there are one or two new features to which I will make specific reference later. It has been estimated that the cost of the scheme to the Commonwealth over the 5 years of its life and under such conditions as can be anticipated now will be of the order of $6m.

The principal features of the scheme may be summarised as follows:

Separate funds will be maintained for currants, sultanas and raisins:

An average overall base price for the first season of the plan, 1971, of $273 a ton will be adopted. The base price will be adjusted for each season according to movements in cash costs, including family labour, as assessed by the Bureau of Agricultural Economics;

The average base price for sultanas will be the same as the overall base price, $273 a ton for 1971, while currants will be $40 a ton above the average overall base price and raisins $30 a ton below;

When the average realised return to the grower - that is, gross return less costs necessarily incurred - is within the range of $10 a ton above or below the base price, no payment will be made into or out of the fund;

When the average realised return is more than $10 a ton above the base price, all of the excess over the $10, with a limitation of $20 a ton, will be paid into the fund, subject to no payment being made unless the total pack exceeds the minimum tonnage limitation referred to below;

When the average realised return is more than $10 a ton below the base price, a stabilisation payment equal to the shortfall below the $10 will be paid out of the fund, subject to a maximum of $23 a ton if a Commonwealth contribution is involved and to this ceiling and the rate a ton being reduced prorata to the tonnage in excess of the maximum tonnage limitations referred to below;

Tonnage limitations will be:

The Commonwealth will underwrite the funds;

Ceilings to the funds of $750,000 for currants, $4m for sultanas and $750,000 for raisins will apply. Any excess will be applied first to repay any past Commonwealth contribution within the plan period and then in refunds to growers on a proportionate basis;

Where a stabilisation payment is payable, advances will be made by the Government when realisations are largely known. Bounty will be payable, based on statistics available at 25th February to the extent of 90 per cent of the then estimated bounty, with the remaining 10 per cent payable following final assessment of realisations.

In the above outline will be noted 3 new features of importance, as distinct from changes in details, of the proposed scheme as compared with that which obtained for the period 1964-68. These features are:

A maximum rate of bounty of $23 a ton is applicable if a Commonwealth contribution is involved. This ceiling did not form part of the earlier scheme;

Where bounty is payable in respect of a season’s transactions the Government will make advance payment against the industry’s bounty entitlement. I know that industry leaders are particularly appreciative of this new arrangement which should prove to be of considerable assistance in helping finance growers’ seasonal operations;

Repayments to growers of excess moneys over and above the ceilings to any of the stabilisation funds or moneys standing to the credit of any nf the funds at the end of the scheme will be made on the basis of proportionate pay ments being made to all persons who have contributed to the funds prior to that point and not on the first-in firstout basis as obtained under the previous plan. This change has been at the request of the industry.

I should point out that the tonnage limitations provided for in the dried vine fruits legislation, as well as the limitations on the per ton levels of producer pay-in and Government pay-out are designed to protect both grower and government interests. For example, if growers’ incomes are reduced drastically by production falling below a certain level, provision is made for no levy to be collected even though prices may be high. Moreover, there is a limit of $20 a ton on growers’ contributions to the varietal stabilisation funds so that the grower pays in only a limited amount even if a large price increase should be experienced. On the other hand, the Commonwealth’s financial liability is protected by the provision in the legislation for a maximum payout of $23 a ton up to a certain tonnage limit. The scheme contains certain maximum tonnages beyond which payments from the stabilisation funds, whether from grower or government money, are reduced. I should emphasise that maximum as well as minimum tonnage provisions are included because the purpose of the scheme is to maintain viable returns *o producers at stable levels, and not to encourage unlimited expansion of production.

During the negotiations which led up to the achievement of the scheme now given legislative expression in this and the complementary Bills presently before the House the industry leaders sought as assurance on the part of the Commonwealth that the operation of the scheme, if accepted by growers, would be kept under review and appropriate action taken by the Government if necessary. I am happy to state on behalf of the Government that, should ADFA, because of significant changes in circumstances, seek during the life of the scheme a review of its operation such an approach will be considered by the Minister of the day. This Bill and the associated Dried Vine Fruits Levy Bill 1971 and the Dried Vine Fruits Levy Collection Bill 1971 seek to provide the machinery under which the proposed stabilisation scheme will operate. As in the previous scheme if, during a season, calculations indicate that a charge is likely to be payable to the end of a season, a provisional levy may be imposed and later adjusted when sales for the season have been completed. Money collected from these charges will be paid to the appropriate stabilisation fund and payment from the funds will be made to growers when necessary.

Although, as I have stated, a procedure is established for the imposition and collection of provisional levy it is anticipated that, as was the experience of the 1964-68 scheme, there will be no need to implement this arrangement since a special provision will be found in sub-clause (10) of clause 4 of the Dried Vine Fruits Levy Collection Bill that provides ‘where a person has made arrangements that, in the opinion of the Minister or of an authorized person, are adequate to ensure that any levy that may become payable by that person will be duly paid, the Minister or the authorized person may, by writing under his hand, exempt that person from liability to pay provisional levy’. Under the previous scheme, the Australian Dried Fruits Association incorporated a company, the services of which were available to any grower of dried vine fruit whether he was a member of ADFA or not, which accepted on behalf of growers the liability for payment of charges and the responsibility for distributing bounty. The operations of this company was so successful that it would be envisaged that exactly the same machinery would obtain in respect of the new scheme and the Bills presently before the House have been framed with this in mind.

Rural industries in general are today going through difficult times. However, I think it fair comment to say that the dried vine fruits industry is being particularly hard hit by the ill winds of adversity. A huge question mark hangs over what the future holds for this industry; the International Sultana (Raisin) Agreement has collapsed and world prices are at a painfully low level with some of Australia’s competitors not only showing no desire to see those prices lifted but even tending to adopt measures to drive them even lower with the mistaken thought that the Australian industry can be driven out of existence. This stabilisation scheme which is being now so eagerly sought by the industry offers no panacea for the industry’s ills but it will provide some measure of security to growers over the 5 years of the scheme and will enable them in that time to examine the problems of the industry in the light of the developing circumstances. I commend the Bill to honourable members.

Debate (on motion by Dr Patterson) adjourned.

page 2686

STATES GRANTS (UNIVERSITIES) BILL (No. 2) 1971

Bill presented by Mr Malcolm Fraser, and read a first time.

Second Reading

Mr Malcolm Fraser:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP

– I move:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

In the course of my recent statement on the Commonwealth’s proposals in respect of education, I mentioned the Commonwealth’s decision to join with the States in providing additional recurrent grants for universities in the current triennium, 1970- 72, to assist them to meet the costs arising from exceptional increases in non-academic salaries and wages. The main purpose of this Bill is to give effect to that decision. The Commonwealth’s financial assistance to the States for universities is provided on a triennial basis. The assistance includes capital grants for the provision of new buildings, alterations and extensions to existing buildings, and the purchase of major equipment items, etc.; recurrent grants towards the running expenses of universities; and grants, both capital and recurrent, towards the cost of student residences and teaching hospitals.

The Commonwealth has always taken the view that the triennial grants should normally be varied only in respect of any increases in academic salaries that might be approved and that universities should be required to meet any other increases in costs that might occur during the triennium. When I presented the fourth report of the Australian Universities Commission on 21st August 1969 I made it clear that the Commonwealth still adhered to that view and would only consider the provision of supplementary grants during the triennium in extraordinary circumstances.

Strong representations were made by a number of universities and State governments for additional Commonwealth contributions towards the recurrent grants in the 1970-72 triennium on the ground that the increases in non-academic salaries and wages that have occurred have been so great that universities are unable to meet them without additional financial assistance. On the strong recommendation of the Australian Universities Commission and after a careful examination, the Commonwealth has decided that the increases have in fact been of such a magnitude that they might be regarded as exceptional, and it will therefore provide additional contributions on the basis of the normal recurrent grant formula, that is, a contribution of $1 by the Commonwealth for each $1.85 provided from State contributions plus fees. However, as some State Governments had already made additional contributions towards their universities to assist them to meet the increases in non-academic salaries and wages, the Commonwealth has agreed that any such contributions from State contributions or fees in the current triennium may count as matching grants towards the Commonwealth’s contributions which are confined in the Bill to the calendar years 1971 and 1972.

The Bill also provides for 3 minor amendments to the legislation which involve transfers of Commonwealth contributions from one project or purpose to another without any increase in the Commonwealth’s financial commitment. These transfers have been recommended by the Australian Universities Commission. The first of these amendments relates to the third university in Queensland to be established at Mount Gravatt and to be known as Griffith University. The Queensland Government recently decided to accelerate the development of this new university so that it should be able to open to students in 1975 and an Act to establish Griffith University has now been passed. The decision to open to students in 1975 will necessitate a greater expenditure of recurrent funds in the current triennium than was expected when the grants were determined and the Interim Council of Griffith

University, with the support of the Queensland Government, has sought the Commonwealth’s agreement to a transfer to recurrent funds of portion of the Commonwealth’s contribution towards capital funds in the 1970-72 triennium. The Commonwealth has agreed to the transfer and provision for the change is included in the Bill.

The other 2 amendments involve transfers of capital funds to meet desired changes in university building programmes. These changes have been requested by the universities concerned with the support of their State Governments. The first of these amendments is to transfer an amount provided for professorial units at a teaching hospital associated with the University of Queensland to the main university capital programme to enable a new building to be constructed on the university campus at St Lucia for the departments of physiotherapy and occupational therapy. These departments are presently housed in very old hut-type accommodation off campus in an area which must be cleared to permit road development. Because of delays in the hospital’s capital programme planning, the Commonwealth’s contribution towards the teaching hospital project will not now be required in the current triennium.

The other transfer relates to a leaching hospital project with the University of New South Wales. It has now been decided that a paediatric unit which was to have been established at the Eastern Suburbs Hospital should be established at the Prince of Wales Hospital instead. Accordingly, the Bill provides for the necessary transfers of funds to give effect to these changes in planning. I commend the Bill to the House.

Debate (on motion by Mr Stewart) ajourned.

page 2687

EXCISE TARIFF BILL 1971

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

Second Reading

Mr CHIPP:
Minister for Customs and Excise · Hotham · LP

– I move:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

The Bill now before the House amends the Excise Tariff Act in accordance with Excise Tariff Proposals No.I which I tabled on 17th August last. The changes, which operate from 18th August 1971, give effect to the Government’s Budget measures within the excise field. Increased duties are imposed on manufactured tobacco products and certain refined petroleum products. A summary of the changes is being circulated. I commend the Bill.

Debate (on motion by Mr Crean) adjourned.

page 2688

CUSTOMS TARIFF RILL (No. 3) 1971

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

Second Reading

Mr CHIPP:
Minister for Customs and Excise · Hotham · LP

– I move:

That the Bill be now read a second time. The Customs Tariff Bill now before the House provides for amendments to the Customs Tariff 1966-1971 and comprises 3 Schedules. It is complementary, in part, to the Excise Tariff Bill, which I have just introduced, giving effect to the Government’s Budget measures in relation to petroleum products and tobacco products. These fiscal changes are set out in the Third Schedule. The First and Second Schedules to the Bill incorporate changes arising from the Government’s acceptance of the Tariff Board’s recommendations on: Artificial flowers and fruit, etc.; burial and cremation caskets, etc. (New ZealandAustralia Free Trade Agreement); diamond drilling machines; hardened casein, etc. (New Zealand-Australia Free Trade Agreement); pins, hairpins and curling grips; pulp (New Zealand-Australia Free Trade Agreement); refractory products; vegetable oils, and the Special Advisory Authority reports on: cathode ray tube display terminals; cherries, and flue-heated economisers.

In addition the First Schedule to the Bill implements changes agreed to by the Australian and New Zealand Governments to extend the list of commodities to which the New Zealand-Australia Free Trade Agreement applies. In relation to the First and Second Schedules I detailed at some length the nature of the changes when I introduced the relevant Tariff Proposals. Other alterations were explained in Press statements made by my colleague the Minister for Trade and Industry. I do not propose to reiterate all that was said on those occasions but in order that honourable members and other interested persons may locate earlier speeches on these subjects, I ask leave to incorporate in Hansard a table setting out the relevant references and to incorporate in Hansard, Press statements made by my. colleague the Minister for Trade and Industry in relation to changes made initially by ‘Gazette’ notices.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Drury:
RYAN, QUEENSLAND

Is leave granted? There being no objection leave is granted. “ (The documents read as follows):

page 2689

PRESS STATEMENT ISSUED WITH GAZETTE NOTICE

Released 4 p.m., 17th May 1971

page 2689

REPORT OF THE TARIFF BOARD ON VEGETABLE OILS

page 2689

REPORT OF THE SPECIAL ADVISORY AUTHORITY ON FLUE-HEATED ECONOMISERS

The Minister for Trade and Industry today released reports of the Tariff Board on vegetable oils and knitted elastomeric and elastic fabrics. The Minister also released a report of the Special Advisory Authority on flue-heated economisers.

The Minister said the Government had adopted the recommendations in the Board’s report on vegetable oils. As a consquence, the temporary sliding scale duties on a range of locally produced oils would be removed and little or no change made in the normal duties apart from conversion of a rate per gallon to a rate per ton. The General rate on linseed, rapeseed, safflower and sunflower seed oils, for example, would be $95 per ton, and on epoxidised oils 40 per cent ad valorem.

The Government has also accepted the Board’s recommendation that the industry be reviewed in 3 years time.

Mr Anthony recalled that this industry over the past decade had been frequently before the Special Advisory Authority and the Tariff Board. These inquiries had been necessary because overseas prices had fluctuated considerably and there were frequently occasions when low priced imports had threatened the Australian industry. He stated that following adoption of the recommended duties, a close watch would be kept on the import situation and that a review of duties would be made if the industry again faced a threat to severe damage from imports. Mr Anthony added that the Government desired that the industry’s future protection be stable so that it can meet the Australian demand for its products at a price level which is adequate for efficient growers and crushers.

Dealing with the report on knitted elastomeric and elastic fabrics, Mr Anthony said the Govern ment had accepted the Board’s recommendation that the present duties of 20 per cent General and 10 per cent Preferential remain unchanged.

The Minister said the Government had adopted a report by the Special Advisory Authority on flue-heated economisers. A temporary duty of 20 per cent would apply to imports of flue-heated economisers other than of cast iron or cast iron clad. Mr Anthony explained that the temporary duty, which would operate from 18th May 1971, would be in addition to the normal duties. The temporary duly would not apply to goods in direct transit on 2nd April 1971, provided they are entered for home consumption on arrival.

Mr Anthony said that the question of the long term protective needs of the industry was currently before the Tariff Board for inquiry and report, as part of the reference on steam raising equipment. The temporary protection now applied was holding action pending the Government’s decision on receipt of the Board’s report.

page 2689

PRESS STATEMENT ISSUED WITH GAZETTE NOTICE

Released 4 p.m., 24th May 1971

page 2689

REPORT OF THE SPECIAL ADVISORY AUTHORITY ON CHERRIES

The Minister for Trade and Industry today released a report by the Special Advisory Authority on brined and drained cherries.

The Minister said the Government had accepted the Authority’s recommendations. As a consequence, a tempoary duty of 6 cents per lb would apply to brined cherries, and a temporary duty of 22 cents per lb would apply to drained cherries. The temporary duties are the equivalent expressed in specific terms of the duties which applied prior to the release of the recent Tariff Board report. The temporary duties would operate from 25th May 1971 but would not apply to goods in direct transit to Australia on 22nd April 1971 provided they are entered for home consumption on arrival. The Authority also recommended that purchases of locally produced cherries from Australian brineries will be allowed to import under By-law 3 of similar cherries for each 1 lb purchased locally since 22nd April 1971. This arrangement will be introduced as the local brining industry will be unable to supply the whole of the Australian requirements.

The Minister recalled that the Government bad accepted the Tariff Board’s report in the light of the Board’s view that there were alternative new markets for local brined cherries and that there seemed to be a reasonable possibility that the brining of cherries in Australia could continue to be a successful operation.

Mr Anthony said that the Special Advisory Authority stated in his report that as a result of his inquiry he was of the opinion that the only substantial market available for Australian brined cherries was in the production of drained cherries and that if this section of the industry could not be re-established the brining of cherries in Australia could not continue on an economic basis. In his view the cessation of the brining of cherries in Australia would adversely affect the Australian cherry growing industry as a whole and for that reason he considered that there was a need for urgent action to be taken to protect the production of both brined and drained cherries in Australia.

The Minister added that the question of the long-term protective needs of the industry had been referred to the Tariff Board for inquiry and report.

page 2690

PRESS STATEMENT ISSUED WITH GAZETTE NOTICE

Released 4 p.m., 22nd June 1971

page 2690

REPORT OF THE TARIFF BOARD ON ARTIFICIAL CHRISTMAS TREES, ETC

The Acting Minister for Trade and Industry, Mr P. J. Nixon, today released the Tariff Board Report on Artificial Flowers, Fruit, etc.; Carnival and Entertainment Articles etc.; Christmas Trees, Decorations, Stockings, etc.

Mr Nixon said that the principal product involved in the report was artificial Christmas Trees and the Board had recommended duties of 30 per cent (General) and 20 per cent (Preferential) for these goods. These rates represent increases on the former substantive duties which were 71/2 per cent (General) and Free (Preferential). Since June 1970 temporary duties of 371/2 per cent (General) and 35 per cent (Preferential) have also applied to these goods.

On most other goods which were under reference the Board has recommended rates of 30 per cent (General) and 20 per cent (Preferential). In the case of artificial flowers, foliage or fruit the Board has recommended minimum rates of duty.

The Government has adopted the Board’s recommendations except those relating to articles made of artificial flowers, foliage and fruit. These are mainly funeral tributes.

Mr Nixon said that the Board had proposed the same General rate (30 per cent) for these articles as for artificial Christmas Trees. In its report in commenting on protection for these goods the Board stated that in view of the labour intensive nature of this industry’s operations, its use of mainly imported materials and high price disadvantages, the Board had doubts concerning the industry’s economic worth. The Board bad nevertheless recommended that this sector be protected at the same general rate of duty as was proposed for trees.

Mr Nixon pointed out that in relation to goods made of artificial flowers, foliage or fruit, existing rates of duty were phasing out to Free/Free following the Kennedy Round of negotiations. In view of the fact that international negotiations would be necessary to implement the rates now proposed by the Board and the Board’s expressed doubts on. the economic worth of the industry, the Government had decided not to adopt the Board’s recommendations in relation to these articles.

The new duties will operate on and from Wednesday, 23rd June 1971.

page 2690

PRESS STATEMENT ISSUED WITH GAZETTE NOTICE

Released 4 p.m., 30th June 1971.

page 2690

NEW ZEALAND-AUSTRALIA FREE TRADE AGREEMENT

The Acting Minister for Trade and Industry, Mr Nixon said today that the Australian and New Zealand Governments had reached agreement on a further list of commodities to be added to Schedule A of the New Zealand-Australia Free Trade Agreement as from 1st July 1971.

Mr Nixon said that in the main these commodities were those which had been included in the fifth of the regular reviews provided for in the Agreement for the purpose of broadening its trade cover. During the course of this review, both Governments had considered a common list of products which were notified in December last year.

The Minister also announced the release of a report by the Tariff Board on the question of the inclusion in Schedule A of tents, sails, hoes, rakes, automatic petrol dispensing nozzles, and vacuum pumps for milking machines. It had been decided to accept the Board’s finding and the goods would be included in the Schedule from 1st July.

The Government has also accepted recommendations by the Tariff Board in a further report that hardened casein shapes, certain laboratory equipment and trailer axle assemblies should be added to the Schedule. As the Government has not yet concluded its consideration of other goods covered by the Boards inquiry, the report will not be released until a later date.

Other goods now being added to Schedule A include edible gelatin, paper patterns, wrist straps and bands for watches, illuminating glassware, copper foil, wrought plates sheets and strip of tin, centrifuges, non-domestic dishwashers, rock boring machinery, industrial vacuum cleaners, certain clocks and cricket balls.

page 2694

PRESS STATEMENT ISSUED WITH GAZETTE NOTICE

Released 4 p.m., 23rd July 197 1

page 2694

REPORT OF THE SPECIAL ADVISORY AUTHORITY ON CATHODE RAY TUBE DISPLAY TERMINALS

The Minister for Trade and Industry, The Rt Hon. J. D. Anthony, today released the report of the Special Advisory Authority dealing with Cathode Ray Tube Display Terminals.

Mr Anthony said that he had accepted the recommendation of the Special Advisory Authority that urgent action be taken to protect the manufacture of these goods by means of a temporary additional duty of 25 per cent ad valorem. This duty will be additional to the existing rates of 71/2 per cent General and Free Preferential which apply to these goods.

The Minister had also accepted the SAA’s recommendations that types of terminals not manufactured in Australia should be subject to by-law admission. Mr Anthony explained that the temporary duty which would operate from 26th July 1971 would not apply to either goods in transit on 9th June 1971, provided they were entered for home consumption on arrival, or goods which were on firm order with an overseas supplier on or before 1st January 1971 and which are entered for home consumption on or before 30th June 1972.

Mr Anthony stated that the SAA had found that the production of CRT terminals was an established industry which in its early period was operating successfully. However, because of the lack of adequate protection the industry had become unable to compete against imports.

The SAA reported that it was evident that imports of terminals were increasing and that prices being charged by suppliers were decreasing. The SAA found that the Australian industry was already in a difficult position and if urgent action was not taken to afford some protection to the industry it was likely to suffer serious harm. The SAA had therefore recommended a temporary additional duty of 23 per cent to apply to CRT terminals irrespective of whether they are imported separately or imported as part of a computer.

Mr Anthony commented that there had apparently been some misconception that the computer industry as such had been referred to the SAA. This is not so. The reference to the SAA covered only Cathode Ray Tube Terminals which represents only part of the peripheral equipment normally used with computers. The question of the long term protective needs of Cathode Ray Tube Terminals had also been referred to the Tariff Board at the time the reference had been sent to the SAA.

The temporary protection now applied was holding action pending the Government’s decision on receipt of the Tariff Board’s report.

page 2694

EXCERPT FROM TARIFF BOARD REPORT OF 8 FEBRUARY 1971 ON MINING, METALLURGICAL ETC., MACHINERY

page 2694

CONCLUSIONS

Mindrill, the only specialist manufacturer of diamond drilling machines in Australia, has successfully produced these machines for over 20 years. The company manufactures a wide range of drills from small hand-held machines to the largest in the world capable of drilling to depths of 10,000 ft. Production and sales by the company have increased over the 6 year period to 1969-70 but profitability has declined since 1967- 68.

Fox and George Moss Pty Ltd manufacture multi-purpose machines which incorporate the facility for diamond drilling. Since its entry into this field in 1965, sales by Fox have expanded significantly.

Imports of diamond drilling machines have gained a considerable share of the expanding market. Imports increased from $202,000 in 1965- 66 to $1,016,000 in 1968-69. Sales by the local industry also increased during this period but the local manufacturers’ share of the market could not be determined because of the multi-purpose nature of some machines.

Over the years, Mindrill appears to have provided an important service to the local mineral exploration industry and has developed along with the industry’s requirements. The company now produces an extensive range of machines to meet the widely varying needs of users. This range appears to be wider that that offered by importers and if the company finds that this contributes to its disabilities, some rationalisation of its production may be necessary. Because it operates a large subsidiary drilling company, Mindrill has first hand knowledge of the requirements of diamond drilling machines in Australia and is able effectively to test any new equipment. Mindrill has also supplied parts and equipment for competitive drills.

Mindrill’s manufacturing operations appear to be technically efficient, with a high percentage of plant utilisation. The company operates most of its plant on a single shift and overtime basis and works two full shifts on some machines.

Despite high disabilities revealed by several price comparisons, Mindrill’s overall level of disadvantage appears to be moderate when importers’ mark-ups and certain local advantages are taken into account. These advantages are the existence of its drilling subsidiary, the company’s ability to produce machines to meet users specific requirements and State Governments’ preference over and above that provided by the Tariff for locally manufactured equipment. Mindrill’s drilling subsidiary not only provides Mindrill with a sizeable captive market but also permits the ready flow of information from operators and enables the company to field-test its equipment.

Importers claimed that a duty on diamond drilling machines would limit exploration and impose an unnecessary burden on the export potential of the mining industry. However, the Board believes that the duty it will recommend will have only a slight effect on users’ costs, among other things, because of the long life of the machines and the footage which can be drilled in that time.

Importers also claimed that, should a protective duty be applied, Mindrill would command a monopoly position and be unable to satisfy the local market’s requirements. Mindrill submitted evidence that it had the capacity with greater recourse to sub-contractors, to supply the total demand of local users, estimated at about seventy machines per year. However, the Board believes that the levels of duty recommended will permit sufficient import competition to minimise any danger of Mindrill becoming the sole supplier of the Australian market. Furthermore, machines manufactured by Fox and George Moss Pty Ltd are to some extent competitive with Mindrill equipment.

The Board considers that the local industry is efficient and that the manufacture of diamond drilling machines is a worthwhile industry for Australia. Users benefit from the existence of a local industry to the extent that machines can be readily adapted or designed to meet their specific requirements and service and, possibly, spare parts are more readily available. The industry has made significant exports and, though initially assisted by import licensing, has subsequently developed without the assistance of protective duties.

The main source of import competition is Canada with the United States of America, South Africa and Sweden also important. These are all relatively high labour cost countries but appear in some instances to be able to produce diamond drills on a much larger scale than Mindrill has found possible. The Board will recommend rates of 30 per cent General, 20 per cent Preferential for diamond drilling machines. The resulting increase in the local industry’s share of the market should enable manufacturers to achieve significant economies in factory overhead with some savings also possible in labour and materials costs.

Effective rates will differ little from the nominal rates but may in some instances be slightly lower’.

Mr CHIPP:
LP

– Comprehensive documentation setting out the changes in rates of duty, together with a glossary of somewhat unusual terms, is now being distributed for the use of honourable members. I commend the Bill.

Debate (on motion by Mr Crean) adjourned.

page 2695

EXPORT INCENTIVE GRANTS BILL 1971

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

Second Reading

Mr PEACOCK:
Minister for the Army, and Minister assisting the Treasurer · Kooyong · LP

– I move:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

The purpose of this Bill is to continue the incentives to exporters formerly provided under the Commonwealth pay-roll tax rebate scheme. Honourable members will recall that when introducing the Pay-roll Tax (Termination of Commonwealth Tax) Bill on the 14th September last - to give effect to the agreement to transfer the payroll tax to the States - the Treasurer (Mr Snedden) foreshadowed the early introduction of separate legislation to give exporters the same benefits as they would have expected to receive in rebates of their payroll tax liabilities. The Bill proposes that direct Commonwealth grants be payable in respect of increases in exports during the financial years 1971-72 and 1972-73, the years for which the pay-roll tax rebate scheme was to remain in force. The grants will be equal in amount to the rebates that would have been allowed in respect of pay-roll tax levied at the rate of 2i per cent and will be governed by the same conditions of eligibility as applied under the rebate scheme. In broad terms, an exporter will be entitled to a grant of an amount equal to 101 per cent of the increased export sales made by him in either the 1971-72 or 1972-73 financial years, the increase in exports being determined by reference to a base period amount generally calculated as one-third of the value of his exports during the first 3 of the 8 years immediately preceding the particular export year.

The grant in respect of a financial year will be limited to the amount that would have been payable by the exporter if the Commonwealth pay-roll tax had continued to be imposed at the rate of 2i per cent. Where the grant is limited in this way any excess entitlement, up to an amount equal to one-half of the pay-roll tax that would formerly have been payable, may be carried forward and paid as a grant in any of the next 3 succeeding years in the same way as excess rebate entitlements could have been carried forward under the payroll tax rebate scheme. The proposed grants scheme will be administered by the Commissioner of Taxation who is already responsible for the administration of the pay-roll tax rebate scheme. The Bill contains provisions for objection by a person who disagrees with a determination made by the Commissioner affecting that person’s claim for a grant. A decision of the Commissioner on an objection may be referred to a taxation board of review for review and decisions of a board which involve a question of law may be taken on appeal to the High Court. The Bill also contains provisions relating to the observance of secrecy along the lines of those contained in the pay-roll tax law. Notes on the various clauses of the Bill are contained in an explanatory memorandum being circulated to honourable members. I commend the Bill to the House.

Debate (on motion by Mr Crean) adjourned.

Sitting suspended from 12.44 to 2.15 p.m.

page 2696

STATES GRANTS (SPECIAL ASSISTANCE) BILL 1971

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

Second Reading

Mr PEACOCK:
Minister lor the Army and Minister assisting the Treasurer · Kooyong · LP

– I move:

That the Bill be now read a second time. The main purpose of this Bill is to authorise the payments in 1971-72 of special grants of $7m to South Australia and $7,800,000 to Tasmania. These payments are in accordance with the recommendations by the Commonwealth Grants Commission contained in its thirty-eighth report, which has already been tabled. The Bill also seeks the usual authority for payment of advances to the 2 States in the early months of 1972-73 pending receipt of the Commission’s recommendations for that year and the enactment of legislation to provide for the grants to be paid in that year.

Special grants are paid to financially weaker States to compensate them for such factors as lower capacity to raise revenue from their own resources and higher costs in providing Government services of a standard similar to those in the financially stronger States. When special grants were first paid they constituted the only regular form of general revenue assistance paid to the financially weaker States for this purpose. The main way in which special compensatory assistance is now provided is through the higher per capita financial assistance grants paid to the less populous States. The financial assistance grants are, of course, the main general revenue grants to the States. The special grants may, therefore be regarded as supplementing the financial assistance grants, and as having the special characteristic of being independently and expertly assessed by the Grants Commission.

Up to 1959, South Australia, Western Australia and Tasmania received annual special grants on the recommendation of the Grants Commission. South Australia withdrew from the special grants system as from 1959-60 and Western Australia as from 1968-69, but Tasmania has continued to apply each year. At the June 1970 Premiers Conference the Commonwealth indicated that each of the 4 less populous States was free to apply for a special grant on the recommendation of the Grants Commission should it believe that its financial assistance grant was too low relative to New South Wales and Victoria. Under the previous arrangements, all States that bad not been applying for special grants were expected to continue to refrain from doing so. South Australia applied for, and received, a special grant in 1970-71, and presently remains a claimant State.

As honourable members may be aware, the Queensland Government has recently applied for a special grant for 1971-72. The Commission can be expected to submit a special report on Queensland’s application later in this financial year. If the Commission recommends payment of a special grant to Queensland, and if the Government accepts that recommendation, then legislation will have to be introduced to provide for the payment of the grant before the end of 1971-72. The method used by the Grants Commission, briefly put, is to calculate grants which will bring the claimant States’ budgetary positions up to those of the States taken as ‘standard’, after allowing for differences between the States concerned in their financial practices and in efforts to raise revenue and control expenditure. This involves a detailed comparison of the standard and claimant States’ budgetary revenues and expenditures.

From 1959-60 the standard States have been New South Wales and Victoria. The Commission, in its 1967 and 2 following reports, had contemplated changing to a standard based on the experience of all the non-claimant States as from 1970-71. However, in its 1970 report, the Commission announced that it was reconsidering this matter in the light of the revised financial assistance grants arrangements and in this year’s report it has announced that it will retain the standard bas-:d on the experience of New South Wales and Victoria alone. The reasons for this decision are set out fully in paragraph 3.29 of the Commission’s report. Briefly, they are as follows.

First, the Commission believes that, in the situation where all of the 4 less populous States are free to apply for special grants, a standard based on the experience of all of the non-claimant States could lead to uncertainty on what the standard would involve from one year to the next. Secondly, the Commission takes the view that, because of the then Prime Minister’s statement, at the June 1970 Premiers Conference, that each of the 4 less populous States was free to apply for special grants if it considered that its relative financial position was adversely affected as a result of the additional per capita grants being paid to New South Wales and Victoria, it would be logical and consistent to use a standard based on the budgetary experience of those two States. Thirdly, the Commission considers that a standard based on the experience of all the non-claimant States would involve it in an undue amount of work given its limited staff resources.

Particularly with Queensland now a claimant State, there would in practice be very little difference between a standard based on New South Wales and Victoria alone and one based on all of the nonclaimant States - that is, the 2 States I have just mentioned plus Western Australia. While the Government is not convinced of the validity of all the arguments advanced by the Commission in favour of a 2-State standard, it will not seek to reopen the decision in present circumstances. The Commission has announced no other major changes of principle or method in this year’s report. However, the Commission is in the process of reviewing its methods in relation to a number of important areas, especially expenditure on hospitals. It has also continued to refine the bases of its calculations in a number of more minor respects. These matters of detail are dealt with in chapters 2, 3 and 4 of the Commission’s report and I shall not attempt to summarise them here.

The recommendations by the Grants Commission for payment of special grants consist of 2 parts. One part is based :>n an estimate of the claimant State’s financial need in the current financial year, and is treated as an advance payment subject to adjustment 2 years later when the Commission has compared in detail the budget results and standards of effort and of services provided in that year for both the claimant State and the States which it takes as standard. The other part represents the final adjustment to the advance payment made 2 years earlier and is known as the completion payment.

The Commission has recommended the payment of an advance grant of $7m to South Australia in 1971-72, compared with the grant of $5m paid last financial year. The advance grant paid in 1970-71 will be subject to adjustment next financial year after a detailed examination of the State’s relative financial position. This year’s advance grant will be similarly adjusted, if necessary, in 1973-74. These adjustments could be cither positive or negative. The

Commission has recommended a total special grant of $7,800,000 to Tasmania in 1971-72, made up of an advance payment of Slim for 1971-72 and a final negative completion payment of $3,200,000 in respect of 1969-70. With the concurrence of the House, I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a table which compares the amounts recommended for payments to Tasmania in 1971-72 with those paid in 1969-70 and 1970-71.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

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

Mr PEACOCK:

– The negative adjustment in respect of Tasmania’s 1969-70 grant means that the advance payment of $22m made in that year has proved, after detailed examination by the Commission, to be an over-estimate of the State’s needs for that year. The 1971-72 advance grant will, of course, be subject to adjustment in 1973- 74. The basis of the Commission’s recommendations are set out fully in its report. The recommendations of the Grants Commission have been adopted by Parliament each year since the Commission’s inception and the Government considers that they should again be accepted on this occasion. I commend the Bill to the House.

Debate (on motion by Mr Crean) adjourned.

page 2698

STEVEDORING INDUSTRY BILL 1971

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 6th October (vide page 1959), on motion by Mr Lynch:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– The Opposition supports this Bill which arises from the amalgamation of the North Australian Workers Union and the Federated Miscellaneous Workers Union of Australia and for arrangements made, in consequence of that amalgamation, for the Waterside Workers Federation to take over the activities in the Port of Darwin. Now that the workers who would formerly have been members of the Federated Miscellaneous Workers Union are members of the Waterside Workers Federation and are part of the stevedoring industry it has become necessary to make consequential amendments to the Stevedoring Industry Act so that these workers will attract the full benefits of the legislation. Therefore I formally state to the House on behalf of the Opposition that it will not oppose the Bill but will support it.

I will say no more but will leave it to my colleague the honourable member for Sturt (Mr Foster) to speak on behalf of the Opposition. For many years the honourable member was a high executive officer of the Waterside Workers Federation. He has made a study of the industry and is probably one of the best versed men in the waterside industry in Australia. I do not suppose that there would be any other man in any other Parliament in Australia who would know anywhere near as much as the honourable member for Sturt knows and understands about the stevedoring industry. I hope that honourable members will give him the attention that be deserves. They will learn a lot. I therefore conclude my remarks and look forward to hearing the honourable member for Sturt.

Mr FOSTER:
Sturt

– I thank the honourable member for Hindmarsh (Mr Clyde Cameron) for his very kind remarks. The measure before the House is perhaps somewhat limited in relation to the problems on the waterfront and the position in which the industry now finds itself. I refer, of course, to the agreement which is due to expire soon. Negotiations are about to commence for its renewal. The Bill, as the honourable member for Hindmarsh stated, does no more than make provision for the waterside workers in Darwin who were previously members of the North Australian Workers Union to become members of the Waterside Workers Federation. That is the purpose of the Bill. I want to address my remarks to the overall position on the waterfront. It is necessary to trace some of the history of this industry which for many years has been regarded by honourable members opposite as a turbulent one purely because they do not want to understand the difficulties associated with that industry. Honourable members opposite have also been, to a large extent, most insincere in there approach to the problems of the waterfront industry and themaritime industry generally by insisting that the ills of the industry can best be cured by vicious legislative programmes of the type that we have seen in this House over a number of years.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

-Order! I would like to point out to the honourable member for Sturt that the remarks he has made are correct in the sense that this Bill is a strictly limited Bill. It deals with only one factor, which is the changes that are taking place in the Port of Darwin. There should not be a general debate on the situation on the waterfront or anything related to shipping. This Bill particularly limits the debate to the Port of Darwin and the changes to be made.

Mr FOSTER:

– Yes. You are a little impatient, Mr Acting Speaker. I was coming to that. After all is said and done, I had transgressed for only perhaps a minute to acquaint honourable members with the background to the situation. Certainly the Bill is limited in its form, but at the same time the Bill makes provision for the Port of Darwin to come under the Waterside Workers Federation. The Bill is actually carrying out that function. Therefore, perhaps it is not as narrow as I had previously stated. However, I shall refer to the Port of Darwin now and again so that I will remain in some semblance of order so far as the Chair is concerned. One of the reasons for the introduction of the Bill is to bring within the one organisation the waterside workers in Darwin. This is necessary from an industrial point of view, from the point of view of the stevedoring industry authority and for future negotiations with employers not only in the Port of Darwin but in every other port of the Commonwealth.

Mr Wentworth:

– Honourable members opposite should not laugh at the honourable member for Sturt.

Mr FOSTER:

– The Minister for Social Services intervenes. I suppose one ought to give him a mention because he is one Minister who is devoid of any sincerity as far as industrial relations are concerned, not only in this industry but in any industry. Now the Port of Darwin will be looked at differently in negotiations within the industry. The Government has a particular role to play and I hope that that role, will be vastly different from the role that the Government has played in the past. In the Port of Darwin, as in most other ports in the Commonwealth, there is a fear amongst waterside workers that their future is in jeopardy because of increased mechanisation and automation. Containerisation, which used to be regarded as a revolutionary step in the industry, pales into insignificance when one reads some of the reports and when one is able to grasp the significance of the different and varied types of ships that will be operated along the Australian coast and by overseas shipping companies in the very near future.

The Port of Darwin and every other port of the Commonwealth will be faced with the real problem from the trade union point of view with which they have been faced before. During the course of the Woodward conferences there was a great deal of consultation about the problems of the industry. Some honourable members opposite have said from time to time that the Woodward conferences and what has gone on since 1965 and particularly since 1967 affecting the Port of Darwin and other ports have not been as fruitful as they ought to have been.

Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

– Hear, hear!

Mr FOSTER:

– The honourable member for Griffiths - I do not know whether his electorate contains a port - would have no knowledge of this industrial background. He just would not know. For his benefit let me say that in a redundant situation - I hope that this is of some concern to the Minister for Labour and National Service (Mr Lynch) - there is a very high percentage of men in the one age group, because on the waterfront there has been some but not much recruitment for a great number of years. So we have a situation where we have a large body of men in that industry with only a short period of their working life left, although some of them may initially have been trained in other trades, who would find it extremely difficult to secure employment. How does one secure employment for men of 60 years of age who have perhaps 4 or 5 years left in an industry which can no longer employ them?

So in the port of Darwin and other ports some thought has to be given to this aspect. It is the thinking of the trade union movement - and it should be the thinking of the Government also - that the days are gone when an employer can just say that a man has reached his cut-off point at a certain age even though he has not reached the age where he could receive social service benefits, and therefore is relegated to an industrial scrapheap. Those days are gone. But they have not gone for the manual worker, the casual worker, the semiskilled and the skilled worker. As a result of technological change this is happening from clerical positions down to the fellows on the pick and shovel. Their places are being taken by some mechanised invention. It ought to be the concern of us all here and on the waterfront in Darwin, as elsewhere it has been a matter of concern for some time. I would like briefly to state what happened after 1967 when there was a situation of redundancy clearly facing a number of ports in the Commonwealth. I certainly stood at stop work meetings and encouraged the unionists - and I make no apologies for it - to recognise that the shipowners had got more than their pound of flesh from the Australian public down through the years and they continue to get it. If it was good enough for them, in the port of Darwin and in other ports, to still charge the Australian public or the shippers - call them what you like - what the traffic would bear, although for a great number of years they had got more than their pound of flesh from the sweat of the men employed in the industry under some of the most deplorable and shocking industrial conditions in the 1930s, it was good enough for a conscientious trade union official from Darwin to Cairns to Carnarvon to stand up before his membership and say: ‘Compulsory redundancy, no. Ab inducement to retire, yes’.

In other words, they spent a lifetime in the industry and were entitled to some benefit. The Government was not mindful of the difficulties of the trade union officials or, for that matter, those engaged on the Woodward inquiry at that time. From Darwin to Cairns to Carnarvon - I say that, Mr Acting Speaker, to stay within the ambit of your ruling - we were confronted with the situation that many mcn of pensionable age wanted to retire but they had wives who were younger than they were. Did the Government pay any regard to that aspect by saying that if a breadwinner went on to the pension then his wife, irrespective of age, would get the pension as well? Did the Government assist in this regard? Not on your life. The Government would not do that.

Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

– It pays redundancy payments.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– He is on a trip, take no notice of him.

Mr FOSTER:

– I know he has been on many trips, but rather than take the risk of being pulled into line for unparliamentary language I will not go into details of the type of trip his present behaviour indicates he may be on. The fact is that there was a great deal of consultation and, as a result of these consultations, the number of stevedores in a number of Australian ports was reduced without men being forced out of the industry. There was consultation over a very wide field and men were offered an inducement to go. As a result of the introduction of the pension scheme on Ohe waterfront certain redundancy payments were introduced which were attractive to some men in particular age groups in a number of ports. As a result of this the numbers dropped from a fixed quota figure - or sometimes below that figure - to a figure that was acceptable to the conference and to the industry without using the back of an axe method that this Government has been renowned for over a number of years. The Government says: ‘We have said it. It must be right because we have said it. We are the people with the mentality who are bora to rule and so you must go at that particular age.’ It paid no consideration to the human element involved.

I say that because the negotiations that have been going on will continue on the basis that the 2-year period for the first agreement is now about to expire and the agreement has to be renewed. There is a similar situation now arising in spite of the large percentage of men who have left a great number of ports because of the same factors - technological change and whathaveyou. The quota system in ports has recently been reviewed and, I understand, quotas have been reduced by a quite large percentage in some of the ports. In the port of Adelaide, for instance, it could be that 150 men will have to go perhaps before the next conference gets off the ground. If the conference is able to sit down - not without argument and not without disagreement - and consider the points that are involved in inducing people to leave the waterfront, well and good. It could be that in considering the inducement to go there may well have to be an offer of a monetary sum over and above, as it ought to be, the figure that was reached in 1967, 1968 and so on. But I am concerned - and I would hope the Minister for Labour and National Service also is concerned, in the interests of the port of Darwin and other ports of the Commonwealth - that the Minister would not in any way suggest, through his department, through the Cabinet or the Government that he should interfere with these bona fide negotiations that will ensue.

On the credit side the Government can, of course, be comforted by the fact that it has only to look at the overall increasing amount of cargoes that have been handled in Australia - taking into consideration our trade trump, as it were - and relate it to the number of men who are employed and it will immediately see that there is benefit in consultation rather than disputation. The figures for the port of Adelaide today, as I understand them - and no doubt also for the port of Darwin - are such as to warrant some serious thought on the part of the Government. We have a situation in the port of Adelaide with a little over 1,155 men where we want to get rid of 100 of them. So what particular age group can we look at to which we can offer an inducement to retire? We find that there are some 30 men aged 61 years, 25 aged 62, 22 aged 63 and approximately 20 aged 64. These figures really hit one and this is the situation that has occurred in Darwin and other ports. These are the men one can concentrate on and look to for an early retirement if they are given an inducement to leave the industry without picking on the fellows, as the Stevedoring Industry Act provides, who came in last and therefore have to go first. So we remove the young men from the industry, because the Government considers that to be the proper way to carry out this measure. The figures will show, as I said earlier, that young men are the smallest percentage of the work force in many of the ports, and possibly in Darwin, and we are removing from the industry the fit men we want to retain. I have no doubt the shipowner would have some quarrel with that because we are leaving him with an aged work force that is incapable of carrying out many of the arduous tasks that remain to be done on the waterfront.

In addition, I would like to make some reference to the changes that have been brought about in the industry over the last 10 years and the approach that has been made to these matters in the port of Darwin and in other ports. In the early 1960s there was insufficient consultation and every time the employers introduced a new mechanised method which would have had as its purpose a reduction in the number of men employed in the industry there was a natural labour resentment to this because it was putting them on the scrapheap. This is not the modern way to approach technological change. But later, as a result of the Woodward inquiry - I am glad the honourable member for Griffith is now listening - there were provisions laid down which stated that before any innovations were put into action on the waterfront the other parties would be consulted. The other parties would be the stevedoring companies, the representatives of the shipowners, the Waterside Workers Federation and, on some occasions, clerks and some other ancillary labour. This has been of great benefit. On one occasion when a completely new concept in the loading of wool was to be introduced nobody said anything to anybody. They just picked up a reduced gang and as a result there was a dispute. I do not think that particular method was ever put into practice but it could well have been put into practice if there had been prior consultation and it had been approached on the basis that after all industrial relations involve human relationships^ - between one man and another and one man and his mates.

Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

– Tell us about the strikes held under section 23a.

Mr FOSTER:

– I am glad that the honourable member for Griffith raises that matter in relation to the Port of Darwin. 1 appreciate his interjection. If you will permit me, Mr Acting Speaker, I will answer this honourable member. Prior to 1961 there was no provision within awards of the Waterside Workers Federation whereby one had the right to strike on a safety issue. I can tell the honourable member for Griffith that it has been my sorry lot, as an official of that union, to go on several occasions - not on one occasion, mark you - to the wives of waterside workers to carry the sad news of the tragic deaths of their husbands whilst working on ships in lousy, unsafe working conditions. If the honourable member ever wants to gain real human experience he should carry out that task. He ought to have carried it out for the men whom this Government condemned to death in Vietnam, but he has never had the courage to do so. I thank him for the interjection. There were hundreds of occasions in the port where I worked on which action was taken under the provision in section 23a to which the honourable member refers. I might tell him that on not one single occasion did the employers refuse payment under the award provision because they were always damn well wrong, and men died as a result of the conditions. This is one of the best provisions that was ever put into an award for the protection of human safety, human life and human dignity. If the honourable member studies the provision he will find out what I mean. It is a pity that the provision is not in more awards. If the honourable member wants to interject again to refer me to some other aspect of the stevedoring industry that he considers he might know a little about, then he should do so by all means.

I wind up on the note that I am very happy that the more or less turbulent days in this industry have passed. I do not know whether the honourable member for Griffith was a member of the House at the time - I am not sure about that - but the Government created a hostage system on the waterfront in the mid 1960s. It took half a dozen men who had some quarrel - in conformity with section 23a, if the hon ourable member wants to refer to that provision - and set them aside from other men and said that they had to stay out. They were then suspended for a number of days If any other man went on strike for a day in the port concerned, that particular day did not count in the suspension. People were made industrial hostages with the most vicious support of this Government. We have left that situation behind us. I suggest to the Minister in all sincerity that in the next few weeks the Government will need to pay some regard to this industry in the interests not only of industrial relationships but also of humanity for the men who have served a lifetime in the industry.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Third Reading

Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.

Bill (on motion by Mr Lynch) read a third time.

page 2702

AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY SUPREME COURT BILL (No. 2) 1971

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 30 September (vide page 1734), on motion by Mr Sinclair:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr N H Bowen:
Minister for Foreign Affairs · PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

Mr Acting Speaker, may I have the indulgence of the House to raise a point of procedure on this legislation? Before the debate is resumed on the Bill, I would like to suggest that it may suit the convenience of the House to have a general debate covering this Bill and also the Northern Territory Supreme Court Bill as they are associated measures. Separate questions may of course be put on each of the Bills at the conclusion of the debate. I suggest, Mr Acting Speaker, that you permit the subject matter of both Bills to be discussed in this debate.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

– Is it the wish of the House to have a general debate covering these 2 Bills? There being no objection I will allow that course to be followed.

Mr Turnbull:

Mr Acting Speaker, before the House goes on with the debate I want to take a point of order. I refer to yesterday’s Hansard at page 2582.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

-Order! I appreciate the circumstances of the honourable member for Mallee. Unfortunately, at the moment there is a Bill before the House for debate.

Mr Turnbull:

– It is the first opportunity I have had.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

– It might be advisable for the honourable member to wait until this Bill has been dealt with by the House and then raise the matter at that stage.

Mr Turnbull:

– But the bird may have flown by then; that is the trouble.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

-I point. out to the honourable member that the difficulty at the moment is that a point of procedure was raised by the Minister for Foreign Affairs who suggested a cognate debate. In a strict sense the question before the Chair at the moment is the second reading debate on this Bill and on the other associated Bill. It would be difficult for the honourable member for Mallee to interpose and raise this matter when another matter is presently before the House for debate. In the circumstances I suggest that the honourable member for Mallee and the other honourable member who is concerned in this matter might arrange to raise it in the House at the conclusion of the debate on the matter presently before the House.

Mr Turnbull:

– May I say that as far as the honourable member for Sturt is concerned, he will not raise any matter.

Mr Foster:

– Of course I will not.

Mr Turnbull:

– So do not bring him into it.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

-In the circumstances I will be prepared to accept the point which the honourable member for Mallee desires to raise, if he raises it now.

Mr Turnbull:

– As I said earlier, I refer to Hansard-

Mr Foster:

– What page?

Mr Turnbull:

– Page 2582. This occurred just before 4 o’clock yesterday afternoon.

Debate was proceeding on the motion to introduce new business after 11 o’clock at night, which was moved by the Leader of the House (Mr Swartz). I was speaking, and Hansard reports me as having said:

I have been in my seat in this chamber for a long time now and I have heard much abuse and bad language- it stops then because the honourable member for Sturt broke in and said:

Mr Acting Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The honourable member for Mallee has been in this place too long to carry on in this unparliamentary manner. Although he may be a member of your Parly, sir-

And you, Mr Acting Speaker, were in the Chair at the time - he should be requested to withdraw bis remark because what he says is a damn lie.

I want to make this explanation: First of all, every honourable member in this chamber has heard, as I said, much abuse and bad language. I have heard a terrible lot of it recently, and what I said is true. I understand that you, Mr Acting Speaker, did not hear the word ‘lie’ used, otherwise you would have called the honourable member to order at once. But Hansard heard it and I heard it, and members of the Labor Party who heard it will support what I am saying. I am jealous of my reputation, and I ask that the honourable member for Sturt should withdraw and apologise.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

-Order! In relation to the point of order raised by the honourable member for Mallee, I must confess that at that stage there was an amount of crossfire. I did not hear the word ‘lie’ used. It is an unparliamentary expression. Had I heard it I would have asked the honourable member for Sturt to withdraw it. Therefore, in the circumstances I would suggest to the honourable member for Sturt that he might withdraw the word as it appears in Hansard.

Mr Foster:

– On the point of order, Mr Acting Speaker, first of all you want me to withdraw a statement that appears in Hansard. You did not hear me yesterday, and nobody was engaging you in conversation at the time. I have not been one who has been required in this chamber from time to time to raise my voice. I think that more often than not it has been said that I should turn down the volume. If you want me to give any consideration to a withdrawal, then perhaps the honourable member for Mallee who has made the suggestion that I used somewhat unparliamentary language - apart from the particular matter with which he is concerned and about which he is bitterly complaining - should refresh his memory. That was a statement he made. I took umbrage at it. Why should I not do so? I have not used the language that he was muttering I was responsible for in this House. Why should I, as a member of this House at least equal to him - the honourable member for Mallee - have to stand in this chamber as though I am the person who is telling lies in this place when, in fact, he did say in this House yesterday what I said he did say.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

-Order! The position is that at this moment I have told the honourable member for Sturt that the expression ‘lie’ is unparliamentary. Had I heard that expression used I would have asked the honourable member for Sturt to withdraw it.

Mr Foster:

– I-

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for Sturt will stay in his seat. I would remind the honourable member for Sturt that the word ‘lie’ when used in this House is unparliamentary and I would therefore request the honourable member to withdraw the unparliamentary word that he used.

Mr Foster:

Mr Acting Speaker; I do not recall having said it.

Mr Turnbull:

– Well, Hansard does.

Mr Foster:

– The honourable member for Mallee says I did.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:
Mr Foster:

– You did not hear me.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for Sturt will resume his seat. I would suggest to the honourable member that he might give some consideration to this particular point: The word appears in Hansard.

Mr Foster:

– Yes.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

-I have confessed that I did not hear it.

Mr Foster:

– All right.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

-I can go only on the word that appears in Hansard. If the honourable member for Sturt says that he did not use it and completely contradicts what is set down in Hansard then I, because I did not hear the word used, must be prepared to accept what the honourable member for Sturt says. At the moment that is the position. Now it is up to the honourable member for Sturt. I have asked him, if he used the word, to withdraw it.

Mr Foster:

– Well, Mr Acting Speaker, if, not having heard the word from the position that you occupy in the Chair, you accept that that word was said, I withdraw it, and you can put my name down on your list for the adjournment debate tonight in regard to this particular matter. I will withdraw it, but he is a most ambiguous person and if I have any right to substitution, if you accept that I said it-

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

-Order! The matter of the honourable member for Sturt speaking on the adjournment is completely apart from the matter which is before the Chair.

Mr Foster:

– Have I any right to make a substitution if the Chair accepts that I said it?

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

-Order! I think I have made my position perfectly clear. I said to the honourable member for Sturt, and I say to the House again, that I did not hear the word used. Had I heard the word used I would have demanded a withdrawal immediately. However I have said to the honourable member for Sturt, and I repeat it, that this is the only subject matter before the House at this moment and if the honourable member for Sturt withdraws the word, as he has done, that is the position. If he said he did not use it, I am not in a position to argue against the honourable member. The question of putting a stipulation onto something is conjecture for the future. It is certainly beyond the control of the Chair.

Mr Bryant:

Mr Acting Speaker, in speaking to your ruling on this matter-

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

-Order! There is no ruling on the matter at all. I have made the position clear. If the honourable member for Sturt said that he did not use the word then I cannot contradict or argue with him.

Mr Bryant:

– He said that if he did say it, he withdraws it.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

– He has already withdrawn it, but he made a stipulation and I said it was beyond the power of the Chair to accept a withdrawal with any stipulation whatsoever.

Mr Bryant:

Mr Acting Speaker, I think you have done very well on this issue but I think we should have this in context. As 1 see it in Hansard, the honourable member foi Mallee said that he had heard much abuse and bad language in this House. That was the statement to which the honourable member for Sturt took exception. So that the probity of the honourable member for Sturt be on record and the context be clear, we should put into Hansard what it was that he was alleged to have said this about. If he is to withdraw in a gentlemanly fashion, the whole matter should be put in context. The honourable member for Mallee had asserted that in this House he had heard much abuse and bad language. I have listened to debates in this chamber carefully and have not heard much bad language, but much bad use of language. The honourable member for Sturt was rising in defence of all honourable members and I think that the honourable member for Mallee has tried to put him in an invidious position.

Mr Foster:

– Now I want to raise a point of order, if I may, Mr Acting Speaker.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

-Order! This matter now is developing into a debate. It has gone far beyond the stage when I requested a withdrawal by the honourable member for Sturt. From that stage there has been no further issue under discussion. The point of order taken by the honourable member for Wills is not a point of order and I would suggest that this matter is now closed.

Mr Foster:

Mr Acting Speaker, if it is suggested by the honourable gentleman on my left, the honourable member for Mallee, that I was using bad language, why does he not withdraw that statement as I have suggested he should do.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member will resume his seat.

Mr Hughes:

Mr Acting Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think that every honourable member in this House and every person outside who is listening to the posturing - the trivial posturing - of members of the Opposition making a farce of the proceedings of this House should know that there is nothing before you.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

-Order! There is no point of order. I might say that the honourable member for Berowra is not assisting the situation. The point I made, and I think it is correct, is that this matter has ended. There is no point of order and there should be no further discussion on this matter.

Mr Charles Jones:

Mr Acting Speaker, this matter was raised out of order. You should never have permitted it to come on, as the business of the House had been called on. The honourable member for Sturt is entitled to put his point of view. The whole matter is a trivial issue raised by - I was nearly going to say the old goat from Mallee-

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for Newcastle will resume bis seat.

Mr Charles Jones:

– I will withdraw that.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

-The honourable member for Newcastle will resume his seat. I might suggest to the House that those honourable members who have taken points of order have not assisted the situation and have not reflected any credit on the House.

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

-Mr Acting Speaker, I rise on a point of order. A few moments ago it was stated that the honourable member for Mallee had heard, from his seat, much abuse and bad language. That statement by the honourable member for Mallee is a direct contravention of standing order No. 77 and he should be made to withdraw it. It is a reflection on every honourable member.

Dr Jenkins:

– And on the Chair.

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

– Yes, and on the Chair. It is improper and disorderly conduct for any honourable member to stand in this place and say that he has heard much abuse and bad language. If this House is to be conducted in an orderly fashion such statements should be withdrawn and I ask, Mr Acting Speaker, that you so rule in accordance with standing order No. 77 which reads:

When any offensive or disorderly words are used, whether by a member who is addressing the Chair or by a member who is present, the Speaker shall intervene.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

-Order! There is no point of order involved in the circumstances raised by the honourable member for Kingsford-Smith. The point I made at the commencement of this discussion was that it has been laid down . in this House that the word ‘lie’ is unparliamentary and should not be used. As a point was raised I ruled and asked the honourable member for Sturt to withdraw a word which was unparliamentary. That is the situation. The question now before the Chair is:

That this Bill be now read a second time.

I call the honourable member for the Australian Capital Territory.

Mr ENDERBY:
Australian Capital Territory

Mr Acting Speaker, because of the disturbance in the unsettled moments that have just passed I am not sure which Bill we are debating but if it is a cognate debate on the Australian Capital Territory Supreme Court Bill (No. 2) and the Northern Territory Supreme Court Bill, I wish to say a few words. The Opposition does not oppose these Bills which result from, or rather were prompted by, a decision of the High Court of Australia this year in a case which is known colloquially as Capital TV Stores and Falconer in which it was pointed out, odd as it may sound, that the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory and the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory are not Federal courts. That seems to be a conflict of language. But the consequence of it was that the judges of those courts need not have life tenure as envisaged by chapter III of the Constitution.

Going along with that, there has been of course for a long while in the Australian Capital Territory a very great need tor law reform in a number of areas. The Supreme Court has seen its lists lengthen from a very short, almost nominal period, a year or so ago into a period that is still perhaps good by State standards, but now has lengthened I understand, to 9 or 10 months. This ha« seen the demand grow for a third residential judge. One of the points sought to be achieved by this Bill is the appointment of such a judge so we will have a bench here of 3 judges. It was only a few months ago that the Government introduced an amendment to the Australian Capital Territory Supreme Court Act providing for a second residential judge, but it was really on the pretext, I would suggest, that the Government had committed itself to having a law reform commissioner for the Australian Capital Territory who would have the status of a Supreme Court judge. The judge who has been appointed has not in fact become a sitting judge performing very much work but rather is a law reform commissioner. One wonders why the 2 steps that have now been taken - the amending Bill earlier in the year and the amending Bill now before the House- could not have been consolidated into a single reforming measure. But the step has been taken and we support it.

The Bill contains other provisions. For example, it creates a situation where certain types of cases can be referred to a full court of 3 judges if it is thought wise that this should happen. It also confers power, to be exercised through the making of rules of the Supreme Court, for the conferring of delegated power on the Registrar of the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory. This in itself is a step which was taken years and years ago in the States, which have either registrars, masters or court officials of different names. Again there can be no objection to this provision. Some comment can however be made about it. The Bill also contains provisions for the exercise of disciplinary power over legal practitioners in the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory. To that again there can be no objection. The Bill makes provision in certain types of cases for evidence to be given by affidavit. Subject to certain safeguards, one can have reservations about some aspects of it; but it is a step that nas been deemed necessary.

The only points I wish to make are these: With regard to the 3 judges we say: Good, They are necessary. They have been necessary for a long, long time’. We still have our other judges who come from the Commonwealth Industrial Court in Sydney from time to time. We welcome the additional residential judge but we also say that it is high time that the Government did something about improving the appellate structure that should be erected over the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory. There is great difficulty in getting to the High Court. We have no intermediate court of appeal. The High Court, as it is often said, is a long way from Canberra wherever it happens to sit. It has its rules which make it difficult to get there.

A lot of newspaper publicity was given not long ago to some decisions of a particular judge which were given in running down cases or, if they were not running down cases, they were claims for damages for personal injuries. Something like 6 out of 7 or it may have been 7 out of 8 awards of damages fell below the payment into court. Of course one does not know what conclusion to draw from that. It might be that the payment into court was too high. It might have been the error of the defending solicitors. On the other hand it might have been that the judge made an error. But the difficulty in which a litigant in the Australian Capital Territory finds himself is: What do I do about it if I want to do anything at all, the High Court being as far away as it is?

There is a great need here for a system of appeals from the decision of a single judge either to a full court or to an intermediate court of appeal such as the Commonwealth superior court which was at one time envisaged. No-one seems to know at this stage what happened to those proposals for a Commonwealth superior court. They were put forward many years ago. They were welcomed, as I recall, by legal writers on the subject throughout the country. The Government seems to have lost interest or, if not interest, certainly enthusiasm for the project. But we would suggest seriously that there is great merit in the idea of a Commonwealth superior court for a number of reasons. The first I have already given, namely, the remoteness of the High Court. Another one is this: There is need for the Commonwealth sphere of influence in law, whether it be in the Australian Capital Territory or in the other area where the Commonwealth legal writ, if one can call it that, runs - in the Northern Territory - to have a degree of uniformity and to have as much influence as possible over the States so that this system of different categories, this system of different classifications, that all too often exists, where you find hardship and injustice occasionally resulting from the Federal system as it exists at the moment, can be overcome. A Commonwealth superior court we suggested could move a long way in the direction of effecting reforms.

The delegation of powers to the Registrar is something that exists in most State superior courts; but one thought springs to mind. These matters that will be referred to the Registrar will apparently be at the discretion of the judges because the judges will make the rules of court. One can expect a high standard, and one would hope for a high standard from those judges because they are superior court judges, as to what they give to the registrar and what they do not give to the registrar. There is to be a system of appeal from the decision of the registrar to the Supreme Court. But if the registrar is to exercise these judicial powers to a far greater extent than he has exercised them in the past, he should be at least rewarded adequately for that job. My understanding is that the masters of the Supreme Court of New South Wales are remunerated at approximately the salary of New South Wales District Court judges. I am not sure of the precise figure but I think it is about $19,000 a year. I think - I cannot put it any higher than that - that the Registrar of this court is on the equivalent salary of a principal legal officer, which is a little more than $12,000 a year. One might say that this is an example of failure to think out in advance the duties which should be performed by people and the way in which they should be paid for performing those duties. This gentleman will be carrying out judicial responsibilities that certainly would deserve greater rewards than his present salary, one would think.

I have nothing to say about the disciplinary powers over lawyers. I have nothing to say about the matter of the 3 judges. Apparently complete discretion is given to a judge to send to 3 judges matters where there are important issues of law or that he presumably considers to be important issues of law for their consideration. One would hope that, although it is not in the nature of an appeal as I read the Bill, it would obviate some of the risk taken in trying to go to the High Court, which as I said before, is a long way away. It does not make up for the lack of an intermediate court of appeal, but it might soften the hardship that is felt in some ways. It would not overcome, for example, the situation I described a moment ago of errors of fact, if they are errors of fact, made by a trial judge where there is no appeal from him to anyone other than the High Court, with its natural and understandable reluctance to interfere.

I think those are the principal points I wish to make except to add a few thoughts which I hope are relevant to the issue, because this is an example of law reform. We hear a lot these days about the motor car and the courts. The newspapers, particularly in the Australian Capital Territory, have been full of comment about a recent scholarly work that issued out of the Australian National University by Professor Butlin and Dr Troy on the cost of motor car collisons to the Australian community. We all know that a lot of work has been done on this matter overseas - in New Zealand, the United States of America and other parts of the world. My understanding is that in the Supreme Court of New South Wales approximately 90 per cent of trial cases, cases of nisi prius, are made up of running down cases. There is a long standing criticism in that State that this is an exercise that is not really worthy of the lawyers’ talents - that lawyers, with their developed expertise of probing and analysing facts, upend too much lime on the resolution of conflicts that really should not be conflicts at all. They should be taken up in some wider framework of social insurance.

If the figure is 90 per cent in New South Wales, it certainly is not 90 per cent in the Australian Capital Territory. There is good reason for that. In the Australian Capital Territory there is no intermediate court such as the district court. The Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory hears appeals that would be called quarter sessions appeals in New South Wales. Until recently, it heard all manner of small building cases and disputes over contracts that would often be heard in another court in New South Wales and would account for the supreme court being taken up excessively with running down cases because they tend to produce the big verdicts. Lawyers, not unnaturally, believe that with a jury system, as operating in New South Wales, and with judges accustomed to thinking in big terms they will receive more from a supreme court judge and jury than they would receive from a district court judge and jury.

This is a serious matter that bears thinking about. Somehow or other, the question should be faced: Should the motor car be taken out of the courts? Of course, it cannot be taken out of the courts when criminal litigation is involved. But should it be taken out of the courts so far as civil litigation is concerned? It might be an unpopular move for lawyers. A lot of lawyers who do common law work of that sort would immediately react and say ‘You are reducing our means of income’, and things of that sort. But I do not really believe that myself because lawyers have always turned their minds, their talents and their industry to other projects which are worth while. One could think of many areas where they could put their skills to use. The Tariff Board is one that springs to mind. But the matter is surely one that calls for serious thought.

I think they are the points that I wish to make about this matter. The suggestion is - and 1 know that I am only using this debate as a vehicle to put the suggestion forward - that the Government give serious consideration to the question of taking motor car cases involving civil litigation out of the courts. We recognise the other parts of the Bills as being made necessary by the High Court decision. I have put forward a suggestion about the increased role and the increased responsibility that will be carried by the Registrar of the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory. If he is to do the work that is done by Masters in New South Wales, or shall we say by the Prothonotary in New South Wales, he certainly deserves to be treated on the same plane. In all other respects, the Opposition does not oppose the Bill.

Mr HUGHES:
Berowra

– In my remarks to the House this afternoon in this cognate debate on 2 Bills I shall address myself mainly to the Australian

Capital Territory Supreme Court Bill (No. 2). The work load of the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory has increased proportionately, or perhaps more than proportionately, with the rapid increase in the population that the court is established to serve, as also with the increase in the use made of the Australian Capital Territory as a place of resort for commercial and other purposes. May I instance one example: The court has the potential to become a convenient forum for the trial of defamation actions that an intending plaintiff may wish to bring against publishers whose journals or other publications have a national circulation, including a circulation in the Australian Capital Territory. It would, generally speaking, be highly inconvenient and productive of unnecessary legal expense for an action to be brought against a prospective defendant in each State or Territory in which the publication may have occurred. But if publication has taken place in this Territory, there is a very reasonable prospect that a single action for defamation may be commenced in the supreme court here. The result is likely to be advantageous to both parties.

One of the plaguing aspects of modern defamation practice is the often inordinate length of trials that take place before a jury. In this Territory trial of civil actions is, in general, except in special circumstances, by a judge alone. In a field as complicated as defamation, the absence of a jury tends to reduce trial time and certainly to reduce confusion. I mention the element of confusion, because in the present and inevitably complicated state of the law the task of summing up to a jury the complex issues that arise in many defamation actions is nothing if not daunting for the judge. However high the degree of judicial expertise and competence, the risk of error is sometimes considerable.

I think the Government deserves to be congratulated upon its decision to increase the full time strength of the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory. It is a court serviced not only by judges who are commissioned to serve exclusively in that jurisdiction. As my friend the honourable member for the Australian Capital Territory (Mr Enderby) pointed out, there are as well additional judges - members of the bench of the Commonwealth Industrial Court - who render and have rendered in the past useful service in a part time capacity in this jurisdiction. I have no doubt that there will be a continuing need for the availability of their services.

I am disappointed in one respect about this Bill. When I say I am disappointed, I do not mean that I am critical of the Government. I am disappointed because the Bill makes no provision for the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory to sit in banc so as to be able to hear appeals from its own judges when they are sitting at first instance. The effect of the new section 8ab of the principal Act proposed to be inserted by clause 9 of the Australian Capital Territory Supreme Court Bill (No. 2) is not to create an internal appellate structure. As I read clause 9, the jurisdiction that may be exercised by 3 judges rather than by one as hitherto is the original jurisdiction of the court and, additionally, the appellate jurisdiction in relation to decisions of the Court of Petty Sessions of the Australian Capital Territory. One need not search far for a reason for the Government’s omission in this Bill to provide for an internal appeal within the court - an appeal against decisions of judges of the court exercising original jurisdiction. I feel certain the reason is that the Government has not yet made up its mind about the future, or as I would hope, the lack of future, of the proposal for the establishment of a Commonwealth superior court. The Government, I can well understand, has had good reason for not being able to bring itself to the point of decision. I speak with all sympathy for the Government and for my successors in office.

It may be said that in a multitude of counsellors there is much wisdom but, of course, in a multitude of counsellors there is also an inevitable drawing out of the decision making process. I feel certain that the Government will recognise the need to bring itself soon and quite urgently to the point of decision on the future of the Commonwealth superior court proposal. The delay that has already occurred, while in no sense the fault of the Government in the events that have occurred, is bound to be productive, as I think it has already been productive, of inconvenience.

It will be remembered that the Commonwealth Superior Court Bill which was presented and given a second reading by the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr N. H. Bowen) when he was Attorney-General in 1968, but removed from the notice paper in consequence of the dissolution of the last House of Representatives, provided that the proposed new court should, amongst other things, exercise an appellate jurisdiction in connection with decisions of Territory supreme courts. Such a provision was in itself quite unexceptionable. That sort of appellate function would probably, however, be the only function of the proposed court that would not be beset with risks of technical difficulties of a jurisdictional character. If the Commonwealth superior court is not to proceed to establishment - I am firmly convinced for my part that it ought not to proceed - the proper alternative is to invest Territory courts, that is to say the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory and the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory, with an internal appellate jurisdiction. It would be desirable to do so in the interests of reducing the already heavy appellate work load of the High Court. The honourable member for the Australian Capital Territory made some reference to that in perhaps rather different language. He referred to the difficulty of getting 10 the High Court. There is also the question of the work load, the very greatly added work load imposed upon the High Court by the necessity of having to hear appeals from Territory supreme courts.

I see no difficulty in providing an internal appeal for each of the Territory courts that are the subject of the Bills being debated. The Supreme Court of the Territory of Papua New Guinea already has such a procedure and it is working well. In the case of each of the courts with which these Bills are concerned, there is a sufficiency of additional judges to c,7sur that for the purposes of hearing internal appeals a bench of 3 can always be provided because the fact is that the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory has, as additional judges, judges of the Commonwealth Industrial Court.

I want to explain briefly why I am opposed, and shall remain opposed, to the Commonwealth superior court concept.

First, 1 think we can learn from the experience of others. In the United States the division of the judicial system into 2 parallel tiers of courts, Federal and State, has served no great or good purpose. Indeed, the division has tended to make muddy the waters of the stream of jurisprudence and to strew the stream with hidden obstacles upon which the unfortunate litigant may well founder. The disadvantages of establishing such a division, that is into Federal and State tiers, are numerous and serious. First, there will often be a lurking question as to the limits of Federal and State jurisdiction. These questions may be profitable and fascinating for lawyers but they will be expensive and frustrating for litigants. There will be questions as to the jurisdiction of the Federal court to entertain the whole subject matter in suit or sought to be put in suit by the parties. The parties may be unable to obtain the whole of the appropriate relief in one court. A plaintiff may not be able to join in the one action brought in the Federal court all the parties against whom he may seek relief.

There will be other difficult questions, but time does not suffice to expose them all here. But the questions would be of such a nature and likely to recur with such melancholy frequency as to increase beyond suitable bounds the work load of the High Court in its constitutional supervisory role in relation to officers of the Commonwealth. The judges of the superior court would be officers of the Commonwealth within the meaning of section 75 placitum V of the Constitution and therefore would be subject to review by the High Court in their decision by means of the prerogative writs of mandamus and prohibition. We should remember the profoundly wise words, in considering the justifiability in the present circumstances of the Commonwealth superior court proposal, of one of Australia’s most distinguished jurists. Sir Owen Dixon, who in a paper published as long ago as 1935 said something that is as true today as it was when he said it. What he said was that the division of courts into State and Federal cannot be regarded as sound either from the viewpoint of juristic principle or from that of the practical and efficient administration of justice.

There is, I believe, a convenient and sound alternative to the establishment of a Commonwealth superior court. Our founding fathers displayed great wisdom and foresignt when they invented what has been called the autochthonous expedient, that is the investing of State courts with Federal jurisdiction. In the result, those courts may exercise Federal jurisdiction in most of the matters in which the High Court has original jurisdiction. If our aim be to reduce the increasing work load of the High Court, it can be achieved by investing State supreme courts and. I would add, Territory supreme courts with more Federal jurisdiction. The original jurisdiction of the High Court under the various Federal taxation Acts ought to be abolished. Appeals from the decisions of the Commissioner of Taxation or a Board of Review should be confined in the first instance to the supreme court of a State or Territory. The same sort of approach should be adopted in relation to industrial property matters. In other words, the position of the High Court exercising original jurisdiction as the appeals tribunal in copyright and patent matters ought to be eliminated and that jurisdiction ought to be confined to State supreme courts and Territory supreme courts where necessary.

As it will inevitably become increasingly important in the national interest for this Parliament by its legislation to seek out the limits, and make full use, of Commonwealth power under the Constitution, we must also remember at the same time that we shall also serve the national interest by making full use for Federal purposes of existing judicial organs in the States and Territories. The States would not thank us for interposing a Commonwealth superior court in some respects on the same level as, but in other respects seemingly between, the State supreme courts and the High Court. I have reason to believe that suitable arrangements may without any difficulty of principle be made between the Commonwealth and the States for an appropriate financial subvention to the States to cover the extra cost to the States of having their courts exercise an enlarged Federal jurisdiction. 1 am hopeful in that respect. I also hope, I think not without foundation, that appropriate arrangements might even be made between the Commonwealth and the States as to the selection of judges with appropriate special qualifications to sit in the enlarged Federal jurisdiction, for instance the taxation field or industrial property field.

I welcome these Bills. The appointment of an additional resident or permanent full time judge in the Australian Capital Territory Supreme Court is amply justified by the existing work load. I would hope that the day will soon come when we will hear the Government decision concerning the future of the Commonwealth’s superior court proposal. I have indicated as frankly as I can, and I hope in as forthright a manner as I ought to indicate, my views as to the desirability, or rather lack of desirability, of proceeding with the Commonwealth superior court proposal. I propose to move in the Committee stage some amendments to clause 13 of the Bill. I do not propose to refer to the nature of those amendments now. But I would like to express my gratitude to the AttorneyGeneral for having considered the proposal that I put to him concerning these suggested amendments. I am grateful for his co-operation and I am grateful to the Government for its acceptance of my suggested amendments and I hope that those amendments will in due course be acceptable to the Committee.

Mr N H Bowen:
Minister for Foreign Affairs · PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– There is perhaps one matter upon which I might make a brief comment. The honourable member for the Australian Capital Territory (Mr Enderby) and the honourable member for Berowra (Mr Hughes) referred to the question of internal appeals in the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory. This is a matter that has been under consideration. I will certainly call the attention of my colleague the Attorney-General (Senator Greenwood) to the suggestions which have been made on it and on the other matters that have been referred to. Perhaps I could just add this comment: No doubt as the population of the Australian Capital Territory grows the number of resident judges will also grow. There would be more room perhaps for the Supreme Court to be sitting in banc in those circumstances than there is at the present time with visiting judges of the

Commonwealth Industrial Court, but that may be a matter of opinion. The origin of the suggestion for a Commonwealth Superior Court was pressure on the High Court in its original jurisdiction rather than pressure in the appellate jurisdiction. There is no pressure of which I am aware from the High Court, in relation to the quantity of appeals coming before it, for us to institute any filtering process in the Australian Capital Territory. However, I accept the argument that so far as the litigant and the profession in the Australian Capital Territory are concerned, the High Court is some distance away. I am sure that the Attorney-General will take these matters under consideration.

Mr UREN:
Reid

– I will make my remarks brief. I rise only because of the remarks made by the honourable member for Berowra (Mr Hughes) on matters of litigation, in particular, matters of defamation, being dealt with by a judge instead of a judge and jury. I am aware that it is possible that this may cut costs of litigation but in many cases it would cut out a good deal of justice because in litigation, and particularly in defamation actions, as I have found from personal experience, juries are more human and understanding than the judiciary. It seems to me that in the Australian Capital Territory, and elsewhere in Australia, we should preserve the right of every individual to go before a jury in preference to having his case dealt with by the judiciary. The judiciary may deal with the appeal and the matters of law but, as a layman, I will always advocate and stand by the jury system as such, even though in many cases the costs may be greater. I suppose one could argue that the judiciary is not without its costly errors of judgment. In a case with which I was associated it was found that the presiding judge made a mistake in an instruction he gave to the jury. Three appeal judges then made a decision on that judge’s ruling and found that he had ruled incorrectly. In due course 5 members of the High Court found that the 3 members of the Supreme Court of New South Wales had erred in their ruling. So even the judiciary is not without its mistakes, and this can affect the cost of litigation. I come back now to where I commenced. I hope that this Parliament will never take away the right to have a jury pass judgment and give decisions against a wrongdoer or, in cases where substantial damages should be awarded, against people who may treat others unjustly. I wanted to make those few comments in reply to what was said by that learned Queen’s Counsel, the honourable member for Berowra.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.

In Committee

Clauses 1 to 12 - by leave - taken together, and agreed to.

Clause 13

Sections 38 and 39 of the Principal Act are repealed and the following sections inserted is their stead:

(2.) On or before the hearing of a matter, the Court or a Judge may, for sufficient reason, order that all or a part of the evidence in the matter, being evidence that but for the order would he required to be given orally in open court, may be given by affidavit

Mr HUGHES:
Berowra

– I move:

In proposed new section 39 (2.), before ‘matter’, insert ‘civil’.

The effect of the amendment I have moved would be to change the legal situation as it appears from the reading of the Bill in its present form, namely, that affidavit evidence might conceivably be given in a criminal proceeding without the accused having the right to insist upon the attendance of the deponent for cross-examination. That is the position under clause 13 as it is presently drawn in the Bill. The effect of the amendment may be simply described in this way: Affidavit evidence may not be given at all in criminal proceedings. It is important that in criminal proceedings we adhere steadfastly to what the lawyers call the ‘best evidence rule’. Of course, if a matter is not seriously in dispute in a criminal trial the accused person, if properly advised, will often make a formal admission; that is very proper in many instances. But while the provision made in clause 13 for the adducing of affidavit evidence in civil proceedings, on conditions to be set by the judge before whom the application comes, is perfectly justified and while in civil proceedings it may be proper in many cases, though probably in only a very few cases, for the judge to dispense with the attendance of the deponent for cross-examination, we should not countenance the admission of affidavit evidence at all in criminal proceedings. In criminal proceedings we should adhere to the principle that the evidence should he given orally by the witness in open court. I am glad to be able to say that the Attorney-General (Senator Greenwood) - I may have mentioned this in my second reading speech - readily agrees with the amendment. As I understand it, the Government also agrees with it. There is an amendment to clause 6 of the Northern Territory Supreme Court Bill, which I shall formally move later, which has precisely the same effect as my amendment to clause 13 of the Australian Capital Territory Supreme Court Bill (No. 2).

Mr KILLEN:
Moreton

– The Committee should be grateful to the honourable member for Berowra (Mr Hughes) for taking this point. When he brought it to my attention yesterday afternoon I was under the distinct impression that it concerned merely an error in drafting, but a very significant error. The proposition that evidence could be furnished against an accused person by way of affidavit is to my mind one which is rather appalling. I think it was Wigmore, probably the greatest authority on evidence the world has ever known, who said that the system of cross-examination is the finest machine ever devised for eliciting the truth, and the point which the honourable member for Berowra has put to the Committee, I can assure the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr N. H. Bowen), is a point well taken and for my part I acknowledge it.

Mr ENDERBY:
Australian Capital Territory

– I agree with the honourable member for Berowra (Mr Hughes) and the honourable member for Moreton (Mr Killen) who have spoken on the amendment. The amendment, however, does touch on a subject that is of increasing concern amongst writers. Wigmore has been mentioned. I will not be very long and will not take up much of the time of the Committee. People as eminent as Pro fessor Cross are of course moving in a direction - I think there is danger in this - where accused persons need not have the protections we have traditionally given them. I am mindful of what, I think, is contained in the Evidence Act of the Australian Capital Territory. This is the piece of interim legislation which began its life as an Ordinance, was disallowed, and has now been re-enacted as an Act. I believe that in that piece of legislation there is an enactment, for example, that permits a judge to comment on the refusal of an accused person to give sworn evidence. I may be wrong, but that is my understanding of the position as I speak here without the facts in front of me.

As I said, I think there is great danger. This is a step away from the traditional sense of values that have been referred to by both of the previous speakers in this debate. We hear plaintive cries about the rise in the crime wave and things of this sort, that we give too much protection to the accused person and that we equate the accused person time after time with a criminal. We should never forget that he is not a criminal; he is an accused person. These are traditional values, conservative values if you like, but good values.

Mr Killen:

– Hear, hear.

Mr ENDERBY:

– Yes, I use the word conservative’. That is a radical thought for me. But I am prepared to use it in this context because it is terribly important. I could well imagine a crown prosecutor, for example-

Mr N H Bowen:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– Liberal?

Mr ENDERBY:

– Not really. I can imagine a crown prosecutor in a situation where someone has given evidence against an accused in, say, a set of committal proceedings, and then for some reason or other is not available at the trial- although it would not satisfy the requirements that are already built into our legislation - saying that a simple affidavit might cure the problem. He might want to say: ‘Well, why should not I go before a judge and say, “look, the accused had the opportunity to cross-examine this man before a magistrate - what harm can come from it”?’ I run into this argument from time to time. I do not know whether honourable members opposite have run into it. But there is great danger in this sort of situation because we all know that committal proceedings are run with a different end in view. The tactics are different. Our adversary system of justice is not an inquisitorial system; it does not seek to find out what actually happened - it seeks to give a fair go.

If we have a committal proceeding with an accused person represented, but following a course in which he wants to create a certain situation there, and commit a person to a certain account of fact, he might not cross-examine in a way he intends to cross-examine subsequently before a judge or jury. So great danger can come if one is then to pick up those depositions and say: Look, no harm can come if we used this evidence in chief, tested as it was by crossexamination against the fellow in his trial on indictment’, because great danger can come. It might not have been tested properly at all for good reason, no-one knowing at that time that later the opportunity for cross-examination would be taken away. So it is a delicate job of balancing interests - it must be. But surely the paramount interest must always be in cases of this sort the accused person. I agree with the amendment.

Mr N H BOWEN:
Minister for Foreign Affairs · PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– The amendment is accepted by the Government.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

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

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

Third Reading

Bill (on morion by Mr N. H. Bowen) - by leave - read a third time.

page 2714

NORTHERN TERRITORY SUPREME COURT BILL 1971

Second Reading

Consideration resumed from 30 September (vide page 1735), on motion by Mr Sinclair:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee

Clauses 1 to 5 - by leave - taken together, and agreed to.

Clause 6.

Sections 36 and 37 of the Principal Act are repealed and the following sections inserted in their stead: (2.) On or before the hearing of a matter, the Supreme Court or a Judge may, for sufficient reason, order that all or a part of the evidence in the matter, being evidence that but for the order would be required to be given orally in open court, may be given by affidavit

Mr HUGHES:
Berowra

– I move:

In proposed section (2.), before ‘matter’, insert civil’.

I shall not expatiate on the reasons for the amendment as I have already endeavoured to give them. I understand that this amendment likewise is acceptable to the Government, for which I am grateful.

Mr N H Bowen:
Minister for Foreign Affairs · PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– This amendment is acceptable to the Government.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

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

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

Third Reading

Bill (on motion by Mr N. H. Bowen) - by leave - read a third time.

page 2714

APPROPRIATION BILL (No. 1) 1971-72

In Committee

Consideration resumed from 26th October (vide page 2549).

Second Schedule.

Department of External Territories

Proposed expenditure, $111,495,000.

Proposed expenditure agreed to.

Department of Housing

Proposed expenditure $7,235,000.

Mr UREN:
Reid

– I move:

That the proposed expenditure be reduced by $1.

As an instruction to the Government:

To assist State Public Housing Authorities to provide low cost housing and to reduce housing costs by -

enabling Public Land Development Commissions to be set up in co-operation with the States to acquire necessary land, hold it in public ownership, develop it and make it available on reasonable terms on a leasehold basis similar to Canberra;

reducing interest rates; and

establishing uniformity of building codes, standards and practices.

In the brief time available to me I want to expose the priorities of this Government in the field of housing, land and interest rates. I want to deal with housing in both the public and private sector and the action of this Government in using the home building sector of the building industry to place a brake on the whole economy. In April 1970 the Government increased interest rates - an act which has aggravated the inflationary pressure in this sector of the building industry. This action diverted money from a sector which was not placing any real pressure on the economy at that time. The real pressure from the building industry was coming from the commercial office buildings. That sector was not curbed in 1970 and it has continued its pressure on the economy. The Government has power at its disposal to curb this sector. It could curb the life assurance companies which are diverting a great deal of their resources into office building construction in the central busk ness districts of our capital cities. The finance for these ventures is available to the life assurance companies because of the Goverment’s policy of allowing insurance premiums of up to $1,200 per person per year as a taxation deduction. The Commonwealth should use its power to correct the use of these accrued resources by the life assurance companies.

It is only the home building sector of the building industry that has felt the April 1970 Commonwealth Government economic action. The commercial sector has not been affected by these increased interest rates because, being in the monopoly sector, it can quite easily pass on those costs. Approvals for new houses and flats for 1969-70 compared with 1970-71 have fallen by 9.5 per cent. Commencements in that period have fallen by 5 per cent and completions by 1 per cent. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a table compiled by the Legislative Research Section of the Parliamentary Library.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Mr Drury) - Is leave granted? There being no objection, leave is granted. (The document read as follows):

Mr UREN:

– An examination of this table will disclose an increase in approvals of 11.3 per cent in July 1971 compared with July 1970. In August 1971 there was an increase of 13.4 per cent compared with August 1970. When considering these comparisons one must remember that the Government imposed its economic restrictions in April 1970. When one compares the figures for July 1971 with the figures for July 1969 one finds that there has been a fall of 17.2 per cent over the corresponding period before the economic brake was put on. Comparing the figures for August 1971 with the figures for August 1969, there has been a fall of 4.3 per cent. In the year 1969-70 142,212 homes were completed. In 1970-71 only 140,798 homes were completed. In other words, there was a fall of 1 per cent. In 1970 the housing commissions had outstanding over 90,000 applicants for homes. Even this year the housing commissions and public housing authorities have outstanding over 90,000 applicants.

Last year 116,000 marriages were contracted and the number of immigrants increased to about 185,000. Excluding those who left the country, we still have a net figure of about 150,000. This has been the sort of pressure placed on the home building sector. Migrants want homes and young married people want homes. But the fact is that fewer homes are being built today. The high interest rates are driving more and more people to register with the housing commissions even though they have long lists of applicants for dwellings amounting to about 90,000. I believe that that is a conservative figure. I am quoting the figures made available to me by the Legislative Research Service. In the major metropolis of New South Wales over 37,000 people are on the New South Wales Housing Commission’s waiting list for homes. In Sydney the average price of land is $8,000. It has increased by 150 per cent over the last 10 years and, over the last 3 years, has been increasing at 20 per cent a year, or 60 per cent over the 3 years.

The average cost of a home in the Metropolitan Water, Sewerage and Drainage Board area last year was $11,600. This means that the average cost of a house and land in the Sydney metropolitan area is over $19,000. I ask honourable members to examine the facts of life to see who could finance such a dwelling. At present the only way that it is possible to finance such a dwelling would be through the permanent building societies. On a loan of $15,000 repaid over 25 years the repayments to a permanent building society would be $115 a month, which still leaves a deposit gap of over $4,000. The average weekly earnings of wage earners in this country are $84, and 70 per cent of all wage earners earn less than the average weekly earnings. So one can imagine the pressure that is being placed on the home building sector of the building industry.

The percentage of Commonwealth expenditure allocated to the States for home building under its budgetary policy was 2.49 per cent in 1951-52 and 2.68 per cent in 1954-55. In 1963-64 it had fallen to 2.43 per cent, and in 1970-71 it had fallen to 1.75 per cent. In 1954-55, 22 per cent of all houses built in Australia were built by the public sector. This year it is 9.8 per cent. The monetary policy of the Government is causing increased interest rates. Because of the pressure of interest rates on the cost of land and houses most people in Australia have to go to State housing authorities, but the State housing authorities are building, fewer homes every year. That is why I ask the Government to examine the amendment which I put forward as spokesman for my Party. Honourable members on this side of the chamber will discuss the amendment in further detail. If I have an opportunity later I will discuss what the Labor Party’s policy on land will be after the 1972 election, so as to make land available to young people at a reasonable price and. not at the exorbitant average price of $8,000 which applies in Sydney. In Melbourne the average price of land is just below $5,000, and in Perth it is something between $6,000 and $7,000. A solution to the problem of land and housing costs and high interest rates is long overdue.

Mr DEPUTY CHAIRMAN:
Mr Drury

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

Mr IRWIN:
Mitchell

– I will reply to the remarks of the honourable member for Reid (Mr Uren) later. This afternoon I want to speak especially about the war service homes scheme. The war service homes scheme is the Commonwealth’s own housing scheme. In conception the measure is but one aspect of the Commonwealth’s repatriation policy encompassing a wide range of concessions for returned exservicemen and women of the 1914-18 and 1939-45 wars and the operations in Korea, Malaya and South Vietnam. Over the past 22 years the record of successive LiberalCountry Party Governments in providing housing assistance under the War Service Homes Act has been one of considerable achievement. In December 1949 only about 63,000 eligible persons from the 1914-18 and 1939-45 wars had been provided with a war service home, at a total cost of approximately $105,000,000. About 750,000 persons were eligible for benefits by virtue of service in the 1939-45 War. The operations in Korea, Malaya and South Vietnam added further (o the number of eligible applicants.

To meet the demand for war service homes finance Liberal-Country Party governments have provided since 1949 over $l,335m. Put in another way, of the total funds of $1,426,749,842 made available since the inception of the war service homes scheme approximately $ 1,335m or over 93 per cent has been provided by the Liberal-Country Party Administration since it took office in 1949. In so doing it has assisted a further 261,217 persons to become home owners. It is scarcely necessary to mention that the large sums made available for war service homes since 1949 have been provided during a period of rapid economic development and at a dme when heavy demands were being made on the Government for finance for many other important undertakings.

The appropriation for this year of $60m for war service homes sets the seal on the achievements over the last 22 years. As well as providing large sums for war service homes the Government has been careful to preserve the concessional character of the scheme and without doubt there are no better housing provisions in the Commonwealth today or perhaps anywhere else in the world. Homes may be obtained on very low deposits and interest is charged at the rate of only 31 per cent, and a period of 45 years, or 50 years in the case of widows, may be granted for the repayment of the loan. All homes are insured under a special insurance scheme which provides the widest possible cover for a very low charge. The cost is less than one-third of the premium payable for private insurance. From a trained administrative and technical staff advice is available at all times for applicants and intending applicants.

To assist widows who are purchasing homes under the scheme and who are in necessitous circumstances there is a relief scheme of a most sympathetic nature to reduce the burden of repayments and home maintenance to a level which they can meet even in the lowest ebb of their financial worry. Because there are no better provisions generally existing in the Commonwealth today many requests are received from eligible persons for a loan in respect of more than one home or for finance to discharge a mortgage on a home which they already own. The object of the war service homes legislation is to provide a home for an eligible person who does not already have one. It was never intended that a loan under the scheme could be used by an eligible person as a fund for real estate transactions. This was made clear during the debate on the original Bill and the Act expressly prohibits the Director of War Service Homes from making an advance to an eligible person in respect of more than one property except with ministerial approval. This has been the law for over 50 years.

In conformity with the intention of the legislation it has been the policy of successive governments since the inception of the scheme to grant second loans only in very exceptional circumstances. Similar considerations apply to requests which are received from time to time from persons to discharge existing mortgages. Because there is a limit to the amount of funds which can be provided for war service homes the available funds must be used in the best interests of ex-servicemen and exservicewomen generally. Obviously on equitable grounds it is better to utilise the available funds for applicants who do not already own a home before assisting persons who already own a home.

The war service homes scheme is a dynamic scheme. Though the scheme has been operating for over 50 years, its provisions are tuned to the needs of applicants in the 1970s - comprehensive amendments of the Act by successive Liberal-Country Party governments since 1949 have assured this.

Amendments to the Act were last made in 1968 and the more important of these amendments are: Extension of the type of holdings on which war service homes assistance could be provided to include conditional purchase leases; the increase of the maximum amount of loan from $7,000 to $8,000; extension of the widows relief scheme to the widows or widowed mothers of all eligible persons and the wives of eligible persons who are temporarily or permanently insane, as well as other amendments designed to streamline procedures. In line with the Government’s desire to provide adequate housing assistance for eligible persons, it has decided to amend the Act during this sitting to increase the maximum amount of loan available under the scheme from $8,000 to $9,000.

It has been the practice since the inception of the war service homes scheme to acquire areas of land in broad acres for the erection of homes. After the provision of roads and other services, the land is used for group building or made available to eligible persons for the erection of individual homes to their own design. All land made available in this way is allotted to eligible persons at the capital cost, plus interest at the prescribed rate. The following is a summary of land purchases and estate development activities during 1970- 71 in New South Wales; Estate development activities were confined to estates at Mount Druitt, Cromer and Warrawee. Planning in respect of the Baulkham Hills estate has reached the stage where contracts are to be called shortly for the construction and installation of all services for an estate of 300 houses. Preliminary planning for the construction of a medium density housing development at Bankstown was commenced during the year. Approximately 60 townhouses and villa units will be built on the estate. Additional land was purchased during the year. At Adamstown Heights IS acres were purchased, at Bankstown 9 acres, at Castle Hill 20 acres, at Terrigal 20 acres and at Coniston 16 acres.

So it will be seen that the Government has not only provided homes but is looking to the future in the purchase of land for further war service homes construction. I would like to reply to some of the points made by the honourable member for Reid (Mr Uren). The high price of land in New South Wales was brought about initially by a socialistic scheme known as the Cumberland County Council scheme. Unfortunately, and to our discredit, a Libera] Party government in New South Wales continued this scheme and although the basic wage has increased by about 5 times since the introduction of that scheme honourable members will find that land values have increased to 10, 12 or even more times the price at which the land could have been purchased in 19S0.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Mr Drury) - -Order! The honourable member’s time has expired.

Mr COHEN:
Robertson

– I second the amendment. In housing, as in so many other areas of national welfare, this Government substitutes inertia and expediency for planning and positive policy. A generation of Liberal federal governments has done little to meet the needs of Australian home builders and buyers. But even though requests for a national survey into housing needs - requests from the industry itself - have persistently- been rejected by Liberal governments, we know enough to be able to discern the major problem areas. Young home buyers must find more money for higher deposits, earn more for higher repayments and travel longer distances to work because of the failure of the Commonwealth to assist in land development and urban redevelopment. Low income group families and pensioners are deprived of access to public housing and condemned to sub-standard accommodation while spending years on the waiting list for what housing there is.

The effect on young home-buyers is best measured by the Government’s own figures as disclosed in the annual reports on home savings loan grants. The rigid conditions for home savings grants tend to favour the better-off sections of the community, but, even so, a comparison of reports shows how rising costs are forcing postponement of house purchases and” increasing the potential interest burden. In March 1966, 22 per cent of the successful applicants for home savings grants made them on the eve of their marriage. By March this year it was less than 18 per cent of those about to marry. The burden of higher deposits means that the purchase must be postponed. Similarly the need for second mortgages was increasing. In 1970-71 one in seven of successful applicants needed a second mortgage. The reports show up the savage increases in land prices in the metropolitan areas. The Department of Housing started surveying the land price constituent of its successful applicants in 1966. Comparing March 1966 with March 1971, Sydney average land price was up 46.4 per cent to $3,474; Melbourne up 28.4 per cent to $2,589; Brisbane up 63 per cent to $3,049; Perth up 80 per cent to $4,205, the highest in Australia; and Hobart up 79 per cent to $1,547. In Western Australia in March this year $1 in $4 of the cost of the average newly built home was going to pay for the land. In Victoria and New South Wales it was about $1 in $5.

The average price for a successful applicant’s new home in Sydney was about $11,500. On 15 per cent deposit this would mean a $10,000 mortgage or mortgages. That married couple then faced a monthly repayment rate of about $77 a month on n permanent building society loan or $70 on a savings bank first mortgage together with a trading bank second mortgage loan. So the young married couple’s base income on the traditional calculation, one-quarter rent to income, would need to be $70 to $77 a week. This is the area of greatest pressure for the average income earner, the early years of marriage, but Liberal governments have let the drift of interest rates higher and higher go unchecked. Labor policy is directed towards practical and useful assistance for young marrieds at the time when they need it most. On the permanent building society loan for the average home which I have just mentioned, our 2 per cent interest subsidy would mean a saving of about $640 a year and on the mixed savings bank first mortgage together with a trading bank second mortgage the saving would be about $550 a year.

The benefit of home savings grants at present is being partially offset by the mortgage loan insurance premium which on that average loan in Sydney would have been about $100. There is some cause for scrutiny of mortgage loan insurance arrangements which have been very much influenced by American commercial experience. The Housing Loan Insurance Corporation paid out only $34,282 in claims over the year ended 30th June 1971. Out of the number of loans issued in 7 years to 30th June 1971, only 0.71 per cent were in arrears. In view of the low rate of failure there is a case for a re-examination of the premium which adds an additional burden on the young home-buyer, who also has to meet his legal, survey and stamp duty costs; there is a case for changing the once-and-for-all of premium payment. Perhaps it might be staged over several years.

Nothing more clearly demonstrates the casualness and lack of consultation in the present Liberal Government’s attitude to Commonwealth-State relations than the farce of this year’s Commonwealth-State Housing non-agreement. On 7th April the Minister for Housing (Mr Kevin Cairns) told the leader of the Opposition (Mr Whitlam) that the housing interest rates and other matters would be part of the consideration at ‘a subsequent meeting which has to be pursued between the Commonwealth and State Ministers for Housing before the re-negotiation of another agreement’. He repeated this on 5th May but there was no re-negotiation.

The terms laid down by the Commonwealth were announced by the Treasurer (Mr Snedden) in his Budget. After 2 meetings a state of acceptance rather than agreement was reached. Two aspects of the terms deserve comment. The Minister says the offer would make more funds available to the States over 30 years than the previous Commonwealth and State Housing Agreement made available over 53 years. Of course it should, because the scale and scope of Australian economic development and the growth in national resources since the first Commonwealth and State Housing Agreement has been far beyond the vision of those who signed. This sort of cam.parison is figures-juggling, a popular Liberal exercise which diverts attention from reality.

The primary objective of the Commonwealth and State Housing Agreement is to provide for low-income groups. We have one simple test on how this task is being fulfilled - the number of applications outstanding for the low-income housing. At 30th June this year there were 37,641 on the New South Wales waiting list, 15,744 on the Victorian waiting list 18,400 on the South Australian Housing Trust list. In the absence of public housing these people and their families must find high rentals or accept sub-standard conditions. Indeed they probably suffer both. On a conservative projection of the New South Wales figures at least 100,000 people are involved in a major social problem. The Commonwealth’s allocation towards public housing is only a palliative. It does nothing to recognise the urgency of the social waste and human waste behind the waiting list figures.

The Government has taken some pride in its offer of non-repayable rental assistance to the extent of $6.25m in the next 5 years as a contribution towards subsidising reduced rents for housing commisson tenants in greatest need. But this still remains a fraction of the amount. To take the New South Wales Housing Commission, it will cover only an estimated one-fourth of the annual rent subsidies. This means that the other tenants, themselves lowincome earners, are subsidising with their rents those necessitous families. The absence of any special Commonwealth initiative for slum clearance and urban redevelopment is so inevitable from this Liberal government as to deserve no further comment.

Seven years ago Senator Gorton as Minister for Works thought it impossible to produce a national building code. Six years ago Mr Bury, as the first Minister of the resuscitated Department of Housing, at least tried. The simple fact is that our present proliferation of building codes adds a needless $800 to the cost of every house we build and a needless $S0m to our annual national outlay for housing.

In April 1970 the tentative building code was at last produced, but we still await its promulgation. Liberal governments lack any coherent policy on housing as on other issues. Labor has positive policies to assist the young married, the pensioners and the less well-off, to stimulate urban redevelopment and to hold back land prices and housing costs.

Sir JOHN CRAMER:
Bennelong

– As usual, we have heard from the honourable member for Reid (Mr Uren) a repetition of what he said on the last occasion on which he spoke on this subjejct, and a recital, which was read, by the honourable member for Robertson (Mr Cohen). It is the same old story which we hear on every occasion when the question of housing arises. Of course, the difficulty is - and it is an unfortunate, almost pathetic difficulty- that the honourable member for Reid, who leads for the Opposition on housing matters, is a very decent fellow who would like to do the right thing, but he just does not understand the problem at all; he just does not have a clue as to what it is all about. He speaks about land costs but he does not attempt to put his finger on the fundamental cause of rising land costs, particularly in the State of New South Wales. His cure for the problem is to create another commission of some kind, and for the Government lo resume land all over the place and then to distribute the land. But this would not necessarily cure the problem at all. As a matter of fact it is further government interference with the rights of the individual and it would, in the end, create a condition that would cost the individual or the taxpayer more.

The honourable member for Robertson (Mr Cohen) spoke of this Government doing nothing in relation to housing. Unfortunately because of the limited time available to me 1 cannot go deeply into housing problems but the record of this Government over the past 22 years has been outstanding. The Australian Labor Party was in power for many years but it did nothing whatever about the housing problem. Since it has been in power the Government has done, and is doing, much. Many new schemes have been introduced and, in some cases, legislation which was introduced by a Labor government has been amended. The Government is providing adequate and high-class housing throughout Australia for its servicemen. The present proposal will benefit the States considerably because money will be given to them without any strings attached to enable them to build houses and to manage them. Servicemen in all of the Services will be able to secure homes and will pay an economic rental or a rental based on a percentage of their salary, whichever is the less. Instead of what is being done at present I believe that we should ensure that we not only build through the housing commissions but also that we should try to buy property wherever it is available so that we can more adequately serve our servicemen by providing accommodation nearer to their places of employment. Considerable savings could be achieved if this were done because it is not easy to acquire land where it is wanted and I think the Government could do better in this respect. The honourable member for Mitchell (Mr Irwin), who knows much about the war service homes scheme, referred to this magnificent scheme.

Mr Uren:

– What can you buy with $9,000?

Sir JOHN CRAMER:

– I agree that in the present circumstances $9,000 is too low and the loan should be raised above that level. However, to advert to government activity in the housing field, in the period from 1919 to 1949, 63,000 homes were built under the war service homes scheme but since this Government came to power in 1949, up to June of last year it had built 261,217 homes.

Mr Irwin:

– That is a tremendous record.

Sir JOHN CRAMER:

– Yes, it is a tremendous record. I would suggest to the Minister that the Government might examine the need for better security for second mortgages on war service homes. Under the Act a serviceman virtually has no security and it is extremely difficult for a man, unless he has the full amount of the deposit, which can be considerable with a loan of $9,000, to be able to get a second mortgage. I think special arrangements should be made whereby an ex-serviceman can insure a second mortgage loan through the Housing Loans Insurance Corporation. This would enable second mortgage money to be borrowed at a low rate of interest because of the guarantee that would be associated with such borrowing.

The Government has introduced many important schemes. I instance the migrant flats scheme. The Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement is about to be renewed on a different basis. I have not sufficient time to discuss this matter but I hope that later we will be able to do so. I believe that I was instrumental in securing for building societies 30 per cent of the money allo cated to the States for housing purposes. Under the proposed new agreement this situation is supposed to be preserved but, as the money will not be by way of loans from the Commonwealth to the States and the amount that the States will require will be borrowed under their own loan programmes I do not know whether the building societies will secure the amount that they should get. I should like to see the 30 per cent they are presently receiving increased considerably. We should be aiming to build in Australia a home ownership community in which every man will have the opportunity of owning his own home. There is no better vehicle by which we can achieve this aim than the building society movement. Obviously under the new housing agreement there will be’ different arrangements, some of which I would agree with, but I should like to know just what is proposed.

The homes savings grant scheme, which was mentioned bp the honourable member for Robertson, is another scheme which was initiated by this Government. Young people up to the age of 36 years are encouraged, even before they marry, to start saving for their homes. However, I would suggest to the Minister that it is not proper that the Government should place a limitation of $17,500 on homes which qualify for the grant. Whilst people aged 25 years or 30 years may be receiving a certain income when they marry they may well improve their economic position and if they can afford, at this point of time, to get a better class of home for their future life, why should they not be encouraged to do so? The Government is making a gift to young people to encourage them to save and if they save and meet the requirements why should they be restricted to purchasing a home costing no more than $17,500? With this limitation young people are driven into the wilderness so to speak, or are forced to buy home units instead of homes. I suggest, in passing, that this aspect should be considered by the Government.

The Government has initiated other magnificent schemes, including a scheme to provide dwellings for the aged and a homes for the aged subsidy scheme. Many things “remain to be done. If the opportunity occurs later, I should like to discuss in detail land prices. One fundamental factor causes prices to rise and that is the unavailability of land. However the greater there is government interference in these matters the less land there is available. As a matter of fact in New South Wales great things were expected of the Labor Party when it established the green belt around the city of Sydney. Where is the green belt now? I should like that question answered.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Mr Drury) - Order! The honourable member’s time has expired.

Mr BARNARD:
Bass

- Mr. Drury, I want to comment about aspects of the war service homes programme. The Treasurer (Mr Snedden) in his Budget Speech pledged the Government to increase the limit on war service homes loans by $1,000 to $9,000. The amending legislation has yet to be introduced; presumably it is in the pipeline. If there has been some delay, then the Minister for Housing (Mr Kevin Cairns) should explain it to the House when he answers points raised by honourable members at the end of this debate. Undoubtedly the war service homes scheme is a very important part of homebuilding in Australia. With the contribution to the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement it forms the most important part of Commonwealth assistance to home building. Although the number of homes provided under the Act has fallen well below the peak years of the 1950s, demand for the services provided under the Act remains at a high level.

In the past few years the number of homes provided has risen steadily; accordin to the most recent report of the Director, the total number of applicants assisted under the Act rose by almost 600. This rising trend can be expected to continue in the next few years with the thousands who served in Vietnam being eligible for assistance under the Act. AH the evidence suggests that this scheme will continue to form an important part of the Australian housing industry and will remain a key source of housing finance. The last time the scheme was studied in any detail in this Parliament was in November 1968, when the maximum advance was raised from $7,000 to $8,000. It is now $9,000, or will be $9,000 when the enabling legislation gets through the Parliament. These increases in the limit have hardly kept pace with the soaring costs of land and homes in all States. Once it used to be possible for a home to be financed by the war service homes grant. This was the case in 1951-52 when in New South Wales the average cost of a dwelling and land was $5,050. The maximum loan available for a war service home was then $5,500. This sort of relativity, however, has not been preserved.

According to an answer given by the Minister to my colleague the honourable member for Reid (Mr Uren) the average cost of all homes built or financed under the Act in New South Wales in 1970-71 was $16,281. This means the average cost of a home and land has more than trebled in 20 years. In the same period the maximum loan has been increased by 45 per cent. If the relationship which applied in 1951-52 had been maintained the maximum loan available today would be about $17,732 and hot $9,000 as proposed in this Budget. Quite obviously there has been a marked deterioration in the benefits provided by the scheme, even though the number of homes approved has fallen quite considerably. Admittedly, those eligible for loans under the scheme get much better terms than their peers who are not eligible and who are often forced to obtain finance at excessive interest rates. This is a broader part of the home finance structure in Australia which the honourable member for Reid, who is the Opposition spokesman on housing and urban affairs, has dealt with admirably in the House on a number of occasions. The principle was accepted of giving this sort of special assistance to exservicemen so they could re-establish themselves in civilian life. Undoubtedly there was also an element of compensation for the demands and sacrifice of service life. If these principles are still accepted, and I believe that they are, then there is a duty on the part of the Government to stop the value of the maximum loan from being eroded.

If a 10 per cent deposit is made on a home at the present average cost that is $16,281 in New South Wales, and a maximum loan of $9,000 obtained, then an additional $5,653 has to be found. Interest rates for this sort of supplementary finance are extremely high. In other States this gap between cost of home and land and the maximum loan is not as serious because land and building costs are lower. But the same need for additional finance at higher interest rates exists. This failure to move the loan limit along in step with rising costs has negated much of the benefit of the war service, homes scheme. There is no doubt that a substantial increase in the maximum loan could be made because payments made under the scheme are running well below the level of repayments. In 1970-71 spending under the scheme was $61 m and total receipts were $78.43m. The gap between spending and receipts has been widening rapidly in the past 5 years.

The last year when spending exceeded receipts was 1965-66. Even if spending increases in the next few years because of the demands of the Vietnam veterans, this pattern of substantially higher receipts than spending is certain to persist. All sorts of accounting procedures will doubtless be raised to show that the War Service Homes Division is not making a substantial profit on its operations. But there can be no doubt that the scheme has enough built-in flexibility in its operations to allow for much higher maximum loans. When the last war service homes legislation was before the House in November 1968, the honourable member for Hindmarsh (Mr Clyde Cameron) moved an amendment to increase the maximum advance to $12,000. This was in line with the average cost of a home and land at that time; the figure for New South Wales which I have used as a comparative base was then $11,388. On the evidence of present costs there is a strong case for raising the maximum limit to at least $15,000.

There are many anomalies in the operation of the scheme which honourable members will have a chance to look at when the new Bill comes before the House. One matter I would like to refer to briefly is the nature of assistance given by the War Service Homes Division. In an era when patterns of living and dwelling habits are changing, the approach of the scheme is geared to the traditional pattern of an individual home on an individual block of land. It would be appropriate in view of the rapid increases in land and housing costs, and the increasing gap between the maximum loan and home and land costs, for the Division to look at new concepts of group housing. It would be timely for the

Division to have a look at initiatives in the field of medium density housing or courtyard or town housing as it is sometimes called. There is little knowledge of the potential demand for this sort of housing from eligible applicants. Certainly, group housing could prove to be attractive to younger applicants particularly those eligible because of service in Vietnam. According to the National Capital Development Commission, up to 25 per cent of future residents of Canberra will choose to live in this sort of medium density housing. An entry by the War Service Homes Division into this sort of housing would be a contribution to containing the urban sprawl. Because of its long experience in providing housing for Australian families, the Division would be an ideal body to undertake these new concepts of housing. With land prices continuing to soar and building costs also rising rapidly, any stimulus for group housing where proven demand existed would be most desirable. Because of its sound financial position there is scope for the Division to show greater imagination and creativity in the sort of housing it provides.

I indicated during the course of my address that we believe there should be an opportunity, when the war service homes legislation comes before this . Parliament, for members to scrutinise all aspects of that legislation. In the limited time that has been available- to me this afternoon it has not been possible to develop these anomalies to the extent I would like. The Minister is well aware of them. They have been dealt with on other occasions in this Parliament. The most important one that exists today, I believe, is the one to which I have just referred - the fact that there is this gap that has to be bridged by those who are eligible under the war service homes legislation before they can apply successfully to the Department to be able to provide a home for themselves. I have referred to the increasing numbers of applicants as a result of those who have served in Vietnam wanting to take the opportunity provided by the generous scheme to apply for the assistance that is provided under the war service homes legislation. When that legislation comes before this Parliament I will want to extend some of the arguments I have put before the Parliament this afternoon, particularly the question of a second advance. How difficult the Government has been on this aspect. One would hope that the Minister would take the opportunity to say something about it when he replies at the end of this debate.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Mr Drury) - Order! The honourable member’s time has expired.

Mr KATTER:
Kennedy

– I suppose the Opposition has to carry out its role and has to mutilate and take to pieces the achievement by this Government, but I think 2 simple figures indicate what a splendid record this Government has had over the years in this matter of housing. Over a period of 22 years $105m has been contributed as finance for war service homes, and in 15 years the almost unbelievable figure of $l,509m has been contributed by way of housing grants. These figures speak for themselves. Having said this, I propose to submit to the Minister for Housing (Mr Kevin Cairns) and to the Government what I consider are perhaps some of the things that are lacking in the whole of our system. Naturally my remarks will apply more particularly to what is happening in some of the developing areas and in the rural areas of this great nation. I suppose no one would be more acutely aware of matters relating to housing than the Minister himself. He is very much a family man, and a person in this situation has a necessity for housing at its best. Where we do not have sufficient, adequate and comfortable housing, one of two things happens. Social conditions are created which lead to crime or which Slimmarc vice and all the other ugly things that happen where we do not have adequate housing and where we have slum conditions. I am diametrically opposed to the trend to build apartment houses. It is a matter of population. In a vast country like Australia where we have less ,han 13 million people there is the suggestion that we should do all possible to prevent an extension of our population. In a country where there are thousands of square miles of land available we have this trend towards the building of apartment houses. Even though they be modern, well equipped and are synonymous with the progress of our civilisation they are, in effect, a sort of ghetto. I regret to say that they lead to this type of living.

There are 2 aspects of housing which I would most earnestly suggest that the Minister for Housing examine. I speak now of the outback areas of Australia - the non urban areas - but my remarks could be applied to the outer areas of provincial cities. It is the subject of adobe housing. I had an opportunity of closely discussing this matter with Marcus Kyle who I would say is one of the top authorities in Australia, at the University of Queensland. He is well recognised for his contributions to the adequacy of an adobe type of home for the conditions in tropical areas of Australia where there is heat - and that is almost in any part of Australia - and where there is a necessity for circulation of air. When I talk of circulation of air, I think the Federal Government could well look into the possibility of in some way subsidising - perhaps not directly by financial assistance but by some concessional form - the provision of air conditioning.

In my own home town of Cloncurry, the shire council which I had the privilege of leading, introduced an air conditioning scheme which put air conditioners in almost every home for the owners who wanted them. That was the great majority of the homes of the town of Cloncurry. Immediately, a new era began for the housewife, because it is not only a matter of reducing the temperature of the home but also a matter of preventing the intrusion of dust. This is a big thing in country areas, particularly in the deep inland areas of this country. The housewife is more contended and is not tugging at her husband’s sleeve saying: ‘Let us move to the coast’, or ‘let us move to the city areas’.

One of the most critical necessities is for the world to be de-urbanised. I was utterly amazed to find that last year the United Nations committee dealing with the environment had not discussed de-urbanisation as such. It had discussed this subject of adequate housing which we are discussing now. It had discussed the great tragedy of drugs and the other things that are increasing pressures in the great urban areas of the world. But never did it suggest that there should be a great move to deurbanise, to attract people away from the cities or to discourage any further numbers congesting and building up these populations. When we think in these terms, we think of adequate housing. The great necessity is to move people away from the congested city areas. So I would reiterate that these are 2 fields which the Federal Government could perhaps look into. It is all very well to say that these are the responsibilities of the State governments. But I think that the Federal Government always has the responsibility of- taking the initiative. I think the men are separated from the boys in the case of Ministers who are prepared to do this. Fortunately, in our ranks at the moment we have outstanding people who are capable of doing this. I would suggest that the Minister for Housing is one of these people who is known for his initiative and for his individuality of action. He could well give a lead to the State Ministers for Housing by suggesting that they look into these features and the possibility of adobe housing or some other inexpensive type of housing for the young people who are trying to get established and, of course, the possibility of assisting with some scheme whereby an air conditioner could be provided for every home where we have tropical climatic conditions.

In talking about young people and providing homes for them, I would like to make a point quite decisively this afternoon: There is r. great forest of bureaucracy, rules, regulations, by-laws and all the other things that people have to plough through to find out whether they can buy a piece of land. I think this prevents young people from making a move. For instance, I could mention one or two specific cases where allotments were offered for auction and many of them were passed in. There was not even a bid. In those areas there was a tremendous demand for housing. We must also think of people over 36 years of age. They are people who perhaps are getting on a little and have become so sufficiently well established that they can look around to provide themselves with a home. They have to be kept in mind also. I feel that there are many people - young people and those who are a little older - who would be able to come along and perhaps bid for these allotments if they knew what was going on. They see a long, complicated advertisement or some promulgation which they do not really understand. I think it would be a good idea to have some sort of bureau which could explain to them when these auctions were being conducted and when land is being made available. I think one of the very urgent needs is for the clarification and simplification of methods of making land available.

It is not just a matter of housing. The price of land is quite prohibitive at the moment. I think this should be very closely examined. As I say, I would also like to see examined the provision of homes built on an adobe basis or in some similar form. I do not want to keep stressing adobe, but I have in mind some form of adequate, modern but simplified form of construction. I most earnestly appeal to the Minister to look into these matters and perhaps take over the initiative in getting the State Ministers for Housing to look into what I consider to be very serious matters affecting the housing of young people and those not so young people in this great country.

Mr Keith Johnson:
BURKE, VICTORIA · ALP

– I rise to support the amendment moved by the honourable member for Reid (Mr Uren). I do so, because housing is probably the most fundamental question that faces the community. Without shelter man perishes rather quickly. So the very thing that we are talking about is his . basic need for shelter. The honourable member for Bennelong (Sir John Cramer) spoke loud and long in praise of the Liberal-Country Party Government and what it has done. He used the words ‘Labor did nothing’, and this Government has done a marvellous job’. I suppose the honourable member would be speaking of the very short period - some 4 years - during which Labor was in officer after the Second World War. During that time it laid down the guidelines for so many things that this present Liberal-Country Party Government has followed. That was the time of post war reconstruction. That was the time of the initiation of our immigration programme. That was the time of the institution of housing policies and all the other policies that have been followed by this Government. I see the honourable member shaking his head. But in what greater way could he condemn the Liberal Party than to stand up after 21 years of Liberal Party Government and admit that there is still a housing problem in the community? What greater condemnation could this Government suffer than that inherent in the fact that after 21 years of uninterrupted role housing problems still exist in our community. Not only do they still exist, but on all comparative bases the problems are worse now than they were 21 years ago.

This whole question of housing revolves, as I see it, around 2 factors. One is that which has been raised by the Opposition but is never spoken of by supporters of the Government. This covers matters which affect people who are buying houses or who are endeavouring to acquire land - the high price of land, the high interest rates and the lack of uniformity in the building codes. All these are things for which the Federal Government can take responsibility and should take initiative. In this area I am not critical of the Minister for Housing because he is as much a captive of the Executive of the Liberal Government as is any other Minister. So I blame him not for the lack of initiative; rather do I blame the Government that he steadfastly supports and purports to represent. This is the Government that seeks to take initiative in matters where it can take the initiative.

Other home buyers vitally affected are those already in homes which they are purchasing and who now face a very serious situation. If I may I will use as an illustration the circumstances in my own State of Victoria. The problem facing the people who have purchased homes from the Victorian Housing Commission at a price of $14,000 to $15,000 for the house and land with a minimum deposit of $200 is that in one area - which is the most recently developed area - the repayments total $80 a month. The repayment of $80 a month extends over 45 years. In order to qualify for the purchase of a house from the Housing Commission a young couple must show that they have a certain number of children, that they have been on the waiting list for a certain length of time and also that their income is not less than $70 a week. They must have an income that is not in excess of $80 a week.

This is a problem that has been directly created by this Federal Government because of its lack of initiative in the housing field. Young couples presumably and supposedly on low incomes - although they must have a minimum income of $70 per week - are committed to mortgage repayments of $80 a month. This works out to 25 per cent of their income being spent on mortgage repayments only. On top of this there is an average of $2 to $3 a week on the same houses in the particular area I referred to, which takes the commitment to more than $90 a month. This does not cover such things as insurance, maintenance and all the other odds and ends that go with owning a home. It would be no exaggeration to say that the payments to be made by these people who are low income earners and desperately in need of housing total $100 a month. If the honourable member for Bennelong (Sir John Cramer) or any other supporter of the Government can tell me that that is a fine situation then I will assure him that I am very sadly disillusioned about the whole thing. It is absolutely disgraceful.

Sir John Cramer:

– What is wrong with it?

Mr Keith Johnson:
BURKE, VICTORIA · ALP

– What is wrong with it?’, asks the honourable member.

Sir John Cramer:

– That is $25 a week.

Mr Keith Johnson:
BURKE, VICTORIA · ALP

– It is $25 a week out of an income of $70 a week. We must remember that these are young people who have just purchased a home and need other things. These young people finish up in the hands of the sharks in control of hire purchase companies when they buy their refrigerators, washing machines, furniture and so on. This is when they start to suffer. Only last week I attended a meeting held in a private house organised by people involved in this sort of thing. It would make any honourable member’s heart bleed to listen to the sincere and genuine stories told by these people. These people are not convinced by the pretty words spoken about what a fine job the Liberal Party has done for them in the field of housing. These people are not convinced. They are in a very serious situation.

In this situation other difficulties arise. When a household is under great financial strain, as these households are, this is the time when domestic conflict commences and all sorts of side issues arise. There are the side effects from the fact that the family is financially overcommitted, and of course this is when the Government has to do something about social welfare, social services, health or in some other field. This Government is adding to and compounding the problems. It is not solving the difficulties faced by these people. It is my firm belief that this Government has no intention of solving these problems.

Mr BERINSON:
PERTH, WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP

– It created the problem in the first place.

Mr Keith Johnson:
BURKE, VICTORIA · ALP

– It created the problems in the first place, as my colleague says, and it then compounded them. At the same time its supporters stand up in this place or on the hustings and say what a fine job they have done over 21 years. They should be ashamed. When we speak of housing we are speaking primarily of borrowing money. The purchase of a home is usually the only purchase of such a magnitude and people generally buy only one house in their lifetime. If we are to talk about money, the thing that will affect the people most will be the rate of interest. The housing rate of interest has been moved once again by the action of this Liberal Party Government in this House. The reason given for increasing the rate of interest was that the increase would attract overseas investors to Australia - but ali it did was to attract hot money. But that is a different matter.

I come back to my original point, that no consideration has been given by this Government to the home owner or the home buyer when the Government decided to increase the interest rate on housing loans. This Government has given great consideration to the needs of the manufacturers in the community and the speculators in the community but no consideration has been given to the home owners. The interest rate was arbitarily increased. It is as a direct result of the increase in the interest rate that this problem in Victoria now exists. The problem is not isolated in Victoria. It can be directly traced back to this Government. If this Government is sincere in its claim that it does intend to do something for the people of Australia in terms of housing, rather than talking about it it should act. It should look at the matters I have raised. The Government 20j69/71- j»- P7J should inform itself about those matters and try to understand them. This Government should form within Australia one vast housing co-operative to which all people can contribute and from which all can receive.

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

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

– I support the amendment that has been moved by the Opposition because it deals with some of the basic problems in housing. As an example we can see the disaster that has been created in New South Wales by the failure of this Government to look into the real problems. The first real Commonwealth-State housing agreement was sponsored by the Chifley Government in 1945 and to operate for a period of 10 years. That agreement contained provision for a low interest rate on housing loans and it included a rental rebate system. When that agreement was renewed in 1955, with some reluctance, by the Menzies Government, the rental rebate system as far as age pensioners were concerned was done away with. The New South Wales Government was left in the position of having to provide, out of its own resources, accommodation for all pensioners.

Mr Connor:

– And the interest rate was raised.

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

– That is right. The result of this is that a single age pensioner in New South Wales now has to wait 5 years after applying for Housing Commission accommodation. Married aged couples have to wait 4 years from the time of their application. This is a real indictment of some of the housing policies that have been enunciated by the Liberal Government philosophy. It is interesting to note that the State Housing Commission Ministers were anxious that the present agreement - which has, as I said, now been renewed - should have an interest rate of 4 per cent because this rate would be fair and reasonable. The Government took no notice of that even though in the main it has the same political ideology as the State Ministers. I read with interest a statement made by the Premier of New South Wales on 22nd September in which he referred to the new housing agreement. He said that the old one expired on 30th June and that there had been discussions at ministerial level conveying the views of the various States as to improvements in the existing arrangements. He said that it was a matter of some regret that there was no prior consultation with State Housing Ministers on the specific new proposals. It is rather extraordinary that the Commonwealth would dare to bring in specific new proposals without having consultations with the State Ministers, and this has had an effect in New South Wales which I endeavoured by way of a question to get the Minister for Housing (Mr Kevin Cairns) to say something about.

Because the Prime Minister (Mr McMahon) was so anxious to increase the bond rate on a long term basis to 7 per cent he has automatically increased all rents throughout New South Wales. While the Minister says that that is not so, let me illustrate the position. The New South Wales Housing Commission rental system was based on an interest rate of 4.85 per cent and the Commission did not increase its rents when the interest rate was previously increased to 6 per cent. As a result it is now in the situation where it is paying 7 per cent for its loan money and is charging rentals based on a rate of 4.85 per cent. The Government says that it is giving back to the State by way of subsidy $2. 75m; but that is not enough to cover the gap. The result is an increase in the interest rate to 5i per cent on rents which were calculated on a rate of 4.85 per sent. That would not be unreasonable since the Government is charging the States 7 per cent. The increase from 4.85 per cent to 5.5 per cent will result in an increase of $1.20 per week in the current rental of $15.20 a week being charged for a standard 3 -bedroom timber-framed dwelling at Mount Druitt which cost $10,400 to build.

So automatically the philosophy of the Prime Minister in relation to high interest rates has increased every Housing Commission rent by at least $1.20 and perhaps even more depending on the cost of the home. What is to be the position? The figures show that this subsidy is not to be changed within the next 5 years. Yet it is thought that with the cost of living and the cost of general construction the States should be getting more money each year for housing, otherwise their capacity to build as many as they do now will shrink. If New South Wales gets more money each year for the next 5 years and still has to pay 7 per cent interest and does not get any increased subsidy, in the last 2 years of that 5-year period it will run into a deficit of $20m, even if it increases its rents now by $1.20. So what is this argument that the Minister puts forward that it was not his responsibility that rents in New South Wales went up? These increases were directly related to the fact that the subsidy is not sufficient to cover the gap in toto, over the entire 5-year period, between the 7 per cent and 5.5 per cent interest rates. He cannot have it any other way, because the State Ministers asked for 4 per cent. He said it had to be 7 per cent. This is the new technique. They were not really consulted. The Minister says: ‘I will give you a subsidy of $2.75*. But that does not cover the present costs.

The danger is that the long term bond rate could rise to above 7 per cent and the States would have to bear the increase completely. Accordingly, rents would go up again. The position is that we have a scheme recognised throughout the world as being essential in order to provide proper housing. We have a situation where housing commission queues are bigger than ever. Why? It is because the economy is so weak and tragic. Of the applicants now applying to the New South Wales Housing Commission 65 per cent are earning less than $60 a week. There is now a record 37,000 applicants for houses through the New South Wales Housing Commission. The number of applicants has never been so high. The greatest number of applications were made last year because of this Government’s high interest rate policy. This has become apparent. Because of the increased interest rates for housing loans, a proportion of families who previously could have obtained private assistance turned to the Commission when finance at levels they could afford was no longer available.

The Government has deliberately taken away from what might be termed the private developer the opportunity to help these people who, because the interest rates have soared, have had to join the Housing Commission queue. The queue will be so much longer. If the Government had looked at the Chifley Government’s policy it would have found an analysis of this situation. That policy provided that any medium wage earner should not pay more than one quarter of his income in rent otherwise there would be all the disasters that we have now, such as delinquency, poverty, deserted wives and broken homes because the people cannot continue paying the high rents. This Government has deviated from that policy and now these people have to pay rents which are relatively high compared to an income of, say, $60 a week. At an interest rate of 5± per cent the rental to be paid on a $10,400 home is $16.40 a week. If the rate were 4 per cent, as was suggested by the State Ministers, even though they are Liberals, the rental would be $13.80 a week. At an interest rate of 4 per cent and over 53 years the borrowers would have to pay only $14,000 in interest on a loan of $10,000. But now that they have to pay 54. per cent interest, the interest on a loan of $10,000 will be $21,000. This Government is a usurer. It is not interested in the housing problem; it is interested only in money.

Sir John Cramer:

– You know you are talking nonsense.

Mt LIONEL BOWEN- It is not nonsense. The honourable member for Bunnelong (Sir John Cramer) indirectly caused the operation in his State of the infamous section 5a leases. At that time he said there were 40,000 homes vacant. Does he remember that? He encouraged everybody to let their homes at decontrolled rentals. As a result there is now the biggest Housing Commission list, higher rents and the largest number of evictions. Yet he can stand here and take credit for it. He can have it, because it has been a real disaster and he knows it has. If he wants to find out what he should be doing as a private individual interested in making money why does he not seek provision for depreciation in the taxation scale. This is available in France, Finland, Sweden, Japan and Germany. If he wants to encourage private investors to build homes for rental he should seek a depreciation provision so that they will not have to increase the rentals. It can be easily and readily done and would avoid this disaster that we now have where people are charged $30 or $35 a week rental for a 2-bedroora house. Perhaps the owners would drop rentals a lot if they could have access to a depreciation scale and they might be encouraged not to put up with substandard dwellings plastered here and there, housing families, and creating all the associated problems of delinquency. All the things that the honourable member for Reid (Mr Uren) has mentioned, the Government has ignored. In view of the Government’s desire to be making a dollar all the time, why does it not provide for depreciation in the taxation scale as every other country has done? If it did, the Government would be giving at least something to the people. Why does it not provide some taxation concessions to people who lend money at a low rate of interest? The Government should do that in addition to providing home savings grants. If a person can lend money at 5 per cent he should be given a taxation concession rather than having that person trying to lend money at 10 per cent or 13 per cent, as is done by loans sharks in New South Wales. All that happens is that people are evicted and put in the Housing Commission queue and have to wait years before they are offered accommodation.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Drury:

Order! The honourable members time has expired.

Mr KEOGH:
Bowman

– Clearly the problems involved with housing Australians are numerous and complex. It is equally clear that they are too numerous and complex to be dealt with by honourable members opposite in their pitiful endeavours to explain the reasons why this Government has failed miserably over the years to provide adequate housing in Australia. We have had this afternoon in the consideration of the estimates for the Department of Housing only 2 speakers from the Liberal Party and one from the Country Party. I am the sixth speaker for the Opposition and there are at least 2 speakers to follow me from this side of the House.

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– And the rest.

Mr KEOGH:

– I said ‘2 speakers’ because I understand that this debate will conclude when we adjourn at 5.45 p.m. There are enough speakers here to take the floor in this chamber to illustrate very clearly to the nation how inadequate this Government has been in facing the housing problems that have confronted Australians over the years in which Liberal governments have been in office.

In 1966, in reply to a request by the Housing Industry Association for a Government sponsored inquiry into the future requirements of housing on a national level, the then Prime Minister said that home building was the overwhelming responsibility of private enterprise and that private enterprise was in a better position to survey the needs and requirements of the industry than the Government was. He reaffirmed his view that the task of forecasting housing demand and performances over a period of years was not one for his Government to undertake. While that Government and subsequent governments have been prepared to apply the stop-go squeeze policies, they have not been prepared to initiate an inquiry into the needs of the industry or thrust such an inquiry on to the private sector of the housing industry.

This afternoon we have heard Government speakers offer reasons - and very poor reasons - why the people of Australia should be very satisfied with how they have been treated by this Government in regard to their housing wants. I want to mention one matter which was raised this afternoon by the honourable member for Bennelong (Sir John Cramer). The honourable member spoke of the great satisfaction that members of the armed services should have with the very competent way in which the Government has looked after their housing needs. I was very pleased to hear such loud praise because only recently I was able to ascertain from the Minister for Defence (Mr Fairbairn) by way of an answer to a question on notice an indication of just how incompetently the Government is looking after the housing needs of these people.

I want to cite a few of the matters referred to in the Minister’s answer to illustrate very clearly, in just one small sector alone, how grossly this Government has failed to provide for the needs of servicemen requiring accommodation in the various Service establishments throughout Australia. I asked the Minister the following question:

  1. At which defence establishments throughout Australia are premises provided for servicemen under the Commonwealth/States Housing Agreement.
  2. How many, servicemen are (a) at present accommodated and (b) awaiting allocation of accommodation in these premises.
  3. At each defence establishment (a) what is the maximum waiting period for this accommodation (b) how many servicemen are accommodated in private premises and (c) what sum was spent in rent subsidies for private premises in 1969-70.

The story that was unfolded was that the Government has failed grossly to provide accommodation for these servicemen; it has failed grossly to provide sufficient housing for the total number of servicemen requiring accommodation provided under the Commonwealth and State Housing Agreement. The Minister stated in his answer that 12,619 servicemen were occupying houses provided under the Agree-! ment. In addition I was informed that 4,458 servicemen were awaiting the allocation of accommodation and that the Government at this stage has planned to provide accommodation for only 2,400 of them. Therefore even if the planned accommodation for 2,400 servicemen had been available immediately, the short-fall in the requirement for married serviceman in Australia would still have been in excess of 2,000 houses. Yet, the honourable member for Bennelong suggests that servicemen should be satisfied with what the Commonwealth is doing for them by way of the provision of housing.

I was informed that the number of servicemen accommodated in private premises is not recorded by the Services - the Navy, the Army and the Air Force - for each locality but that the total number of personnel in private accommodation was estimated to be 8,794 at 30th April 1971. The Commonwealth has been prepared to pay a total of $840,420 in that 12-month period by way of rent subsidies into the pockets of the hungry landlords instead of knuckling down and providing the housing that these people require in the defence establishments throughout Australia. Yet, the honourable member for Bennelong has the effrontery to suggest to this House, to the nation and to the people of Australia that the servicemen and the young people of Australia should be well satisfied with what this Government has done.

I shall have time probably to refer to only one other matter during this debate. Ishould like to draw the attention of honourable members to this matter because I believe it also is of paramount importance to the need of Australians to be provided with housing at an economic rental or puchase price. I refer to the lack of initiative by this Government, and principally by the Department of Housing - and the Minister for Housing (Mr Kevin Cairns) who must bear the responsibility - to do anything towards bringing into effect the suggested tentative uniform home building code which was prepared by the Commonwealth Department of Housing and which was tabled in this House I believe in April of last year. Since that time the submission has lain in an atmosphere in inactivity. However, the preface to this submission stated that the interest of the Department of Housing was ‘to achieve a worthwhile reduction in the cost of home building’. It went on to state:

If this benefit is to be obtained, it is essential that the minimum standards set out in our ‘Tentative Uniform Home Building Code’, or standards close to these, be accepted by the major institutional lenders for housing throughout Australia.

I would like the Minister for Housing, when he replies and sums up in this debate, to give the House an indication of just what he has done and what his Department has done towards getting this agreement between the various lending authorities.

I glanced at the notice paper a short while ago and I saw that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Whitlam) has had a question on notice seeking information in regard to the adoption of this uniform building code since 17th August. As yet, that question remains unanswered. I think it would be fitting if the Minister for Housing spent a few minutes this afternoon telling the House just what has happened to this uniform building code. What initiatives has his Department taken to ensure the adoption of a uniform code so that the many thousands of dollars that are currently wasted throughout Australia by young people being forced to build according to a variety of local requirements.

In this area and in many other areas this Government has failed. I had high hopes that the Minister would be able to perform better than his predecessor, but he has failed to do so.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Mr Drury) - Order! The honourable member’s time has expired.

Mr FOSTER:
Sturt

– The first point I desire to make is that the absence of Government speakers in this debate indicates that they are rather shameful - extremely shameful as they ought to be - of the record of the Government in the field we are discussing at the moment. Some of the basic things that humans require are, of course, food, shelter and clothing. Although the Government has been in office for as long as it has, unfortunately, it has not learned from its experiences from year to year or from decade to decade and has abdicated its responsibility to the young people in the community. Rather, the Government has stood idly by, with an attitude of indifference - that is perhaps the best way to describe it - and allowed the speculators in the community to make vast profits on transactions which have involved a change of ownership of land. With each change of ownership there has been a tremendous profit but there has been no real improvement to that land in any way.

In some areas in my electorate the price of land has gone up hundreds of per cent in the last 5 years and, to a very large extent, in the last 12 months. I refer to such areas as Dernancourt, Modbury and Highbury and others. The situation is absolutely staggering. The young people in the community today are often criticised but they have my deepest sympathy because they have an intolerable burden placed on them to provide themselves with a home of their own. I want to reiterate, in relation to my own electorate in South Australia, what was said in this debate by the honourable member for Kingsford-Smith (Mr Lionel Bowen). I was disappointed in the speech made by the honourable member for Bennelong (Sir John Cramer) who, I understand, has some personal interest in housing. He has stood to gain as a result of certain business activities. He interjected quite loudly during the remarks of a previous speaker in relation to interest rates and said that they were rubbish.

Let us have a look at the burden that confronts young people. First of all, there is a gap between the cost of providing a home and land and the finance that is available from recognised sources, without dealing with the fringe area of finance for second mortgages, which is high and crippling. For young people who want to provide themselves with a home but not rely on housing trusts and housing commissions the gap is really excessive. Added to that, they are forced into taking a second mortgage. The Government created the ground work for this situation when it refused the banking proposals set out by Labor in the late 1940s. Let us see what these young people have to pay. With a savings bank loan of $5,000, a second mortgage of $4,000 and an interest rate of 6i per cent for the first 8 years, they will pay $77.16 in monthly repayments. They will pay a total interest on that of $4,890.25. Added to that is the second mortgage to which I refer. If it is taken out for $4,000 at 7i per cent interest the monthly repayment will be $56.04, and the total interest repayment over a period of approximately 15 years will be $1,379,82.

The young people of today who require a loan of $13,000 are required to pay in total repayments of about $133.20 a month and they are required to pay about $6,270 in interest payments. I ask the Minister for Housing (Mr Kevin Cairns) what that represents on the total loan that they have taken out. He can work it out for himself. The honourable member for Bennelong, who has returned to the chamber, says that this is not so. Let him go into the Parliamentary Library and take the Librarian’s staff to task for producing incorrect research figures. I am sure he will not do this, because he knows darned well that the figures are correct. What has this Government done over the years? I do not know how many times one has to mention this before the penny drops for honourable members opposite. The Joint Committee on Constitutional Review made certain recommendations in this field which the Government has ignored because it is a capitalist oriented government. Honourable members opposite get up and talk about the average wage that is earned but they completely and conveniently overlook the fact that at least 70 per cent of the people in the community receive much less than the average wage. This is just not good enough.

The Government does not recognise the burden it puts around the necks of young people who just want a roof over their heads and to own their own home. Many of them who enter into these contracts probably are not aware until some five or six years later what is really involved. Apart from the cost of the home there is the tremendous cost of establishing gardens and buying furnishings. I suppose that there are very many young people in the community who cannot achieve a home of their own unless the wife takes a job after the marriage. As the Minister knows, I have directed a number of pieces of correspondence to him about the homes savings grant. I had no success with his predecessor nor have I had any success with the present Minister. A committee of both Houses should be set up, representing a wide section of the community, including business and local government interests, to make a proper study of this matter so that the Government can tackle the problem of providing that basic thing required by all of us - shelter over our heads.

The Federal and State governments have gone far too long on a year to year basis without any definite basic plan for this area. They have done nothing about the land speculator who assumes that areas 5 miles beyond developed areas or on the fringe of them will be required in a few short years hence for housing. The governments have done absolutely nothing - they are sure to be condemned forever for it - to cease this type of speculation, which imposes an increased burden on the young people, in areas in which development will occur in a reasonably short time. Honourable members have seen what has been occurring since the late 1940s, if not before. The Government has let it go on. The affluent millionaires in Western Australia and other places in this Commonwealth are doubling their profits on land on which there has not been a stick of timber or an ounce of cement used or any work done. It has been bare, open, previously rural land. It has just changed ownership, and in changing ownership again people have doubled their profit.

The Government has done nothing about it. By doing nothing about it the Government has created a burden for the younger members of this community which they will have to carry for the greater part of their working lives. It is time that honourable members opposite, in the time that is left for these estimates, stood and were counted for the Government’s absolute and utter neglect of the young people in the community in regard to this basic need of most, if not all, people. I will wind up on the note that it is not too late for some honourable members opposite to accept the amendment put forward by the Opposition and at least commence to do what I suggest ought to be done.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Mr Drury) - Order! The honourable member’s time has expired.

Mr IRWIN:
Mitchell

- Mr Deputy Chairman-

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

Mr Deputy Chairman, the honourable member for Mitchell has already spoken.

Mr IRWIN:

– That is all right, I can speak twice.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Mr Drury) - Order! The call alternates from one side of the chamber to the other and the honourable member is entitled to the call.

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I ask you, Mr Deputy Chairman, whether the honourable member for Mitchell has already spoken in this debate. If he has, is he able to precede a member who has not spoken?

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN- No other member on the Government side has risen to speak and the honourable member for Mitchell is entitled to a second call.

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– If you think that is a fair thing.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN- This is the normal practice.

Mr IRWIN:

– In regard to this matter–

Mr Keogh:

– I rise to order. 1 recognise that during my remarks I made reference to the fact that the Government had not been able to get any of its supporters to enter this debate. The honourable member for Mitchell has spoken previously. Let me say with all due respect to him that I accept the fact that he has spoken, but there is no need for him to re-enter the debate just to keep out the Labor Party speakers who are prepared to speak and have speeches ready that they have not had an opportunity to make.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN- Order! There is no substance in that point of order. Let me make the position quite clear. The position is that an honourable member on the Government side who has already spoken once may receive the call a second time if no other member on the Government side rises when it is the Government’s turn to be called. There were occasions when nobody on the Government side wished to speak and we did have succession of speakers from the Opposition side. But on this occasion there was a Government member who wished to speak - the honourable member for Mitchell - and I gave him the call. Although he had already spoken he was entitled to receive a second call because no other Government member rose to speak. The same applies to the Opposition side. This is the normal practice of the House and has been for many years.

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I rise to order. May I ask under which standing order you have given your ruling?

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN- This is an established practice of the House and I am surprised that the honourable member does not recall it. It has been a well established practice in the House and in committee for many years. If an honourable member on the Government side or on the Opposition side rises to speak a second time and there is no other member on that side who wishes to speak, then he is entitled to receive the call a second time. I therefore uphold the honourable member’s right to speak a second time.

Mr IRWIN:

– Some wild and arrant nonsense has been spoken this afternoon, firstly in regard to the new agreement which the Premiers knew about when they came to Canberra. They were very pleased with it and took it back to their respective Ministers for Housing. For certain reasons the conference of Federal and State Housing Ministers that generally takes place each year did not occur simply because the Premiers knew of the new and wonderful agreement that was proposed. I want to speak about that agreement now. The purpose of the housing grants is to provide financial assistance to the States for housing in a new form and to a greater extent than the assistance provided in the past under the Commonwealth-State housing agreements. The grants being provided as from this year replace the former arrangement.

Under the housing agreements that have operated for the past 15 years the level of Commonwealth advances made to the States each financial year for housing has been nominated by them individually from within their allocations of the total works and housing borrowing programme approved by the Australian Loan Council for that year. Over $ 1,509m has been advanced to the States in the 15 years. Each State has been required to repay the advances it has received each financial year over a period of 53 years. The advances have attracted interest at a concessional rate of 1 per cent below the long term Commonwealth bond rate applying at the time each advance was made. Rates of interest payable have varied between 3i per cent and 6 per cent per annum. The interest concession of 1 per cent per annum has constituted the principal form of financial assistance to the States under the housing agreements.

Each State was required to divide into 2 parts the advances of loan funds it received from the Commonwealth each financial year. One part was for the erection of dwellings by the State housing authority. The other part, not less than 30 per cent of the Commonwealth advances, was for provision of loans to persons wishing to build or purchase a home privately through building societies and certain other approved institutions. For the purpose of these loans each State maintains a Home Builders Account. Of the $ 1,509m advanced to the States over the 15 years to 30th June 1971, $l,024m was allocated to the State housing authorities and $485m was channelled through the Home Builders Accounts. In addition to the loan funds of $485m allocated to the Home Builders Accounts, additional moneys amounting to approximately $120m have become available for lending due to the revolving nature of the Accounts.

In future each State will continue to determine the amount of its annual borrowing programme that it wishes to allocate for housing but these amounts will no longer be part of the Commonwealth’s own borrowing programme. They will be provided from State loan funds. Replacing the previous assistance by way of interest concession on Commonwealth advances, financial assistance will be made available in the form of 2 types of grant - a housing grant and a rental assistance grant. The basic housing grant will be an amount of $2.75m a year, payable for a period of 30 years, in respect of State housing activities in each of the next 5 years 1971-72 to 1975-76. A condition of payment of this grant is that, as under the Housing Agreement arrangements, at least 30 per cent of each State’s allocation for housing each year is to be allocated to a Home Builders Account. The grant itself then will be applied to financially assist both State housing authority activity in relation to the rental or sale of dwellings to eligible applicants and the operations of the Home Builders Accounts from which advances will continue to be made to building societies and certain other approved institutions.

The basic housing grant alone will provide the States with financial assistance in housing broadly equivalent to the 1 per cent per annum interest concession allowable for 53 years. Commencing at $2.75m in 1971-72 the amount of grant payable will rise each year in multiples of $2.75m to $ 13.75m in the fifth year 1975-76 and remain at that level for the following 25 years. In total, over 34 years, $412.5m is payable.

The rental assistance grant of $ 1.25m a year, for each of the next 5 years, is a general Commonwealth contribution towards the cost to State housing authorities of reduced rents being charged to the more needy families. Both of these grants are to be distributed on a fixed percentage basis which has been agreed with the States. The provision in the Estimates for 1971-72 is $2.75m for the housing grant and $1.25m for the rental assistance grant, making a total over the 34 years of $41 2.5m. There was no expenditure by way of grants in 1970-71. That shows honourable members some of the great assistance that this Government has given to the States. I would like to have had time to challenge some of the erroneous statements that have been made and some of the twaddle that has been spoken by honourable members opposite but I have agreed to conclude at 5.45 p.m.

Progress reported.

Sitting suspended from 5.46 to 8 p.m.

page 2735

THE INTERNATIONAL MONETARY SITUATION

Ministerial Statement

Mr SNEDDEN:
Treasurer · Bruce · LP

– by leave - Mr Acting Speaker, President Nixon’s statement on various new economic measures the United States was taking was made on 15th August last. Shortly stated, the President announced the following main measures: Convertibility of United States dollars into gold and other reserve assets was to be temporarily suspended; a 10 per cent surcharge on all dutiable imports into the United States, other than those subject to quotas, was to be imposed. The President announced certain other measures, the main effects of which were designed to stimulate the growth of output in the United States while at the same time attempting to restrain wage and price increases. One of these measures however - the job development tax credit - also has the effect of discriminating against imports into the United States of various manufactured products.

The world currency system was thrown into disarray; there was great confusion and recognition of a very serious and complex problem for the world. In this atmosphere I attended the Commonwealth Finance Ministers’ meeting in Nassau. Immediately afterwards I joined in the Annual Meeting of the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank Group in Washington. Thereafter I went to France, the United Kingdom, Germany, Switzerland and Japan. In the many discussions I had with finance ministers, bankers and officials, the subject of the international monetary situation dominated all others. And it is that on which I now report to the House.

I heard many diagnoses and many prescriptions^ - many of them contradictory. The single thing that everyone is agreed on is that the problem is serious and that the future is uncertain for the level of trade and for the prosperity of the world. I put before the House my own assessment of the situation - with the reservation that since circumstances are changing so rapidly, what may be fact and necessary consequence today may be changed, even negated, tomorrow.

In international terms the significant element of the United States action - apart from the suspension of convertibility of the dollar, the consequence of which I will come to later - -was the 10 per cent surcharge on imports. There were many factors which contributed to the United States’ balance of payments crisis. For one thing, the United States, which had once been an example to the world in maintaining cost and price stability, found itself in a position where, for some time, its prices and costs had been rising more rapidly than those of its main competitors. Its domestic markets were more and more being penetrated by foreign made consumer and capital goods. Beyond that the United States has claimed that some of its troubles have been due to the fact that it has been shouldering an undue share of the free world’s defence burdens. Defence expenditures abroad by the United States have recently been running at around $US5 billion annually. Australia is probably in as good a position as any country to appreciate the size of the defence expenditures the United States has been assuming.

Then again, the United States has claimed that its trading position has been worsened by what it regards as the unfair practices pursued by some of its trading partners. Australia, of course, which is more dependent than most on the export of primary products, would certainly agree that in many cases the United States, like ourselves, has some real grievances in terms of the trade practices of others. The United States is facing a deficit on its trade account this year for the first time for almost 80 years. In these circumstances, it is a good thing that a country as powerful as the United States is prepared to take up seriously this matter of unfair trading practices. As 1 said in an address which I gave in New York last month to the American-Australian Association there, if it does so it may find that the unfairness may not be all on the one side. In that context, incidentally, I certainly took the opportunity of pointing out the barriers that exist to many of our own exports to the United States.

Bearing in mind all these circumstances, the United States has taken the view that a number of its trading partners were conducting their trade with the United States on the basis of exchange rates which gave them an unfair advantage. The United

States has called for a major realignment of exchange parities. This realignment would recognise the over-valuation of the United States dollar, or the undervaluation of the currencies of those countries in balance of payments surplus - the way of expressing it depends upon the point of view. Finally, the United States has recognised that this dollar crisis is only the last of a series of crises which have affected ;n turn the pound sterling, the French franc, the German Deutsche mark, and now the United States dollar. It has been suggested therefore that the monetary system itself may be in need of review.

President Nixon’s announcements of 15th August left the financial world rather stunned. Most markets remained closed for foreign transactions until 23rd August. And when they did open, parities with the United States dollar were not maintained. The currencies of most major trading countries floated upwards against the dollar until today the Deutsche mark is almost 10 per cent up on the US dollar, the yen about 9 per cent, the Netherlands guilder 3 per cent, the Belgian financial franc 7 per cent and sterling 4 per cent. These movements have already gone a long way towards producing a considerable realignment of currencies. They have, however, not done so in an adequately co-ordinated and wholly satisfactory manner. I shall say something more later about the likely consequences if this rather ragged process were to be continued for too long without any agreement being reached on a satisfactory mutual realignment as we understand that term. Meanwhile, the United States and its major trading partners are still debating bilaterally, and within other forums, notably the Group of Ten, what further contribution to the restoration of equilibrium in international trade and payments is still required by the United States, on the one hand, and by the rest of the Group of Ten, on the other.

The areas of disagreement are many. When President Nixon announced his measures on 15th August, reference was made, as I have mentioned, to trade and defence issues. This has continued to be stressed, albeit perhaps a little less forcefully, by the Americans. Realignment of currencies is not enough. They also seek some undertakings from some of their trading partners on trade and defence mat ters. For example, it is clear that they will be looking closely at certain aspects of their trading relationships with such key countries as Japan, Canada and the European Economic Community. Similarly, one might expect them to be chiefly interested, as far as defence burden-sharing is concerned, in the policies of such countries as Japan, Germany and Canada. I am glad to be able to say, however, that one thing that is clear is that Australia figures in neither category. The United States, however, has not had things all its own way on these non-financial issues and criticism is mounting not only against the import surchage but also against some related measures such as the application of the United States job development tax credit which has the effect of discriminating against imports of capital equipment into the United States.

Then there is the basic question of the magnitude of the balance of payments turnround which needs to be achieved between the United States and the rest of the Group of Ten. The United States has made no secret of the fact that it seeks a total turnaround of the order of $13 billion per annum. This figure is significantly larger than the figure, freely reported as being of the order of $8 billion, being suggested by the two international institutions chiefly concerned, namely the International Monetary Fund and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. And this figure in turn is significantly larger than the amount which the rest of the Group of Ten appeared prepared to contribute by way of a reduction in their balance of payments surpluses. While there is no clear statement of what this latter amount may be, published reports suggest something less than $US5 billion or thereabouts.

These differences go to the nub of the matter. For example, one reason which is reported to figure prominently in the argument between the United States and the other members of the Group of Ten is that the latter, particularly some of them, seriously question the need on their part to worsen their balances of payments on current account in order, among other things, to provide the United States with a sufficient surplus to enable it to maintain a high level of net capital investment abroad

In that and perhaps in some other ways there are differences not merely of arithmetical estimation but of basic philosophy about the international balance of payments structure which different countries wish to see.

The truth is, of course, that it is in any case very difficult for governments to accept with equanimity proposals for reducing their exports, or increasing their imports, by some specified sum or other designed to produce a total turnaround for the beneficiary country of some agreed order. They are bound to consider the effects of that deceision on their own citizens and to give great weight to their own national interests in that regard. It is because I believe that the present procedures run some risk of foundering on those grounds that I have, in all my talks with the Finance Ministers of various members of the Group of Ten, continued to emphasize the need I see for someone of them to put forward what would no doubt be a first shot at a new ‘schedule’ of parities, about which argument might then proceed.

However that may be, what is clear is that even if trade and defence issues are left aside the attitude of the United States appears to be that the realignment has not yet gone far enough. But some of the Group of Ten are already eyeing off others within the Ten and saying because some individual members have allowed their rates to move very little, they themselves may already have gone too far. The United States is an important trading partner of the Europeans, but not allimportant. The Germans, for instance, have to watch their commercial relationships with, say France, and, if it comes to that, Japan. The rest of the Group of Ten, for their part, have said in voices of varying strength that if the United States is seeking a more substantial realignment, it should be making a contribution itself. By this they mean that the United States should itself devalue in terms of gold.

In one sense this is not a particularly meaningful point. What really matters to those engaged in international transactions is the altered rate at which currencies exchange relative to one another following realignment. It does not matter to the trader and the financier how the realign ment of parities has come about. From that point of view the United States dollar can just as much be said to have floated downwards against most major currencies as those currencies can be said to have floated upwards against the dollar. In another sense, however, it does matter to those countries who are substantial holders of gold for, to the extent that they revalue, their gold reserves fall in value in terms of their local currencies. Another, and more far-reaching, aspect of this matter is its significance for the role of gold in the monetary system in the future; and in that context although the Managing Director of the Fund, Mr Schweitzer, has made the valid point that any outcome to the present impasse which did not involve gold in at least maintaining its value relative to the average appreciation of other currencies against the US dollar would not only affect the future of gold but also the future of Special Drawing Rights which are, of course, defined in terms of gold. In the present context I will not go into all these ramifications. Suffice it to say that the United States at this point of time asserts that an increase in the dollar price of gold is not acceptable to it.

Then there is the question not of ‘how’ the turn-around in the balance of payments and the realignment of currencies should be achieved, but the question of when’. It is this matter of timing which is becoming in many ways the most critical issue. One problem is that the United States is an enormous economy in which, in relative terms, international trade does not loom so large. Exports as a proportion of United States gross national product are only some 5 per cent. For Japan, on the other hand, the figure is 11 per cent, and for Australia 16 per cent. For some other countries, such as the United Kingdom, the proportion is even higher. It follows that the United States is obviously under less pressure, from a purely economic viewpoint, in arriving at an outcome which it would regard as giving it a satisfactory contribution from the surplus countries. And there are some individual countries in turn for whom trade with the United States is not so important - for example, only some 5 per cent of France’s trade is with the United States. Countries in that position may also find little difficulty in waiting.

The great risk in all this, however, is that as the import surcharge and other measures taken by the United States begin to bite - as export to the United States and employment in export industries begins to fall away - the countries affected could well become less and less willing, and perhaps less and less able, to make the further contributions which the United States expects. In order to protect their position, these countries may resort to retaliation. Already one country - Denmark - has imposed its own 10 per cent import surcharge. Developments along these lines would pose great risks, and not least for those countries such as Australia which are not directly involved. As I said in my speech to the Board of Governors of the IMF and the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, let world wisdom spare us from trade barriers and a bout of retaliation.

The great risk, as I say, is that if the present situation lingers on too long, the world could see a series of retaliatory import cuts which could only lead to a downward spiral in world trade and employment. It must be hoped that the major trading countries will have too much sense to allow this to happen. But I do want to stress the importance of not allowing it to do so. The longer the present position continues, the more entrenched national positions become, the greater is the danger. Unless the further meetings which are planned for November can at least clear the way towards an outcome, so that the outlines at least of a multilateral realignment are in sight, then I greatly fear that such a realignment may evade us. Certainly, we cannot afford to be complacent - the more so since, as the French Minister of Finance warned the Annual Meeting of the Fund in Washington, ‘the world economy appears to have entered a stage of lessened growth in recent months’. Unemployment is running in the region of about 6 per cent in the United States, about 7 per cent in Canada, and over 3i per cent in the United Kingdom. In Japan and in Germany the boom seems to be over and in both countries there has been a marked reduction in the growth rate. The authorities of each country have, it is true, recently taken certain measures to stimulate demand; yet on my present assessment it wou’d be unrealistic to expect any very early strong upturn in either.

In these circumstances, it is simply not good enough for the rest of the world to have to sit back and wait to see when the protagonists in this struggle will reach a settlement. As I have said, failure to reach an early agreed realignment of parities will place individual countries under increasing pressures to look after their own situations. The result could be a relapse by countries into unilateral decisions, taken either singly or in certain groups of countries such as the EEC. Such a situation would, of course, represent a serious setback for international economic co-operation in general and for the future orderly working of the international monetary system in particular.

In my discussions with the Finance Ministers wherever they have taken place I have strongly argued these points. First, I have stressed the urgency of finding a solution to the present impasse. Secondly, I have urged the importance of a currency realignment as the immediate objective. Thirdly, I have made it clear that we are not taking sides, as between the United States on the one hand and the other members of the Group of Ten on the other, on the issue of whether or not the United States should effect a minor devaluation in terms of gold. All we say is that we would not object to such action if that will facilitate agreement on an early realignment. We wish no issues of national dignity within the Group of Ten, nor any sense of the luxury of being relatively unaffected, to obstruct a speedy conclusion.

Fourthly, I have argued that member countries of the Fund should concentrate all their energies at this time upon the resolution of the current problems, rather than perhaps being diverted to the longer term issues of monetary reform. We should indeed be very careful about abandoning the system we have before we find a better system to take its place. The fault may be not in the system but in the actions of its members, including their failure to observe and abide by the rules. In this connection there is, indeed, something of a paradox to be observed. Thus, if the United States does achieve the turnaround in its balance of payments necessary to correct its deficit, it is by no means unlikely that the status of the US dollar as a reserve asset will be restored. In that case. the nature of the changes needed, and indeed the necessity of changes at all, may take on a rather different aspect.

This is not to say we are not prepared for change - far from it. There is general support now amongst member countries of the Fund for wider margins about parity. Any arrangements such as that, which might facilitate the realignment procedure, should certainly be worthy of close and careful examination. We would only say that arrangements for flexibility in exchange rates should not go so far as to turn a system of relatively stable parities into a system of uncontrolled floating rates. There is some strong support now in certain quarters for an increased role for special drawing rights - SDRs - in the monetary system. We are not at all opposed in principle to the idea of a managed international reserve asset based on some concept such as SDRs, although it would be only realistic to note both the considerable practical difficulties which might stand in the way of bringing such a scheme to fruition and the disadvantages under which any reserve asset will labour that does not have behind it the backing of real authority and international power.

In the shorter term, however, what we do say is that the creation of SDRs must be handled with care. SDRs, like dollars or any other reserve asset, can lose acceptability through over-exposure. There is some support now in some quarters for action of an unspecified kind to be taken in relation to balances of reserve currencies. As a country which has traditionally held a large part of its reserves in the form of foreign exchange, with consequent benefit to our balance of payments, what we say is that any such action, if indeed it is needed once the United States achieves balance again, must be acceptable to the existing holders of foreign balances.

In all, I believe what I have been saying is summed up in the view that we should be cautious about abandoning the system we have before we find a better one to take its place. It is also fundamental to any discussion on international monetary systems that we should not lose sight of basic relationships between these matters and domestic economic management. Until we learn more about the art of combining domestic economic growth with stability no monetary system will be safe from threats of breakdown. Again, it is important to us all that the current problems of speculative capital flows, which have played a large part in bringing about the present situation, should be resolved without prejudicing the longerterm capital flows which have contributed so much to the post-war growth in world production and trade.

The discussion between the United States and the rest of the Group of Ten is to continue in Paris next month. We will be keeping m touch with developments through our representatives in the Fund, in OECD, and in the capital cities concerned. Australia is inextricably involved in the outcome of these discussions. It is for that reason that, in my talks with the Ministers of Finance and with such senior international civil servants as Mr Van Lennep of the OECD and Mr Schweitzer of the IMF I have urged the case for admission of Australia to the councils in which these matters are being discussed, and in. particular to Working Party Three of the OECD. It is clear that by any criterion Australia would not merely benefit from being present at such discussions but, what is equally important, make a worthwhile contribution towards them from what might be, perhaps, . a somewhat different viewpoint upon the world from that shared by most of the other present participants.

So far as Australia’s ability to maintain any consequences of an outcome to the present situation is concerned, our position is such that we will meet any new developments from a position of considerable strength. We had a balance of payments surplus last year of around $A600m and as things stand at the moment we have in prospect another very sizeable surplus in 1971-72. Our reserves are at present somewhat in excess of $A2.S billion.

At the present time, the Australian dollar is continuing in its traditional role of being maintained in a fixed relationship with sterling. This means that the Australian dollar has appreciated by about 4 per cent in terms of parity with the United States dollar. However, other countries, some of them important trading partners of Australia, have appreciated even more against the United States dollar. If the Australian dollar is related to the currencies of our main trading partners, it is evident that overall the Australian dollar has effectively neither revalued nor devalued to any significant extent. It may be easily overlooked that, when many other major currencies are moving, it requires some positive action to achieve a situation which may be characterised as doing nothing. By retaining our fixed relationship with sterling in these circumstances we have, therefore, so far as humanly possible, kept our options open.

It is the policy of the Government to maintain this broad position until such time as there is a firm realignment of currencies. On that realignment taking place, a decision can be taken’ about the Australian dollar with some certainty as to the circumstances which will obtain in the foreign exchange markets in the period beyond. And as the Prime Minister said is his statement to the House on 26th August, any such decision will have only one proper basis - the interests of the Australian economy and the Australian nation as a whole. I present the following paper:

The International Monetary Situation -

Ministerial Statement, 28th October 1971.

Motion (by Mr Swartz) proposed:

That the House take note of the paper.

Debate (on motion by Mr Crean) adjourned.

page 2740

APPROPRIATION BILL (No. 1) 1971-72

In Committee

Consideration resumed (vide page 2734).

Second Schedule.

Department of Housing

Proposed expenditure, $7,235,000.

Upon which Mr Uren had moved by way of amendment:

That the proposed expenditure be reduced by $1.

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– The housing opportunities for the young people of Australia are embedded in a trough of governmental nonchalance and indifference which is having dire consequences for the whole of Australia. We are living in limes when there are bulging cities, overcrowding and accompanying sociological problems. Pollution is the order of the day. There is a shortage of services - a deficiency of things like sewerage, for example. There are traffic snarls from one end of the country to the other. We have cities like the city of Sydney which is growing at such a rate that it is tacking on a city as big as Canberra every 2 years. Yet this Government comes into this debate with a deficiency of speakers, and certainly a deficiency of any significant ideas. There seems to be no answer from the Government benches to these particular problems.

The Opposition is participating in this debate and is spearheading it by drawing attention to several important facets of the housing problem. Members of the Opposition want to draw attention to the need to provide low cost housing for the underprivileged people of Australia because we believe that every citizen, regardless of his financial circumstances, has the right to live in a house and to own a house, yet this is not happening in Australia at present. We are anxious to enable public land development commissions, to be set up in co-operation with the States, to acquire necessary land, to hold it in public ownership, to develop it and to make it available on reasonable terms to the public. Indeed, we are anxious to reduce interest rates and we want to establish uniformity of building codes and to overcome the morass of bureaucracy which descends on people when they set about building a house. To effect economies is the product of effecting uniformity of building codes.

One could go through each of the points which are the subject of. the amendment moved by the honourable member for Reid (Mr Uren) and enunciate them. They represent an important message - an alternative to the hopeless situation into which the Government has sent itself and the people of Australia in respect of housing. What is wrong with the idea of ensuring that Crown land, which is available still in large areas in Australia, should be set aside so that it can be made available, not as some State governments have been forced to do to use the allocation of that land for revenue purposes but for the purpose of ensuring that it is available to young people at reasonable rates of interest. What is wrong with the Commonwealth Government taking an initiative in relation to new cities? Are not the present cities big and bulging, or am I living in a world of make believe? Do Government members concede that on the one hand Australia has some of the biggest cities in the world and on the other hand there is a wide expanse of country which offers an opportunity for a government with initiative and enterprise to show a positive alternative?

I think of my State of New South Wales. How long is it since a new city was established in that State? How long is it since the authorities said to young people: ‘Come into a place as good as Canberra. Come into another place in New South Wales where there will be a planned city which is oriented to resources, which has the availability of employment, which has planning and which has a partnership between the Commonwealth and the States’? I think of a place like Eden, which is south of Sydney and Wollongong. It is appalling that there is no city of substantial size from Wollongong to Melbourne, despite the presence in the area of the wood chip industry and rural industry. People talk about the decadence of rural industry, but what encouragement has the Government given it? The Government may tell young people that industries are established now and that, with encouragement and incentive, others can be enticed to establish. The State governments have not the resources to embark on a project of that kind, but with Commonwealth initiative this could be achieved. This is important. The same kind of thing could be done to the north of Sydney - maybe in the Port Stephens area - where resources are available. This tired, decadent and lazy government is no longer the answer for the people who are suffering as a consequence of its misdemeanours of inadequacy and lack of imagination.

So the Opposition is trying to identify these problems tonight. Recently the State Ministers for Housing had imposed upon them a new Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement. From one end of the country to the other the Press declared that the collapse of the Housing Agreement was in sight. We were told that the Commonwealth Government’s rate of interest, at 7 per cent, was such that the State governments would be unable to meet the housing needs of the low income earners who could not meet the heavy interest burden. The States have called for a rate of interest lower than the crippling 7 per cent which doubles the price of housing. They have called for an alternative of 4 per cent. They have asked the Commonwealth for assistance similar to that which is being given by governments in comparable countries all round the world.

Why cannot something be done? Is the young Minister who is sitting at the table, the Minister for Housing (Mr Kevin Cairns), deliberately recreant to his trust or has he been swallowed up by the indifferent atmosphere which prevails in the Government? When one looks at the price of land one sees that it has accelerated by 150 per cent over the last 10 years. That is bad enough, but the Government is standing by and allowing the cost to accelerate at a faster rate. It is now rising at the rate of 20 per cent per annum. 1 am thinking of my children and of the children of honourable members opposite - the young people who are in hock when they get married. What kind of future is this for them? They may not have much capital, but they have a financial capacity which is represented by their hands and their willingness to work. That is their repayment capacity. With the vast area of land available in Australia the Government should be able to ensure that a block of land can be made available to them at a a reasonable price and at a reasonable rate of interest.

The cost of housing, quite apart from the cost of land, is surging upwards. Figures produced by the Commonwealth Statistician reveal that the price of materials for house building in the 6 State capitals rose by 6.9 per cent in the 12 months to August 1971. The rise has been higher than the rise in average earnings and in any of the other measurements that could be applied. In Melbourne and Brisbane the cost rose by 7.8 per cent, in Adelaide by 7.5 per cent, in Perth by 6.8 per cent and in Sydney by 5.6 per cent. Steel prices rose by 9.9 per cent. In the United States of America, when a steel consortium wants to increase prices, the Administration moves in and if it is in the public interest to restrain the consortium action is taken. But that does not happen here. When the Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd, the monopolising corporation in Australia, set out to increase its prices at about the time when the then Prime Minister was warning about inflationary trends, the Government allowed that company to raise its prices, without any challenge. The price of cement rose by 9.6 per cent, concrete with sand by 9.4 per cent and timber boards and joinery by 8.4 per cent. This is an incredible situation.

I have talked about housing on many occasions. The time allotted to me in this debate is only 10 minutes. I have despaired and I have finally come to the conclusion that the Government has no answer. There is an answer to high interest rates and to high land prices. The Government can make Commonwealth land available through public corporations, as it has done in Canberra. While land prices have been soaring throughout the rest of Australia the housing situation in Canberra has remained stable. That is an example for the Government to emulate. For the sake of the thousands of young people in this country I ask the Government to start to face up to its responsibilities and to stop presiding, like an undertaker, over the- death of housing opportunities for those young people who from the time of their marriage are, as it were, imprisoned. Look at the-

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

Mr ARMITAGE:
Chifley

– I compliment the honourable member for Hughes (Mr Les Johnson) for referring particulary to the extraordinary spiralling of housing costs. I believe that anybody who has a social conscience today and who is looking at what will happen to the next generation of Australians should give serious and full consideration to this problem. The young couples who married a decade or two ago received a far better go from the various finance authorities and from the various people selling land than do young couples today. They could get a house at a far cheaper cost than married couples can possibly get a house today. The cost of a house in comparison with gross income today is far greater than was the cost of a house in comparison with gross income 10 or 20 years ago. I think the honourable member for Hughes has dealt with that aspect of the position. I do not think that anybody with a social conscience today would be other than very sorry for the younger people who have to obtain a home in today’s circumstances.

I support the amendment moved by the honourable member for Reid (Mr Uren). I will quote the clauses of it and deal with them as I proceed. The amendment seeks to reduce the proposed expenditure by SI as an instruction to the Government to assist State public housing authorities to provide low cost housing and to reduce housing costs by certain means. The clauses of the amendment set out those means. Clause (a) states: enabling public land development commissions to be set up in co-operation with the States to acquire necessary land, hold it in public ownership, develop it and make it available on reasonable terms on a leasehold basis similar to Canberra;

I believe that that proposal would help young couples, in particular, to obtain land and nouses in newly developing areas such as the western suburbs of Sydney - areas in my electorate such as Blacktown, Mount Druitt, St Mary’s and the surrounding areas. I think anybody who looks at those areas would realise that there are large tracts of land today controlled by a small number pf developers - very wealthy developers. The honourable member for Mitchell (Mr Irwin) is laughing. I hope he is not associated with it.

For example, behind my own home ohe developer has 2,000 blocks which could have been released approximately 2 years ago but which are held up from being released to the public because of interminable arguments with the State Planning Authority, with the local council, and I assume with the Water Board, etc, while the organisation develops its other project, which of course is the Winston Hills project. In other words I do not believe we will see that project properly developed until such time as the developer’s previous project has been fully developed. In other words, that land will be held on ice so that young couples will not be able to purchase it. I think that the sooner action is taken by the Government to force these large organisations to release this land so that young couples get the opportunity to buy, and to remove what could only be called a false shortage of land which is being created by these people, the sooner our young couples will have an opportunity to buy their block of land and build their home.

When we look at this matter we must also have a very good look at what happens in Canberra, as the amendment mentions. 1 would surely say that Canberra, as the honourable member for Hughes has mentioned, is an example for the rest of Australia. If we can have proper development in this city of Canberra, surely what is good enough for Canberra is good enough for the rest of Australia. If it can be done in this area it can be done also in other parts of Australia. I would particularly like to see the land tenure system and the housing arrangements which exist here in the city of Canberra extended into other areas also such as the western suburbs of Sydney where the great body of young people of the metropolitan area of Sydney are today settled.

Now I wish to deal with item (b) of the amendment, which refers to reducing interest rates. I think most honourable members would agree that interest rates are a very heavy burden upon the great mass of the young people of this country. I still say: When it comes to interest rates why can we not give the same opportunities as were given to the young people of the last decade and the decade before, for example, persons such as myself who came back from the Second World War? I can finance my home on 3i per cent interest. Tell me of any young person today who could go to a building society or a private finance organisation and obtain a home loan at an interest rate of 3f per cent reducible. I make that point - reducible. If this could be done then, I see no basic reason why it should not be done now. But of course the Government will tell you that the reason it is not done now is that there has been a steady increase in interest rates throughout Australia over the years, and this has been a deliberate policy followed by this Government ever since its inception. The normal bank rate was 4) per cent when this Government took over. Today the normal bank rate is 8i per cent. If we watch very carefully we see that there is not a corresponding decrease in interest rates when a deflationary situation occurs along the lines of the increase in interest rates we see when an inflationary situation occurs.

In other words by a deliberate policy - I accuse the Government of this - there has been a steady increase in interest rates over the years, and then the Government speaks of the problems of inflation and of costs. Surely it should realise the extent of the effect on costs that this increase in interest rates has had. I would ask for the provision of reasonable conditions for our young people in the way of cheaper housing finance and in providing them with land at reasonable cost. I believe that the artificial shortage of land which has occurred over the years and which is occurring throughout this country today must be removed. I believe that the best approach is to adopt the system at present obtaining here in Canberra. If it is good enough for Canberra, as far as I am concerned it is good enough for the rest of Australia.

Sir JOHN CRAMER:
Bennelong

– It is really fantastic that we should have speeches of the kind that we have heard this afternoon and tonight. The honourable member for Chifley (Mr Armitage) a moment ago really put his finger on the very thing that I have talked about here on a number of occasions. He referred to 2,000 acres of land in his own area-

Mr Armitage:

– I said 2,000 blocks.

Sir JOHN CRAMER:

– He referred to 2,000 blocks of land in his own area which were not released to the public because the State Planning Authority had some argument with the local council, and so forth. This is precisely what has been happening over many years. The fundamental cause of the increase in the cost of land, particularly in the city of Sydney, has been that sufficient land has not been available for the people, and that situation has been brought about by government interference, by the State Planning Authority, by councils, and by State Government inhibitions in certain respects. This has brought about the position where big land holders plus the Housing Commission in the State of New South Wales, plus the War Service Homes Division, plus the big land developers, have taken up all the land that has been available and have left nothing for the average citizen. Consequently they have been able to ask whatever prices they liked. That is the position in regard to land.

What is proposed by the Australian Labor Party will not cure this position. I remind you, Mr Deputy Chairman, as I did when I spoke before, that the Labor Party in the State of New South Wales, dealing with the question of land in Sydney, had a planning authority to advise it, and it set up what it called a green belt around the whole of Sydney. This was to cure all our land problems. Where is the green belt today? Finally, the green belt had to be bitten into in various areas until it was gone. Today the green belt does not exist. So much for the planning.

What is needed today is for land to be made available to people far and wide without the restraints and restrictions that governments put upon it. This is what we want. We do not want further commissions. We have the State Planning Authority which is a government commission. We have all these bodies. Do honourable members realise the amount of money that would be involved in the Government setting up a commission and resuming thousands of acres of land, building roads, providing sewerage and bringing in all the facilities that go with it and then holding the land for years and letting it out at subsidised interest rates? I would like to ask my friend, the honourable member for Kingsford-Smith (Mr Lionel Bowen), who spoke this afternoon about interest rates: Does he realise that the interest rate has been rising not only in this country but in every country? This country does not control the current market rates of interest. The Australian Labor Party set up the first Commonwealth and State Housing Agreement in 1945. But it charged the long term bond rate for interest without any interest subsidy whatsoever.

Mr Armitage:

– You have done all right out of it. You have made a few million.

Sir JOHN CRAMER:

– Never mind about me. When the Agreement expired in 1956 when this Government was in power it changed that system and it gave a rebate of 1 per cent on the long term bond rate to the States. That was in replacement of the amount of subsidy which the states were entitled to charge under certain income provisions for tenants. That scheme continues in certain respects,, because the Government still contributes to it. The interest rate continued to rise, but this

Government still gave a subsidy of 1 per cent. So the conditions have altered. Increases in wages have continued. Do honourable members opposite realise what they are doing? Do they realise the standard of living and the standard of housing in Australia? Australia has the highest standard of housing of any country, without exception. If honourable members go to England or to the United States of America they will see what the position there is for low income earners today. In Philadelphia at the present time great schemes are being conducted with the terraced house type of construction for the lower income people. The same thing is going on in England. What is the position in Russia, for instance? What sort of accommodation do people receive in these other parts of the world? In Australia, a very nice 2 or 3-bedroom cottage is set up on its own block of land at a very moderate rent. What honourable members of the Labor Party are advocating is that this country should subsidise in its interest rate everybody who buys a block of land and everybody who buys a home. Have honourable members opposite estimated the cost of this to the taxpayer?

Mr Armitage:

– I rise to a point of order. The honourable member is comparing the system in Russia with the system operating here in relation to war service homes, where there are reduced interest rates, and in Canberra where a system is run by the state. I think this Parliament should object to any suggestion that the system operating here in Canberra is like the Communist system in Russia.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Mr Hallett) - Order! There is no substance in the point of order.

Sir JOHN CRAMER:

– I am sorry that my referring to Russia worried the honourable member. A little while ago the honourable member for Chifley referred to the interest rate of 3) per cent for a war service home. The 3) per cent-

Mr Irwin:

– I rise to a point of order. The honourable member for Chifley rose in his place and spoke about Russia. I want to equate that to the property-

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN - Ord er I The honourable member for Mitchell will resume his seat

Sir JOHN CRAMER:

– I want to show the insincerity of the Opposition in certain respects. The honourable member for Chifley referred to the charge of 3f per cent for war service homes. This is not a housing matter at all. It is a repatriation matter. Everybody knows that the subsidy on interest in relation to war service homes is granted because it is a repatriation matter. It is a deliberate subsidising of tha interest rate to ex-servicemen, and rightly so.

Mr Armitage:

– You have objected to that for years.

Sir JOHN CRAMER:

– No, I do not. I say ‘Rightly so’. But that should not be equated with the general scheme of housing-

Mr Foster:

– I rise to a point of order. During the course of his contribution the honourable member for Bennelong has been talking about war service homes as if they should not be discussed in this debate.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN- Order!

Mr Foster:

– They come under the jurisdiction of the Minister.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN- Order! There is no substance in the point of order. The honourable member for Sturt will resume his seat.

Sir JOHN CRAMER:

– My time has nearly expired because honourable members opposite have wasted it. Finally, the honourable member for Kingsford-Smith referred to the queue of housing commission applicants. Of course people go to the housing commissions because everyone who wants a home at a cheap rent will go where he can obtain a home at a subsidised rent. The people who are subsidising the rent are the taxpayers of Australia. Do not forget that. All of the grandiose schemes we have heard here today - we will hear some more from the honourable member for Reid (Mr Uren) - have to be paid for. No country in the world could ever finance such a scheme as that honourable members opposite are suggesting. Let us get down to realities, to what is reasonable in relation to these things, and see that the people in the greatest need are looked after. This is not being done by many of the States today. We must help the people in need. There are only 2 problems in Australia today-

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

Mr UREN:
Reid

– I rise for the second time before the Minister for Housing (Mr Kevin Cairns) closes this debate. During this discussion of the estimates for the Department of Housing I moved an amendment and, in the brief time I had for my first speech, explained this amendment. Now I want to discuss briefly 2 other aspects - interest rates and the acquisition of land. It is up to the Commonwealth, in co-operation with the States, to enter into competition with the land speculators and the real estate agents of Sydney and the other capital cities, provincial and regional areas. The honourable member for Bennelong (Sir John Cramer) spoke on behalf of the private enterprise system. He is a partner of Cramer Brothers, a well known real estate agency in Sydney, where land is more highly priced than anywhere else in Australia. The average price of land in Sydney is $8,000 a block. This is far in excess of any other State capital. The problem is one of spiralling land prices together with spiralling interest rates. In April 1970 this Government used interest rates to increase the burden on home owners even though at that time there was no pressure on the home building sector of the building industry. The pressure that existed at that time was on the commercial building sector. That pressure still exists today. The major insurance companies - they are a part of the monopoly sector of this country - could absorb the cost of increased interest rates but they passed on the increase. As far as home ownership was concerned, a fall occurred in the building of homes because the great majority of people could not meet the costs of home construction.

Let me examine the interest burden to give honourable members some understanding of the burden that young people must meet at present. Sydney is the greatest metropolis in this country. It is there that the greatest pressures exist in regard to this matter. We have heard the honourable member for Bennelong (Sir John Cramer) who is an extremely wealthy man. When he drives one through North Sydney he boasts with great pride of the buildings that he has constructed. He is also making great profits from these buildings. This is the man who cries in his tea cup about the people who are struggling in this country to obtain houses and to meet the interest burden.

These are the facts about the interest burden: The average price of a piece of land in Sydney is $8,000. The average price of a home last year in the Metropolitan Water and Sewerage Board area extending from Nowra in the South to Emu Plains in the west and Brooklyn in the north was $11,600. Therefore, a home and a block of land together cost in excess of $19,000. If one could obtain a loan through the Commonwealth Bank of Australia, as one cannot, the largest loan that a borrower could obtain is $9,000 at 6i per cent. Additional loans at 7£ per cent to 8 per cent would be required. Let us assume that a borrower obtained $15,000 at 6i per cent. The repayments would be $103 a month for a loan extending over 25 years. Interest repayments would be $16,000. In other words the total repayments in respect of that loan of $15,000 would be approximately $31,000. I turn to a loan from a permanent building society. Most of the homes which the honourable member for Bennelong builds in North Sydney would be financed through permanent building societies. A loan of $15,000 from such a society at 8 per cent over 25 years would require monthly repayments of $115. The total interest burden would be $19,700. Total repayments over 25 years would amount to $34,700. That is an example of the usurious interest rates under this Government.

Let me indicate the policy of the Australian Labor Party. At the Launceston conference, the Australian Labor Party adopted a policy providing for an interest rate of 3i per cent repayable over 25 years. Repayments would be $77 a month for a total interest charge on $15,000 of $8,100. The total repayment over the period would be $23,100. Even so, this is a problem. But the difference between the total repayments on a loan of this amount from a permanent building society and those under the scheme proposed by my Party represents a saving to the worker of $38 a month. In comparison with the total repayments under a Commonwealth Bank loan, the saving under our policy would be $21 a month.

A Labor government will make interest rates a priority matter in its policy. A Labor government will be a cheap money government for housing purposes. Through the Reserve Bank, it will progressively control interest rates to such an extent that it will determine that people will be able to acquire homes at a reasonable interest rate through the direction of the Reserve Bank. At the present time rural industry receives certain special interest rates through the direction of the central bank. I do not deny that that is a good policy. But if it is good enough for the rural sector of the economy, it is good enough for the home building sector of the building industry.

The Australian Labor Party has said that with respect to land it wants to carry out a policy similar to that followed in Canberra. However, we. do not want to duplicate exactly what is happening in Canberra now because we believe that the land system that has been introduced in Canberra since May 1970 is not in the best interests of Canberra and would not be in the national interest if extended throughout Australia. Even the Labor Party has reservations about the auction system that existed in Canberra prior to May 1970. The average price of land bought at restricted auction in Canberra for 1970 prior to May was $900. The average price for unrestricted land for 1970 was $3,000. This price had been reduced by one-third from $4,500 in 1962-63. At group sales firms such as Petitt and Sevitt and other group developers paid an average price of $1,700. Yet in the metropolis of Sydney the average price of a piece of land is $8,000. In some areas people pay up to $20,000-odd for a piece of land.

A Labor government would move in and develop land on the fringe of the capital cities, in provincial and regional areas and in country towns. We would acquire land under a development commission. This commission would work in cooperation with the States. Land would be allocated in accordance with the needs of the people. We would consider the capacity of people to pay. We would put people who could not meet certain conditions into a ballot system. In certain cases we would use the auction system. We would use the auction system with respect to the commercial and industrial sectors of the economy. We might wish to encourage industry to come to certain areas. We may even need to encourage companies which employed married women to come to an area by making land available free up to a certain period and by offering other incentives. The policy will be flexible one. It will be a policy under which land will be made available to people at economic levels. It is a policy in the interests of the Australian people and not of the exploiters.

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

Mr Kevin Cairns:
Minister for Housing · LILLEY, QUEENSLAND · LP

– The amendment moved by the Opposition will not be supported by the Government.

Mr Bryant:

– Why not?

Mr Kevin Cairns:
LILLEY, QUEENSLAND · LP

– It does not deserve to be supported by the Government. We had made up our minds that it did not deserve support when it was first moved. When the honourable member for Reid (Mr Uren), who led for the Opposition, expanded the quaint type of interest and economic theories that underlie this amendment, we were reinforced in the decision that we had made some hours earlier. Let me deal quite quickly with one or two points in this amendment.

The Opposition will acquire land under its policy all over the place and make that land available cheaply to people. The Opposition did not indicate at what price the land will be acquired. The .Opposition did not indicate that the Housing Industry Association which it quoted as supporting its policy does not support the public acquisition of land for this purpose. Added to that quaint view on bringing down the price of land was one question which remained unanswered as it remained unanswered some time ago when this matter was debated here. The price of land in some parts of Sydney had been investigated. It was found that various factors had caused the price of land to rise. But it was clearly established that a local market for land exists in each city in Australia and for different types of land within each city. But there is one factor further than that which needs to be considered and it needs to be reiterated.

There are certain problems with respect to land in Sydney. Why does not the Opposition explain for example the service charges on the development of land particularly in the west of Sydney imposed by local governments of which the Opposition itself has political control? If the Opposition is sincere with respect to this matter, let honourable members opposite exert their authority and influence in the regions where they have some power to exert it. I say only one thing: If honourable members opposite were in government they would exercise the same kind of influence with respect to costs as their confreres exercise in relation to costs in local authority areas.

The second point which was raised was this odd view with respect to interest rates. Members of the Opposition still seem to think that interest rates are something which exist in isolation in any economy and that interest rates in Australia have no relation to what happens overseas concerning interest rates. They think that interest rates have no relation to either the fiscal or monetary balance of an economy. Members of the Opposition would go wildly on their way and advocate a policy of cheap interest rates. Everybody likes cheap interest rates. But as soon as one hears that policy being advocated one recalls that the last government of which Opposition members would have some experience and which tried artificially to implement cheap interest rates was the United Kingdom Government in which the celebrated Dr Dalton had some influence. If Opposition members want to copy the kind of monetary and fiscal policies which were utilised by United Kingdom Labour Governments after the Second World War, let them do so, but we will expose the other ingredients contained in that interest rate and explain the fiscal, monetary and broad overall economic policy involved. That policy would be a disaster for this country. Common sense indicates that this would be the case. It is appropriate for me to make one or two other points.

Mr Bryant:

– If I may interrupt, in the Committee stage a Minister is supposed to answer questions. Does he believe that interest rates can be controlled?

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Mr Hallett) - Order! The honourable member for Wills will cease interjecting.

Mr Kevin Cairns:
LILLEY, QUEENSLAND · LP

– I have made it perfectly clear that interest rates in general are not something which exist-

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

Mr Deputy Chairman, on a point of order, may I seek your advice? Is it in order for an honourable member to ask the Minister a question such as ‘Does he not believe that interest rates can be controlled?’, considering that we. are in the Committee stages of the debate?

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN - Order! There is no substance in the point of order. The Minister is answering questions which have been raised by the Committee.

Mr Kevin Cairns:
LILLEY, QUEENSLAND · LP

– One further point needs to be emphasised concerning this cry over interest rate policies and over the problems of housing. I have indicated Where some authority could be exercised by the Opposition in areas where it has significant power but where the Opposition has chosen not to do this. There is another field which ought to be explored. Perhaps this question will be answered in this chamber in the next debate on housing. We are still awaiting, agog with excitement, the cheap interest rate money which is going to be made available by their friends in the Australian Council of Trade Unions through their own building societies. No member in this place will be unaware that whilst that policy was enunciated a little time before the last ACTU congress, it has not been mentioned since. The prospects of carrying out this promise which was made before the election for the ACTU congress have receded further into the distance. We are all aware of this. Consequently, we were delighted to hear this continued song of praise for the Government’s efforts from Opposition members earlier tonight.

A number of points which were made are worth commenting upon. The honourable member for Mitchell (Mr Irwin) spoke about war service homes. He would like the maximum advance available for war service homes to be increased. So would I. The Government intends to increase the maximum advance to $9,000. That will be incorporated in a Bill which will be presented quite soon to the House. In addition, it needs to be borne in mind that the interest rate at which that money will be made available will not be at the ACTU building society interest rate, which we have not discovered, but will remain at 3i per cent, which is an incredibly generous interest rate. Let me give one example of how generous that interest rate is.

Mr Bryant:

Mr Deputy Chairman, I take a point of order. Can the Minister explain in the course of his speech - after all, this is what the Committee stage is supposed to be about - why money cannot be made available at that interest rate for other people?

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN- Order! There is no substance in the point of order. The honourable member for Wills will resume his seat and cease interjecting.

Mr Kevin Cairns:
LILLEY, QUEENSLAND · LP

– In order to give one quick illustration of the generosity of that interest rate, I will mention to the Committee one or two figures. For example, if a loan of $8,000 were to be made for 45 years with quarterly repayments at the interest rate of 7 per cent, which is the rate normally paid in the community, the interest payments would be about $18,000. The interest payment on the same advance, namely, $8,000, at the interest rate which is available under the War Service Homes Act and with the type of payments which are required under this Act is not $18,000; it is about $8,500. That is a measure of the extent to which advances under the War Services Homes Act represent a very generous, fair and just contribution for homes for ex-servicemen and their families in Australia. There is a difference of $8,000 over that period of time.

Mr Foster:

Mr Deputy Chairman, 1 raise a point of order. It is not available under this scheme to all ex-servicemen and I would expect that the Minister knows it.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN- Order! There is no substance in the point of order. The honourable member for Sturt will resume his seat and cease interjecting.

Mr Kevin Cairns:
LILLEY, QUEENSLAND · LP

– Members of the Opposition are known as great democrats. There is one other point that needs to be emphasised. Earlier on it was claimed that housing activities had decreased greatly in Australia and, as usual, the honourable member for Reid (Mr Uren) produced a table. He always likes to have a table which has been compiled for him incorporated in Hansard. The table was designed to show that, according to the number of approvals, commencements and completions, there has been a significant decline in the amount of housing activity in Australia. Of course, what the honourable member forgot was that there had been several months in this year subsequent to the month of June and there have been months subsequent to the month of August. We are now in October, and if one looks at the latest list of approvals for housing and construction in Australia, in respect of both the approvals and approvals for the money to be spent it will be seen that there have been very significant increases. If one takes the figures over a number of recent months and compare them with the figures for the same months in the previous year one will see that the approval figures for private and Government construction for this year are at an average of about $12,000, compared with an average of $11,500 for the last 2 months of the previous year.

The same kind of approval figures, in terms of seasonally adjusted figures for money to be spent on home construction, indicate again that the increase has been substantial. There has been an average of $290m a month approved over the last 2 months compared with an average of $230m for the same months in the previous year. So, there has been a real expansion in the field of housing and real expansion in the rate of housing activity which is proceeding in this country. The Government believes that this is operating close to the equilibrium level that is appropriate to an economy in balance and it is the intention of the Government to do everything possible within sensible and reasonable economic management to keep it so.

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– There are just a few matters to which I should like to answer because the Minister for Housing (Mr Kevin Cairns) has made many inaccurate statements in his speech.

Motion (by Mr Giles) proposed:

That the question be now put.

Opposition Members - No.

Mr Chipp:

Mr Deputy Chairman, may I have your indulgence? The honourable member for Oxley (Mr Hayden), who is the only Opposition member of the front bench who is present, may not know that there was an agreement on 2 hours for this debate and that this expired 35 minutes ago. In deference to the honourable member for Reid (Mr Uren), we allowed him to make a second speech and I ask that we do not waste the time of the House by a division. I plead with the honourable member for Oxley.

Mr Hayden:

– We do not ask for a division.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Mr Hallett) - The question now before the Committee is that the amendment proposed by the honourable member for Reid be agreed to.

Question put:

That the amendment (Mr Uren’s) be agreed to.

The Committee divided. (The Deputy Chairman- Mr J. M. Hallett)

AYES: 46

NOES: 52

Majority . . 6

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Proposed expenditure agreed to.

Department of Immigration

Proposed expenditure, $66,286,000.

Mr DALY:
Grayndler

– The hilarity which I hear from the opposite side of the chamber prompts me to say, Mr Deputy Chairman, that never before have I known a speech of mine to be so eagerly looked forward to.

Mr MacKellar:

– By both sides?

Mr DALY:

– By both sides. I am only sorry that this is not a paying audience. The proposed expenditure for the Department of Immigration is $66,286,000. I move:

That the proposed expenditure be reduced by $10.

I do so as an instruction to the Government that a joint select committee should be appointed to inquire into and report upon all aspects of the migration programme. On 14th July 1945 the Honourable Arthur Calwell was appointed Australia’s first Minister for Immigration, heralding one of the most immense mass movements of population of our time. Successive governments and Ministers for Immigration supported by dedicated, understanding, tolerant department officials at home and abroad, with the co-operation of churches, trade unions, employers and voluntary organisations have contributed unselfishly to its success. It is also a tribute to the first Minister for Immigration that the basic principles of the programme have been little changed since its inception. Now, in the twenty-sixth year of its operation the Opposition believes that it is not unreasonable to seek a review to plan for the future in the light of experience, changing times, circumstances and economic conditions.

Since its commencement 3,490,820 people have arrived in Australia on a permanent and long term basis, of whom 2,696,000 were migrants. Between 1945 and 1970 assisted passages numbered 1,717,771. Persons born overseas numbered more than 21/2 million or 20 per cent of our population. Three quarters of a million children have been born in Australia of migrant parents. Of those migrants here 25 per cent comprise the work force. In the same period Australia’s population has increased from about 7.5 million to almost 12.75 million. The Australian Labor Party, as the sponsor ofthe scheme, makes it clear that it still supports migration on certain conditions as exemplified by our policy which states:

The ALP supports an immigration policy administered with sympathy, understanding and tolerance -

The basis of such policy shall include:

Australia’s national and economic security.

The capacity to provide employment, housing, education and social services - that is vital under a Liberal Government -

The welfare and integration, of all its citizens.

The preservation of our democratic system and balanced development of our nation.

The avoidance of the difficult social and economic problems which may follow from an influx of peoples having different standards of living, traditions and cultures.

The avoidance of discrimination on any grounds of race or colour of skin or nationality.

The scheme commenced at a time when the world was rebuilding after the war ravaged years of 1939-1945. This was a time when Europe had to be rebuilt and our society, for so long disorganised by war, planned for the future and a new world. It commenced at a time of acute shortages of manpower, materials and population in Australia. It started in our postwar formative years and it has continued with unabated success through the 1950s, 1960s and now into the challenging or sizzling 1970s. In this time great changes have taken place in society, population, development and national progress. With the success of the programme have come the problems of education, housing, employment, social welfare and a myriad of other problems. This has prompted the question from industrialists, employers, professors, Parliament and other people in many walks of life: ‘Should the scheme be slowed down or terminated? Should we be more selective’? Others believe that it should be reduced until full employment, adequate housing, social services and other facilities are available for the migrants already settled here. Evidently the Government is thinking along similar lines. The present programme which was originally set at 180,000 was reduced to 170,000 in February, subsequently reduced by 30,000 and more recently there has been a cut of 20 per cent in assisted passages. Over the Christmas period 3,000 will be held back because evidently the Government believes that the economy cannot absorb that number.

Last year the then Minister for Immigration announced the appointment of 3 committees to inquire into the scheme. No doubt the inquiries were on a good basis and were a good idea but the final report of these committees will not be presented for some time and it may bc out of date when it actually reaches the Parliament. The Opposition did not oppose the appointment of the committees but in the Estimates debate of 30th September 1970 on behalf of the Opposition I stated: . . I suggest to the Minister that in the interests of immigration and its future this inquiry should have been conducted by an all party parliamentary committee from both Houses of the National Parliament. The type of committee that would be set up that way, widely representative, uncommitted, with first hand knowledge of the scheme, would have been well qualified to bring down a report that would have been invaluable to the Minister and the Government, whatever its political colour; on which the future programme of migration might be based. In the past, committees of this kind have rendered invaluable reports to the Parliament. 1 pointed out that similar committees existed such as the Joint Committee on the Australian Capital Territory and the Joint Committee on Defence Forces Retirement Benefits Legislation and others. I now submit the motion to the Government again for consideration. If any programme deserves a committee of this type it is the immigration programme because the scheme itself owes its success to the sympathetic support of members from all parties in the Parliament. We are all interested in its ramifications, its value to Australia and its success. I believe that such a committee would not reflect on those already appointed, but by its very nature it would be approved of by all interested people. Some critics are inclined to blame migrants for all the shortages in housing, services, education and other facilities. Of course such a statement is not unusual but it is most unfair. Migrants have added to these problems certainly but, at the same time, they have in their way contributed to our prosperity and well being with their labour, skills and purchasing power. They have also changed in some ways the habits of our society.

I ask the Government whether employment in the present economic climate is not a cause of concern with the continued intake of migrants? Today there are 84,000 unemployed. It is estimated that in January 1972 the figure will be 120,000 and probably, by this time next year, it may be about 150,000. How can the Government bring people here with unemployment mounting? In addition there is a shortage of 90,000 homes in Australia today. That is the number registered on State Government housing lists and it is a conservative estimate. Education is a matter of major concern. It is estimated that the present needs of education in Australia require the expenditure of $180m a year. Some people put this figure as high as $ 1,443m over the next 5 years which represents $280m a year.

Education authorities clamour for financial support yet we continue to bring in thousands of migrants, adding to the congestion and the difficulties of the system. I do not criticise the migrants for coming. But this situation supports an inquiry to decide whether in this atmosphere we should bring migrants in and continue on the present basis. As honourable members know, the situation is that about 80 per cent of the migrants which come from non-English speaking countries desire some form of assistance in relation to education and language. They are obtaining very little from this Government. The expenditure on migrant education is exceedingly small. It is unfair to load on to State Governments the full responsibility for a migrant programme in education, housing and municipal facilities and refuse to make available the money which is so necessary in order that the State Governments may carry on. That is where the scheme has failed and not so much with the migrants. These are just a few of the problems which make some of the people think it is time for a ‘migrant holiday’ because the continued inflow of migrants is preventing us from overtaking the needs of education, housing, transport and capital works.

Community resources are affected by the demand created by importation of families and considerable strains are imposed by inflation. Welfare, health services and local government facilities present grave problems to the Australian people. In addition to that must we not go into the question of why 228,000 citizens refuse to become naturalised even though they are eligible? I think they had a good look at the Government and they think that the country is hardly worth while. That is the situation. Mr Deputy Chairman, I hope that you will give me a few minutes extra tonight because I have had a very difficult week.

Mr Lynch:

– What are you worried about? This must be the safest speech on record. Tell us about your problems.

Mr DALY:

– It is a most disappointing speech for the Government, is it not? I would say that the clamour and support of my oration tonight is ringing like a bell throughout the nation. People know what I am saying about the need to have an inquiry to see whether we are correctly treating the migrants who are here and those who are coming. The real question to be investigated is why the Commonwealth in continuing the immigration programme has thrust its responsibilities in housing, education and health services on to the States and has not provided adequate financial resources resulting in shortages and deficit budgets.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Mr Corbett) - Order! The honourable member’s time has expired.

Mr Morrison:

– I move for an extension of time for the honourable member.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN- Order! I cannot allow an extension of time for the first term of an honourable member’s speech. The honourable member may speak again.

Mr DALY:

– As no other member has risen, Mr Deputy Chairman, I take my second period now. I would like the House to know that this is a serious speech. 1 thank the House for the few minutes it has allowed me. These are not just economic considerations. Other aspects of the scheme require investigation. One aspect is in relation to migrants who have what is termed a working holiday; that is those who return after the 2-year period has expired. This practice has resulted in the number returning increasing from 18,000 a year to nearly 30,000 last year. In fact, it indicates that one in four English migrants who arrived in the past year returned to Great Britain. Almost 700 permanent migrants a week left Australia to return to Great Britain in July. Tonight we ask the Government in all sincerity and impartiality: Should we consider increasing the fare to $100? Should the period of residence be increased or should better methods of selection be applied? Only an inquiry in which we might all combine will provide these answers. The ramifications of the immigration programme are enormous, and were exemplified in the Minister’s speech recently when he said:

This year 1969-70 our immigration programme calls for the arrival of 175,000 settlers. To obtain these people Australian migration officers serving in 25 countries will have handled around 1 million inquiries in 20 languages and interviewed more than 300,000 people.

This indicates that all aspects of the programme should be investigated. I would suggest that a committee of members of this House should visit migrant countries and study at first hand - and if nothing else this should appeal to the Government - the selection methods, facilities, types of migrant and allied matters relating to the programme. This has never been done except by, say, the Minister and after 26 years it does not seem unreasonable to suggest it. If the Government had a committee inquire overseas into the building of a new Parliament House what would be wrong with sending one overseas to study a nation’s programme in order to see what is happening in this field.

I conclude by saying in the brief time at my disposal that they are the reasons which I put forward in support of the appointment of a joint committee of this House. The Opposition submits this proposal, not for the purpose of opposing migration but as a genuine endeavour to make a penetrating analysis of the programme. In my limited time I cannot deal in detail with all the ramifications. However, such a committee as that suggested might well make recommendations on establishments overseas, assisted passages, integration, selection of migrants, unassisted migration, accommodation centres, hostels and housing, publicity and eligibility for social services, to mention a few. It could only do good for the Department, the migrants and Australia.

The Opposition indicates clearly to the Australian people and to our new citizens that its only reason in advancing the proposal for the joint committee is to ascertain at parliamentary level from the experiences of the past whether any desirable changes could be made in the interests of those who are settled here, and those who may come, and how economically and socially to do the best for Australia and its people. It is considered to be a worthwhile and constructive approach to a scheme in which we all take such pride. Each of us in our own way realises the contributions that our migrants have made to Australia. To them we owe a debt of gratitude for their contributions and the building of our nation. Let us learn from the past, plan for the future and by this inquiry seek new frontiers for Australia and its people.

Mr Kevin Cairns:
Minister for Housing · LILLEY, QUEENSLAND · LP

– There are some matters of substance which deserve to be explored in relation to migration in this country, and I have been fascinated by the proposition that some people, after deciding that they have a new policy, want now to have an inquiry to see what that policy is to be about. This would be one of the quaintest intellectual exercises one could come across. It is my intention not to follow on political ploys but to look at the substance of the changes in migration policy and to determine what the alternative policies are on migration because these changes touch the very heart of this nation and deserve to be explored, even if only in the course of seeking some truth on the matter.

For 25 years there has been no funda- mental dispute concerning the principles underlying Australia’s immigration policy. Those principles were stated in this House on 2nd August 1945. They aimed towards the development of a secure and cohesive homogeneous Australian community. They were first enunciated by the present right honourable member for Melbourne (Mr Calwell), by successive Ministers for Immigration and by every Government since 1945. The tragedy is that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Whitlam) and his influential, intellectual friends, among them the Premier of South Australia, Mr Dunstan, have proposed a complete - even if disguised - overturning of the principles of immigration. In January this year Mr Dunstan stated without any equivocation whatsoever:

Australia must open its gates to people from any country in the world.

It is perfectly clear, and undeniable, that these men played a leading role in the formulation of the policy on immigration, a policy on which they want an inquiry and a policy that was adopted by the Launceston Conference only weeks ago by 44 votes to one. Let me state the immigration philosophy which has been rejected, and I quote from Hansard of 2nd August 1945 what the present right honourable member for Melbourne, the first Minister for Immigration, said. He said:

If Australians have learned one lesson from the Pacific War … it is surely that we cannot continue to hold our island continent for ourselves and our descendants unless we greatly increase our numbers.

The then Minister went on:

Immigration is, at best, only the counterpart of the most important phase of population building, natural increase.

In the growth of Australia, controlled migration was developed to increase our population, our defence and development capabilities and to develop the Australian race.

The Leader of the Opposition and his new shadow Minister for Immigration now propose its submergence. They have made Australia an intellectual garbage can for their own doctrinal ideas on migration. The Australian community, and especially the working man, is the target. These programmes they have proposed have 5 parts. First, hitherto, migration was always judged to be a necessary and welcome addition to our natural increase. Children born in Australia were always the first migrants. The Leader of the Opposition has now adopted a policy for a Labor - Government to persuade people to have fewer children. He wants a smaller Australian family - not his own, of course, but for others.

Mr Hurford:

– When did he say that?

Mr Kevin Cairns:
LILLEY, QUEENSLAND · LP

– He said it on television.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Mr Corbett) - Order! I warn the honourable member for Adelaide. There have been far too many interjections. The Minister is entitled to be heard. The debate in this House should be of a standard that is expected of a national Parliament and we are not getting it.

Mr Collard:

– I rise to order. There is an old saying regarding the Lord Mayor’s speech. Is this the best the Government can put up?

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN- There is no point of order.

Mr Kevin Cairns:
LILLEY, QUEENSLAND · LP

– I am delighted to see that the honourable member stayed for the feast. Nevertheless, migrants from whatever source are to be encouraged, against that background. They will be in that environment a substitute for our natural increase. The deletion of the population requirement from the Labor Party platform proposes this effective substitution. It is simply un-Australian. I do not believe, and I do not think any genuine Australian patriot could believe, that the Australianborn child should be discouraged while uncontrolled migration is encouraged. The development of a genuine Australian sentiment from a vigorous Australian people would be ruined. Secondly, the Leader of the Opposition now proposes that Government activities in the search for migrants should be reduced and replaced by spontaneous applications and sponsorship from Australia. This means that those areas where governments search for and find migrants will no longer act as the source they have been in the past. This will effectively cut migration from Great Britain, Germany, the Scandinavian countries, Denmark, Norway and almost all the countries of Europe. Thtre could hardly be a more effective way to cut European migration than by cutting the Government’s activity in its search for migrants.

Thirdly, to allow sponsorship of migrants to rest with Australian residents who sponsor families and friends - from whatever country - and with well-known pyramid effects, will be disastrous. The countries from which the greatest increases in sponsorship are derived now are not European. These completely new immigration principles are merely another way of saying in migration first come, first served.

This Parliament should examine very carefully what this policy would mean in practice. The Leader of the Opposition would have us believe that this policy will result in a decrease in non-European migration. Indeed, as recently as 11th October, the right honourable gentleman in an interview said:

But the Indians are not - by history, by tradition - an emigrant people.

Later, in the same interview, he said:

The fact is that the Japanese, the Chinese, the Indians, the Indonesians, are not people that have emigrated to other countries at all.

All I can say is that the Leader of the Opposition either deliberately misrepresented the position because he was in a hot seat or he has a deplorable knowledge of immigration trends. He would never be modest enough to concede that. The simple fact is that in the last year Australian authorities in India received no fewer than 50,000 inquiries about migration to Australia. That involves, on a conservative approach, up to 175,000 people. Would the Leader of the Opposition, with his new found formula, exclude these applicants? If so, how many? Remember that first come first served is a principle of absolutely no discrimination. On his own doctrinal thesis enunciated in Sydney, in Canberra, in Launceston and in Perth, he would not be able to do so. Every country surely has the right to a substantial control of its own immigration policy.

Fifthly, this new policy surrenders the development of a homogeneous Australian community to a lassez-faire. uncontrolled and risky immigration policy. These were the very characteristics of immigration to Australia in the late nineteenth century - in Queensland we know it - and to Britain in the 1960s. In principle there is no difference. From overseas experience, as well as from our own history, we know that to alter this important aspect of Australian community life poses a very real threat to the security of the Australian people, especially of the Australian working man. The experience in the United Kingdom of recent years is only too well known. Every Australian Minister and shadow Minister for Immigration has, until now, pressed the desire for a socially cohesive, homogeneous community. The honourable member for Grayndler, (Mr Daly), who a short time ago was ‘axed’ as the shadow Minister for Immigration, and more especially the right honourable member for Melbourne, who was Australia’s father of immigration, have always followed and believed in those principles. The same cannot be said, unfortunately, of the Leader of the Opposition.

An immigration policy followed by successive governments - both Labor and Liberal-Country Party-

Mr Cope:

– I rise on a point of order. Would the Minister tell us how many Ministers have been axed on the Liberal side lately?

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Mr Corbett) - Order! There is no substance in the point of order.

Mr Kevin Cairns:
LILLEY, QUEENSLAND · LP

– An immigration policy followed by successive governments - both Labor governments and Liberal-Country Party governments - and a policy which has served this country well, would be totally repudiated, and that is the intention. No matter how often it is contended that this policy would not ‘open the flood gates’, the fact remains that, without any change in principle, these could be ripped open’ in a moment, if the Opposition policies were to be adopted. It is not the thin end of the wedge; it is very much the thick end of the wedge. Uncontrolled migration clearly threatens a homogeneous community. The great tragedy is that these new principles which have been enunciated by the Leader of the Opposition and followed by some-

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN - Order! The Minister’s time has expired.

Mr Fox:

– I wish to move that the Minister for Housing be granted an extension of time.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN - Order! I cannot allow an extension of time on the first period taken by a speaker unless noone rises on the other side of the chamber. As no-one is rising, I shall allow the Minister to take his second period now.

Mr Kevin Cairns:
Minister for Housing · LILLEY, QUEENSLAND · LP

– I have only one sentence to finish my speech. The great tragedy is that these new principles which have been enunciated by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Whitlam) and supported by some of his colleagues could sacrifice the Australian people and, in particular,

Australian working men, even if only to the plaudits of a few of his friends overseas.

Mr GRASSBY:
Riverina

– The Minister for Housing (Mr Kevin Cairns), who has just resumed his seat, has attempted to cover the entire mismanagement of his Government by a series of miserable and rather smelly red herrings. He has attempted deliberately to divide the Australian people by raising a series of matters which are not under debate at all and never have been. The Government’s economic policies have created new problems and they are the root cause of this debate. Of course, there is no desire on the part of the Government to discuss its mismanagement of the economy. Rather, the Government would prefer to divide the whole of the Australian community.

But let us be quite blunt. It has been suggested that on this side of the chamber there is some desire to curtail the immigration scheme which was launched so magnificently a generation ago by the right honourable member for Melbourne (Mr Calwell). That immigration scheme has added 2i million people to our community. These people are no longer migrants. The 2i million people who have come here are an integral part of the Australian scene. What is more, they have as much feeling for this nation as has anyone who came here previously, who was born here or whose grandparents came here. So the 2-i million migrants who have come here since the Second World War are part of us. The attempt to suggest that these people are somehow responsible for the bad government that we have at the moment and are somehow responsible for pollution and all the other problems of the nation is a miserable excuse by the Government for its own mismanagement. The Government is completely wrong in its attitude, and this is why I seconded the amendment moved by the honourable member for Grayndler (Mr Daly) and why the whole of the Opposition is united-

Government Members - Ha. ha!

Mr GRASSBY:

– I hear a great amount of laughter from supporters of the Government. They . are laughing about the mismanagement of the economy by a government which has been in office for 22 years.

This Government has been guilty of introducing unemployment of unprecedented levels.

The Government has brought the migration scheme into question by the fact that it has no policy and this will lead perhaps to 125,000 people being unemployed. Migration and unemployment are incompatible and honourable members opposite In their dying days in office know it. They seek, in their misery, to attempt only to divide the nation in order to cover their own sins of omission and commission. Honourable members opposite are now giving the best imitation I have ever heard of a tribal rock musical. But what they do does not really matter because the facts of the situation are that they have placed the migration programme in jeopardy by their economic policies. What we have said, what we say tonight, what we have said consistently, what the honourable member for Grayndler has said so eloquently and so well is that in government next year we will determine the level of migration commensurate with the greatest good of the people of the nation. We will determine what will be done for the greatest good of those who have come and those who were born here. This is our policy. It is the policy which was enunciated particularly well tonight by the honourable member for Grayndler.

In these days when it is fashionable to blame migrants for every ill in the community, it might be just as well to place on record that if Australia ever closes its door to migrants we will indulge in cultural incest and nothing but decadence will result. We are a migrant people. In the past this has been the case; we are now a migrant people; and we will forever be so. If people such as the Minister for Housing - or the Minister for no Housing - who has just resumed his seat, wish to close the doors and shut us off from the world, then more poverty to them and their views. There is a proper questioning in the community about the numbers of migrants coming to this country and about all aspects of a policy that was in fact launched by our Party and has been carried on for a quarter of a century.

But I want to serve one warning before I deal with 3 specific matters. I want to issue a warning tonight that for a whole generation we have swept beneath the national floor boards the bigots, the racists and the Paislevites. They have been silent and, very properly, denied a forum of support in our nation. If there is any suggestion that they should come from beneath the floor boards, then we resent it and we will oppose it. There is no room in this Parliament for the bigotries and the Pais.leyism which are implicit in some of the questioning that has been going on. We, for our side, are quite unanimous that we will resent such attitudes in our nation.

Mr Armitage:

– Who is Paisley?

Mr GRASSBY:

– I think he is a Conservative member of a parliament. If the honourable member for Hume (Mr Pettitt) wishes to indulge in Irish politics 1 suggest that he go to Ireland. Let me address myself to 3 major matters. We have heard suggestions that there are areas of migration from which we have long drawn people that are not really worthy and suitable. In the time available to me I will quote from some of the references made in publications to the effect that we should be very wary about taking people from southern Europe. I might say that it has been an old criticism by the primitives in our society that those who came to us from southern Europe were somehow inferior. This point has been dealt with precisely and specifically. If the honourable member for Mitchell (Mr Irwin), who is interjecting, wishes to be numbered amongst the primitives that is his business. Some pretty precise studies have been made which indicate that perhaps contrary to the views that you, Mr Deputy Chairman, and I may have held, those who have settled, and settled particularly well, in fact have had a standard of living, by definition and investigation, which excelled even that of the Anglo-Saxons, and even that of the northerners. In one particular area surveyed by Dr Trevor Langford Smith it was established that the highest standard of living was set by those from Calabria and Sicily. No more southern could you get.

Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

– I rise to a point of order. Will the honourable member for Riverina be seated while I state my point of order?

Mr GRASSBY:

– Give me my time because he is wasting it.

Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

– Would it be a point of order to suggest that the Australian Labor Party has never been so split as it is on the question of Mr Whitlam’s immigration policy?

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Mr Corbett) - Order! There is no substance in the point of order.

Mr GRASSBY:

– My time is very limited. I have 3 matters to pose and I shall have to do it very quickly. The first of them is this: The Government has been tardy in the extreme in the matter of reuniting families, ft took it 20 years to agree to provide assisted passages to enable a man to bring his wife and children to this country. Some people had to pay 20 per cent interest on borrowed money in order to get their families here. All right, the Government has changed its policy on this matter. It was changed by the Minister’s predecessor, Mr Snedden, and I give credit for that. But there are still delays of up to a year in reuniting families, there are also delays of nearly a year in issuing visas for people to come and visit their children.

There are two other scandals I want to mention. One is that there is no reciprocity between ourselves and other nations in relation to social services. Government supporters ask why people do not become naturalised yet the Government penalises them if they do. Thirdly, the Minister for Education in New South Wales, a member of the Country Party, has said that the Commonwealth Government has cut down migrant education facilities. It has cut down the vote for migrant education in such a way as to impose hardships on migrants and children. That has been said and the Government has not answered the criticism. The Government has a great deal to answer for tonight. Let it answer these charges now.

Mr Lynch:

– Pathetic.

Mr GRASSBY:

– Answer the charges. Mr Deputy Chairman, I still have one minute of time left to me. The Minister for Labour and National Service (Mr Lynch) says: ‘Pathetic’. Let him answer the charges. It is all right for the Minister to sit in this chamber and say it is pathetic. Is it pathetic when I am speaking on behalf of migrants?

Mr Lynch:

– You are pathetic.

Mr GRASSBY:

– All right, I challenge the Minister to answer the charges and accept the challenge. The Minister should be ashamed of himself.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Mr Corbett) - Order! The honourable member’s time has expired.

Mr FOX:
Henty

– It is obvious that there are great divisions within the Opposition over its immigration policy. It is equally obvious from the speech made tonight by the honourable member for Grayndler (Mr Daly) that the Opposition is trying to play down these divisions and the reasons for them. Only recently the honourable member for Grayndler was sacked by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Whitlam) from the position- of shadow Minister for Immigration but tonight he carried the torch for his leader. I shall leave it to my colleagues to deal in detail with the divisions which exist within the ranks of the Opposition with respect to its policy and the reasons for them. Later on I intend to refer to 2 statements made by the Leader of the Opposition when he addressed the members of the Perth Press Club last Sunday.

During the very short time at my disposal I want to speak in support of immigration. As I said during the debate on the Budget it has become fashionable, for some reason, to knock immigration. The knockers go on. Earlier this week the Government announced a deferment of the arrival of 3,000 migrant workers and their families in order to assist some of those who are currently registered for employment to obtain jobs which the Government believes may otherwise be taken by migrants. I believe that this announcement was well received but I am not personally convinced that it will achieve what is hoped or expected that it will achieve. I am yet to be convinced that immigration contributes either to unemployment or to inflation. I have never believed it. I asked the Legislative Research Service of the Parliamentary Library to obtain certain information for me. I sought 3 tables of statistics relating to 6 selected countries and to the subjects of the annual rate of increase of the consumer price index, the percentage of the work force unemployed and the net long term immigration as a percentage of mid-year population for each *>f those countries.

The countries which I chose were Australia, Canada, Japan, New Zealand, the United Kingdom and the United States of America. I could have selected any other 5 countries to make a comparison with Australia but I chose Canada and New Zealand as countries of immigration, Japan and the United Kingdom as countries of intense manufacturing industry and as countries which have not increased their population through migration, and I chose the United States of America both as a highly intensive manufacturing country and as a country which still attracts migrants in reasonable numbers. The Legislative Research Service provided figures for me for the years between 1964 and 1971. The tables are extremely interesting and I seek leave to incorporate them in Hansard.

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

Mr FOX:

– I thank the Opposition for that courtesy. These figures show that, in spite of the criticism levelled at the Government with respect to inflation and the average rate of annual increase in the consumer price index between 1964 and 1970 - they were the latest figures for which the Library Research Service was able to make a comparison - they are lower in Australia than in any of the other 5 countries I have mentioned, and appreciably lower in many cases. The table shows that for the year 1970 only in Canada was the increase in the consumer price index lower than in Australia. As a matter of interest, the increases were: Canada 3.4 per cent, Australia 3.9 per cent, United States 5.9 per cent, the United Kingdom 6.4 per cent, New Zealand 6.6 per cent and Japan 7.7 per cent. The table relating to the percentage of the work force unemployed, which covers all of the countries except New Zealand, for which no percentages were available, shows that in every year between 1964 and 1971 only Japan had a lower percentage of unemployed than Australia.

The figures for this year show that the percentage of the work force registered for employment in the 5 countries are: Japan 1.3 per cent, Australia 1.7 per cent, United Kingdom 3.1 per cent, United States of America 6.2 per cent and Canada 7.1 per cent. So only Japan has a better record with respect to employment and only Canada has currently a better record with respect to inflation. Let me turn to the table relating to migration. The interesting thing is that in each of the years between 1966 and 1969 - these were the only years for which the Library research service was able to provide comparative figures - Australia’s intake of migrants as a percentage of the population was higher than that of the other 5 countries with the exception of Canada in the years 1966 and 1967. In 1969, the last year for which comparative figures are available, the respective figures for the percentage by which migration added to the population figures at mid-year are: Australia 1.14 per cent, Canada 0.77 per cent and the United States of America 0.2 per cent. No figures are available for Japan, New Zealand or the United Kingdom, but the last year for which figures are available for those countries indicate that they showed a net migration loss. Surely those statistics indicate that we should be looking elsewhere than to immigration to find the reasons for the present rate of inflation and increasing unemployment.

I believe that our immigration programme has been made the scapegoat for changing economic conditions which have affected countries other than Australia. In fact, statistics show that Australia, which has the highest percentage of migration intake, has managed to combat the problems of inflation and unemployment far better than countries which have either no immigration intake or a lesser one than Australia. It is conceded by economists that inflation is caused either by demandpull or cost-push, to use 2 terms which are fashionable at present. I ask: How can 18 per cent of the community which provides 23 per cent of the work force be blamed for either of those types of inflation? I am not attempting to deny that Australia is suffering from too great a rate of inflation. But in my opinion immigration is not to blame.

Every migrant has to be fed, clothed and housed. To this extent he must help to reduce unemployment. With respect to a capital demand for houses, schools, transport facilities and so on, his requirements are no greater than those caused by a natural population increase, but he brings with him a capital inflow that a natural increase cannot bring. Because migrants constitute a higher percentage of the work force relative to their total population than does the rest of the community they contribute substantially to taxation revenue and help to spread public expenditure on certain items - for example, defence - over a larger number of taxpayers. By contributing to the expansion of local markets they must surely reduce costs because of the economies associated with larger scale production. Because migrants contribute to expanding Australian production they encourage foreign investment and by their savings, which are higher than the average, they contribute substantially to domestic capital. Besides contributing new skills and techniques they provide a flexible and mobile work force.

I said earlier that I wanted to refer to 2 statements made by the Leader of the

Opposition when he addressed the Perth Press Club only last Sunday on the subject of Labor’s approach to immigration. Referring to the impact which migrants who have come to Australia under the Government’s immigration policy have, he said:

The pressure on schools and hospitals and all the services provided by. State and municipal authorities in the cities where overwhelmingly migrants have settled has become starkly apparent

In other words, he said that Australia’s current policy with respect to migration was contributing substantially to inflationary pressures. That is the policy which has resulted in migrants, who comprise 18 per cent of the total population, providing 23 per cent of the work force. The alternative policy of the Australian Labor Party can be discerned from the statement of the Leader of the Opposition in which he said:

The Government’s chief role should lie in the assistance not the search for migrants.

I believe that if the Government is concerned with fighting inflation - the Leader of the Opposition has on many occasions also expressed his concern about inflation - its chief role should be to search for skilled migrants who can contribute to our technical knowledge and who can, because they represent a higher percentage of the work force than the overall Australian population, help to reduce costs by producing more than they consume. Labor’s policy, as stated by the Leader of the Opposition, could not possibly achieve this end if a Labor government’s role would be to provide assisted passages for the relatives of people already resident in Australia without regard to the degree of skill they possess.

Dr KLUGMAN:
Prospect

– Before dealing with the amendment that is before the chamber, which asks the Government to set up a joint select committee to inquire into immigration, I would like to congratulate the chamber - by that I mean honourable members on both sides of the chamber - on being embarrassed by the speech of the Minister for Housing (Mr Kevin Cairns). When I first arrived in Australia as a child before the Second World War admission to this country was considered to be a great privilege. I think it would be fair to say that the point of view of the vast majority of the residents and of the Government was that Australia did not want outsiders to settle here. After the War the position changed slowly for a number of reasons, the Labor government of that time and the right honourable member for Melbourne (Mr Calwell) as Minister being extremely vital factors. In the late 1950s and the early 1960s- or the 1960s in general - we reached a position where certainly the Government and most, if not all, of our opinion makers accepted the proposition that the more the better was the correct policy. Included in the reasons generally adduced were economic, defence, humanitarian and other reasons. As is usual with such bi-partisan policies they were hardly questioned or challenged. Then over the last 1 or 2 years an attack developed on the immigration programme, combining often contradictory economic growth arguments and so-called quality of life arguments.

There is a great risk that these arguments will be accepted uncritically by many and by this Government. That is the reason for the urgency in the Labor Party in seeking to set up a joint select committee. We have people arguing that every immigrant costs Australia some $10,000 and that this is the reason for the relatively slow growth in our national income. We have others arguing that in fact immigration is increasing our gross national product at too great a rate and that all that matters is the so-called quality of life. In this they include urban congestion, poor health services, poor schools, shortage of housing, pollution, traffic hold-ups and urban crime. Lately the more ambitious under the influence of Paul Ehrlich, the Billy Graham of the zero population growth movement - add world overpopulation, exhaustion of resources and pollution of the biosphere - have come up with a unique explanation for Australia that if we do not have immigrants we do not have pollution, traffic hold-ups and urban congestion. This argument ignores the fact that most of the problems mentioned are problems in all industrial societies, even those with no immigration. They are attractive arguments for the unthinking as they produce a foreign scapegoat.

What we want, of course, is not necessarily fewer immigrants but positive plans for lessening pollution, traffic problems and urban congestion. Poor schools, shortage of housing, insufficient hospitals and so on are merely matters of priority. They will remain so whether we have immigrants or not and only a change of government is likely to produce the plans and alter the priorities.

Mr Irwin:

– How could they do it?

Dr KLUGMAN:

– Because we would be thinking about it and doing something about it, which is more than this Government has been doing for the last 22 years. My main worry is that we have a tendency in this country to establish as many settled areas of politics as possible. As the attacks on immigration increase both sides of the House might decide that it would be politically dangerous to defend immigration, no matter what the facts proved. This tendency to bi-partisanship, or what I would call me-too-ism, has been attached to immigration for a long time, but it is not peculiar to immigration as far as political issues in this country are concerned. A classic example of me-too-ism was State aid which almost overnight changed from everybody resisting it to everybody being in favour of it.

One of the main reasons why the antiimmigration feeling has built up is that it represents a subconscious return to the old Australian dreams of isolation and also a nostalgia for the more simple days. This cuts across differences usually present between the so-called progressives and conservatives, or even reactionaries such as the Minister for Housing (Mr Kevin Cairns). It incorporates the contemporary anxieties present in the developed countries. It has been helped by the fact that Government leaders until recently have been urging another dream, that of getting bigger and bigger, and secondly that the Government has no information on a cost-benefit basis on immigration. As recently as 1969 the then Treasurer, who is now Prime Minister (Mr McMahon), was asked a question on the costs of immigration by the honourable member for Mitchell (Mr Irwin). This great Treasurer, who can usually come up with figures, especially in reply to questions by Liberal Party back benchers - even if those figures had to be altered later - said:

Australia welcomes these migrants not only because of their skills and the opportunities that they give us for development of our capacity to defend ourselves and to play our part in aid in

South East Asia, but also because they enhance the cultural and artistic background against which a great nation should develop.

He went on to say further:

As to the cost associated with migrants, I have never bothered to take out these figures.

The Minister for Labour and National Service (Mr Lynch), who is at the table, is smiling - and it is a matter for smiling. I was sorry for the Minister when, as Minister for Immigration, he had to defend the Government’s immigration programme at a summer school of the Australian Institute of Political Science earlier this year. The people there were antagonistic towards him and the immigration programme and he was unable to produce appropriate figures to defend it. It was not his fault. It was the fault of the Government which has been in office for 22 years and has not properly analysed its immigration programme.

Before concluding I wish to refer to a matter which specifically affects migrants although it is not strictly within the administration of the Department of Immigration. I refer to the expectation of migrants in respect of social services, the availability of social service benefits including the age pension to naturalised Australians who have established eligibility; in other words, they have lived here for at least 10 years and have been taxpayers during that period, and should receive a pension irrespective of where they live. Honourable members have seen many petitions on social services presented in this House. They are probably aware that almost every national group of migrants in this country is running a campaign to obtain transferability of pensions which has been accepted by most other countries.

Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

– You are not dealing with the question before the Chair.

Dr KLUGMAN:

-I realise that I am not dealing with a function of the Department of Immigration, but surely it is concerned about the way migrants look at Australia and their expectations, whether they feel that Australia is giving them a fair go. I can assure the honourable member for Griffith that if he were in contact with migrants in his own electorate, instead of attending meetings of young Liberals exclusively, he would know that migrants do feel strongly about social service benefits. To summarise, let us not accept as factual the belief of those people who blame a whole host of modern problems on migrants, thereby providing a unique Australian analysis of problems that in fact characterise most advanced industrialised societies, most- of which do not have immigration programmes, anyway, as the honourable member for Henty (Mr Fox) pointed out.

Let us not commit ourselves to this idea of blaming migrants for these ills without conducting a thorough examination. The possible relationship between these problems and migrants is a thoroughly Australian problem and it is often useless looking to other countries for answers, as many people do. It is a matter so peculiar to Australia that all the relevant information should be examined by an all-party select committee which, I would hope, would contain members with all kinds of prejudices or no prejudices, and would sift the evidence most carefully in order to produce some intelligent recommendations.

Mr PETTITT:
Hume

– A short time ago we were treated to a most unAustralian exhibition in this chamber. It might have been reminiscent of the bullrings of Spain, but it did not do anything for the dignity of this place. This is a very serious debate and that sort of behaviour does not help at all. Perhaps we should look very carefully at our immigration policy. Australia has a very sound immigration policy.

Mr Grassby:

– I rise to a point of order, Mr Deputy Chairman. The honourable member for Hume has just made what he thinks is a personal reference to my birthplace. Just in case there is any doubt about it I tell him that Brisbane, Queensland, is still part of the Commonwealth. If he does not know that, I commend him to his geography books.

Mr PETTITT:

– I did not refer to anybody, Mr Deputy Chairman. If the cap fits anybody, let him wear it. The Australian immigration policy had one great architect. In my book he is a very great Australian. I say that although I do not agree with him politically. I refer to the right honourable Arthur Calwell, the right honourable member for Melbourne. He is a very great Australian. He is a man who represents rather a disappearing race in the federal Australian Labor Party today. He is a man who personifies honesty, sincerity and dignity. Unlike the permissive Left which now seems to be taking a predominant position in the Labor Party, the right honourable member for Melbourne believes in democratic government, and he always did. Unlike the new extreme Left, he does not believe in violence or in the breaking of the law; he believes in changing the law democratically.

I remember the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Whitlam) not very long ago referring to any man who did not have a university degree as being little better than a peasant. This has been his general attitude, and perhaps that is the reason why he dumped the peasant from Grayndler as Labor’s spokesman on immigration matters. The honourable member for Grayndler (Mr Daly) is another one of the old solid genuine Labor men. He has been dumped because he does not have a university degree.

Australia’s policy has one principal aim, that is, to try to develop this vast country so that we are able to hold it, provide an inheritance for our children and earn our place in this part of the world. We set out to try to maintain a population with similar ethnic origins, similar cultures and similar standards of living. The emphasis has always been on our ability to integrate, to assimilate people and to avoid the setting up of small national minorities. It certainly has been a restrictive immigration policy, but not nearly as restrictive as the policies of many Asian countries. Our policy has been based on the ability of our migrants to assimilate, to become part of our community. It has been based not on race, colour or creed, as so many members of the Opposition would like people to believe.

It is a fact that nowhere in the world today does a multi-racial society continue to live in harmony and peace for any length of time. Perhaps the United States of America is the greatest example of this. With its vaunted high standard of living, culture and all the rest, the problems which it faces are a striking example of how difficult this immigration question is. Our policy is not based on any feeling of superiority. That is not the point at all. I know that this has been pointed out repeatedly by the right honourable Arthur Calwell since he introduced the policy for which he has fought all along. We are friendly, tolerant people. Australian people are singularly free of prejudice. Travel in South East Asia makes this very apparent. We have a tremendous image in South East Asia. I have been told over and over again that we Australians are prepared to accept people irrespective of colour or creed, provided we respect them. This is an invaluable image, and it gives us a tremendous potential to do a worth while job in South East Asia and in fact in many other under-developed countries.

We have Britain’s example of what happened when she allowed unrestricted immigration. Eventually she had to restrict immigration. But her example is a warning to us. Britain has been a tremendous influence for good, and I believe that we can have an even greater influence in this area. It is true that the Labor Party’s policy and the Government’s policy have traditionally followed the same lines. Today we see vast changes in many areas, but I still believe that the great majority of the genuine Labor people in Australia support the policy that was enunciated by Arthur Calwell.

Today we have many policies on immigration. I am not quite sure what is the policy of the Leader of the Opposition because I did not have a chance to read tonight’s newspapers. But I know that all the statements which he has made have been based on unashamed opportunism in an attempt to receive political gain from this very important question. I remember how inept this man was in a campaign in Hume when he brought pop singers to play to the peasants in Hume, as he put it, and got the biggest drubbing he has ever received in his life. Here again, in an attempt to gain political popularity he has fallen down on his face again because the Australian people do not want his immigration policy or the policy of so many others who have expressed variations of Labor’s policy. As a matter of fact, I do not believe that the Australian Labor Party has an immigration policy today, because it has left the policy of the right honourable member for Melbourne and the honourable member for Grayndler. That was an Australian policy and that was the pol icy that most Australians want to see. I think perhaps one of the most disastrous statements ever made by the Leader of the Opposition was the one referred to by the Minister for Housing. The Minister said:

Hitherto, migration was always judged to be a necessary and -welcome addition to our national increase. Children born in Australia were always the first migrants.

We all agree on that. The Minister continued:

The Leader of the Opposition has now adopted a policy for a Labor Government to persuade people to have fewer children. He wants a smaller Australian family - not his own, of course, but for others. Nevertheless, migrants from whatever source are to be encouraged. They will be in that environment a substitute for our national increase. The deletion of the population requirement from the Labor Party platform proposes this effective substitution. It is simply un-Australian.

I do not believe, and I do not think any genuine Australian patriot could believe, that the Australianbom child should be discouraged while uncontrolled migration be encouraged. The development of a genuine Australian sentiment from a vigorous Australian people would be ruined.

I think we all agree that the Australianborn child is the best migrant we could possible have. I believe that the honourable member for Grayndler still has the support of the majority of the people in his own Party. Immigration is an important problem. It affects every Australian. It affects his social life; it affects his standard of living; it affects his job. To adopt the policy put forward by the Leader of the Opposition would be to endanger this standard of living, to endanger this social life that we hold in such reverence and respect. It would be to endanger our working conditions and, above all, it would build up resentment among other people, as it has done in the United States of America.

We Australians have established an immigration policy to give us a homogeneous society, and we are determined to maintain it. I believe that to maintain this homogeneous society we can do much more good in this world by not letting in people whom we cannot integrate into our society. To do so would destroy very largely our ability to interest people from those countries in our immediate vacinity to come here. I believe that this policy, as originally enunciated by the right honourable member for Melbourne and supported by the Labor Party and the Country Party over the years until just recently, is the policy that best suits this country and the policy that would give this country a strength to stand and take its place as the leading nation in this part of the world.

Mr KEOGH:
Bowman

– In joining the Opposition’s case for the establishment of a joint parliamentary committee on immigration, I want to remind honourable members this evening that in general Australia’s immigration programme has operated in a satisfactory manner in the past not because of any great credit that this Government could claim but rather despite the Government. Let me remind honourable members that Australia’s immigration programme was planned by the Australian Labor Party over 25 years ago. Its initial success was due to the brilliant and sympathetic administration of the scheme in its early years by Australia’s first Minister for Immigration. I refer to the right honourable gentleman who is sitting on my left here this evening, the honourable member for Melbourne (Mr Calwell). Its continued success over the years has been due to the fact that successive Liberal Party Ministers for Immigration who have administered the programme have carried on the policy which was basically formulated and instituted by Labor’s first Minister for Immigration.

However, the Liberal Party has never had a basic immigration policy of its own, and it is not unusual, of course, that so many policies that we are able to illustrate effectively in this Parliament have come to fruition by accident rather than by plan. I quote not only my own words this evening when I say that this Government has no immigration policy. Let me refer in just a few words to a recent article subscribed to the ‘Commonwealth Professional’ of September 1970 by Dr Peter Lloyd who is a Senior Fellow in the Economics Departs ment in the Research School of Pacific Studies of the Australian National University. Dr Lloyd wrote:

The starting point ot an; economic analysis should be the recognition that the Australian Commonwealth Government does not have, and has not had, a coherent policy on immigration. The immigration programme’ consists essentially of an i in migration target, announced annually by the Commonwealth Government, and assorted schemes for assisting migrants by paying all or part of’ their fares to Australia.

Yet the Government, which is bankrupt of ideas for the operation of a suitable pro gramme for immigration in the 1970s and afterwards, is hypocritical enough to endeavour to belittle the policy of the Australian Labor Party. I say proudly that the Labor Party has, and it always has had, a detailed and concise policy on immigration. This policy recently has been reviewed and revised. Previous speakers this evening have spoken of this revision. Honourable members, and not only members from this side of the chamber, have referred to it, but not one speaker has been able to refer to any basic policy which the Liberal Party has on immigration. The Labor Party makes no secret of its immigration policy, or any of its other policies for that matter. Our immigration policy is published in a book of policy, and the policy of our 29th Commonwealth Conference is available for all to read. But where is the Liberal Party policy? It is nowhere to be seen. Let Government supporters produce it and let some speakers from the Government side spell it out here this evening. Tonight, one after another, honourable members opposite have done nothing but give their confused interpretation of the Australian Labor Party’s policy.

The honourable member for Grayndler (Mr Daly), who led on behalf of the Opposition this evening, moved an amendment which I support. I support the amendment this evening just as I supported the honourable member for Grayndler 12 months ago when he suggested, during a similar debate in this chamber, that a select committee should be appointed to inquire into immigration. Members of the Opposition seek to bring the Government to its senses. We say, as the Labor Party did 25 years ago, that the Parliament should adopt an honest, sensible and Australian approach to this nation’s future immigration programme. As I said, 12 months ago during a similar debate I supported a proposal similar to the amendment which has been moved this evening and on that occasion I appealed to the then Minister for Immigration - of course, there is a different Minister now administering the Government’s policy; the present Minister for Labour and National Service (Mr Lynch), who is now sitting at the table, was the Minister for Immigration then-

Mr Uren:

– Musical chairs.

Mr KEOGH:

– Changes in the Ministry are like a game of musical chairs, as the honourable member for Reid suggests. At that time I appealed to the Minister for Immigration to consider the plan to have a tame, departmentally appointed committee investigate Australia’s future immigration needs. I understand that the investigation will take 3 years to complete. Such a time lag makes a joke of any benefit that could come from this committee’s investigations because in the meantime - at least, during the last months of this Government - Australia’s immigration policy will continue to drift along, changed to suit the whims of him who happens to administer the policy at any particular time. The most suitable group to study Australia’s future immigration needs is one selected from among members of this Parliament, for it is in this Parliament that decisions on our future programme must be made.

In supporting the need for a parliamentary committee I shall quote just one example that shows why today migrants are less willing to come to Australia or if they come, to remain in Australia after their 2-year contract period has concluded. In quoting this example I will show how ineffective it is for any Government appointed committee of inquiry to determine any need for change in our immigration policy and how difficult it is to have the Government accept any recommendation for change that it might submit. I refer to a committee of inquiry which was set up by the Government’s Immigration Advisory Council in 1968. This committee revealed that one of the main factors affecting the attraction of migrants to Australia and their decision to remain here was Australia’s social welfare programme. The document from which I quote is the official report of that committee. The report states:

In discussing the importance of social services as a factor in attracting migrants, the Committee accepted that:

although they would not deliberately weigh them, many potential migrants would take social services into account in assessing whether they would, in total, gain materially by coming to Australia

the level and comprehensiveness of social services in some European countries, especially Britain and other advanced industrial countries, was a potent factor against leaving those countries

the level of benefits in Australia, especially the existence of the means test in relation to some benefits, could give an impression that the Australian system compared unfavourably with those to which the potential migrants were accustomed

Australian pensions were not payable outside Australia

questions that probably entered into migrants’ minds would include the gap in cover between the time of departure from home countries and eligibility under Australian schemes; and the residential requirement before full benefits could apply (e.g., widows’ pensions) which had much greater impact on migrants than upon Australians generally

migrants immediately after arrival frequently suffered from inability to join an appropriate benefit organisation either because of lack of knowledge of how to proceed or through lack of cash income to afford the payments involved

There is no need for me to dwell on that point this evening because it was made very effectively to the Committee only a short while ago by honourable members on this side who illustrated to the Government the actual and absolute failure of its subsidised medical scheme. The final paragraph of the committee’s report is a summing up of the position. It states:

The Committee therefore expressed a strong doubt that social services in Australia could be considered as a positive factor in the attraction of migrants from Europe.

What has this Government done about the report presented by that committee? To support what I have quoted from that report I quote from an article in the ‘DutchAustralian Weekly’ of 14th March 1971. It states:

Australia will never get out of the doldrums - will never regain its name as a really good country to migrate to - if it does realise that it is not the rest of the world which is out of step as far as social services are concerned but Australia and Australia alone.

Again this evening I make an appeal to (he Government. If the Government has any sense and if it wants to be Australian in its outlook as to the future of its migration policy in relation to the development of the country for the remaining part of this century, let it do once again as it did 25 years ago and follow the lead of Labor. The Committee should support the amendment, moved in relation to the estimates of this Department, seeking the establishment of a joint select committee to inquire into Australia’s future immigration needs.

Mr DRURY:
Ryan

– I believe that there is general agreement that Australia must continue to build up its population which is now approximately I2i million. Obviously the easiest and most economical way to do this is to encourage larger Australian-born families, as was pointed out a few minutes ago by my colleague the honourable member for Hume (Mr Pettitt). Equally clearly, this is not sufficient and Australia must proceed with our controlled immigration programme and bring into Australia the most suitable people available, having regard to the economic circumstances from time to time. I believe that it is a matter of great regret that the long standing bipartisan policy on immigration was abandoned by the Australian Labor Party at its Launceston Conference this year. The controlled immigration policy instituted many years ago by the right honourable member for Melbourne (Mr Calwell) and supported until recently by the great majority of the people on the other side of the chamber appears to have been discarded. I believe that the warning given earlier tonight by the honourable member for Lilley (Mr Kevin Cairns) who is the Minister or Housing, was well founded.

The estimated expenditure for the current financial year, $66,286,000, constitutes a reduction of more than $4m compared with the actual expenditure last year. Administrative expenses, shown in Division 330, are down. Other services, particularly payments to Commonwealth Hostels Ltd, are reduced, but I am glad to note that the proposed contribution to Good Neighbour Councils represents a substantial increase. I believe that an increase is fully justified. I pay my tribute to the voluntary workers who assist migrants in the often difficult task of settling down in a new country. These helpers provide the personal touch which I know from my own observations makes a world of difference to new arrivals and is an important part of the process of their integration into our Australian way of life. It has been a vital part of the success of our immigration programme that migrants be regarded and treated in all respects as human beings, not merely as statistics in terms of population growth or increased work force.

Migrants and their children, including their Australian born children, have over the years played a significant part in our national development and have made a mighty contribution in the industrial field. It has been estimated that without our migration programme over the past 25 years Australia would have forfeited 5 years progress in every 10. I pay a very sincere tribute to the right honourable member for Melbourne (Mr Calwell) and to Sir Tasman Heyes for the magnificent work they did in the early post-war years in launching what has been the largest and most successful immigration programme of any country. Subsequent Ministers and departmental officers have continued with the task of nation building and Australia today is stronger in every way as a result of their efforts. During the years I served as Chairman of the Commonwealth Immigration Planning Council I was very closely associated with both the Minister and departmental officers in Australia and overseas, and I have first hand knowledge of their dedication and efficiency.

In the current economic situation I believe the Government has acted wisely in reducing the flow of migrants and in endeavouring to place emphasis on quality rather than quantity. The growing prosperity of many of our traditional migrant source countries makes this task more difficult. The major proposed increases of expenditure on immigration in this Bill relate to migrant education services. These appear on page 52. The allocation for full time intensive English language courses for 1971-72 is $951,000 compared with $850,000 last year. The largest increase is in relation to child migrant education programmes. Last year we spent $1,844,984, which was very close to the appropriation for 1970-71. During the current financial year the Government proposes to spend $2,610,000.

Until last year the Commonwealth’s role in migrant education had been concerned mainly with adults. A ministerial statement of 23rd April 1970 set out details of improved and expanded measures for the education of child and adult migrants following a survey of schools and discussions with State education authorities. Paragraph 67 on page 14 of the Minister’s report on the migration education programme for the financial year 1970-71 reads as follows:

Under the programme the Department meets the salary costs of special teachers engaged in the instruction of migrant children and the cost of language-laboratory type equipment. In conjunction with the Department of Education and Science, the Department is directly responsible for arranging training courses for special teachers and for the production and distribution of necessary teaching and learning materials.

This substantial stepping up of child migrant education will, I am sure, pay handsome dividends for Australia in the years to come.

Mr FOSTER:
Sturt

– First of all I would like to make some brief reference to honourable members on the Government side who have spoken this evening on this matter of immigration. It seemed to me that they continued to follow the course of quoting figures, as they have in debating so many of the other estimates. 1 refer particularly to those members on the Government benches who have been associated with the various forms of planning or lack of planning that have been evident as a result of the migration programme the Government has followed for a number of years. The honourable member for Ryan (Mr Drury) mentioned migrant education. Let me inform the honourable member that this area is in dire need of a crash programme and that the $16m which was allocated during the course of last year has not as yet shown any real benefit in the education of migrant children. I would like to draw the attentiton of the House to the fact that in the electorate I represent believe it or not - honourable members opposite will have to believe it because they have neglected to take out sufficient surveys - by visiting the classrooms personally and spending some hours in them I have found that the proportion of migrant children in 2 schools, namely Newton Primary School and St Morris Primary School is over 70 per cent. When I refer to migrants, I mean European migrants. The Government has no reason to crow in this chamber tonight over what its planning, if I may use that term, has resulted in. If one moves through an electorate such as mine one would find an example of chain migration from Italy that, I suppose, would not be found anywhere else in the Commonwealth. The members of one family alone run into excess of 500 people. In addition to that, in another sector of the electorate I represent there is a very large percentage of British migrants. It is just not good enough for the Government to say that it has done what it can.

Let me cite the particular aspect of social welfare. This Government has treated the migrants to this country as second class citizens and as a result of lack of policy on the part of the Government a largs percentage of migrants that are brought to this country in fact live far below the poverty line. I give an illustration of this. Has not the Government legislated to provide a subsidised medical health scheme for migrants who come into this country as a sort of a stop-gap measure to make up for some of the conditions which they have left behind so far as that particular national aspect is concerned? In addition to that, under the Government’s policy, an aged migrant may come to Australia at 60 years of age. He is an unskilled worker and secures employment with a local government or State government organisation and is forced to retire at 65. Employment being almost beyond him, the families that have nominated him are forced to share his poverty. Where is the Government’s recognition of trade qualifications, particularly of those of people who come from the European theatre and enter this country? Of course, the policies of the Government have forced them to work far below their status. The Government has still not yet recognised the qualifications of those countries.

There is another matter that Government members will have to think about. What will happen if Great Britain joins the European Economic Community. So neglectful are honourable members opposite of that area that I do not think they have given any thought to that question. Countries that provide a pension for people who go overseas include Canada, France, Germany, Greece, Holland, Italy, Malta, Sweden, Turkey, the United Kingdom and the United States of America. The list goes on. Yet, in spite of all that being known, Government members opposite do nothing. Since migration was introduced into this country, 70 per cent of the migrants have settled in cities, most of them in capital cities. But a good percentage have settled in cities such as Wollongong, Geelong and Whyalla. What policy and planning has this Government for cities such as Whyalla to provide work for the female labour force and others who desire to work in those particular areas? It has done absolutely nothing. Let us deal with naturalisation of the migrants who come to this country.

Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

– Tell us about Labor Party policy.

Mr FOSTER:

– It is no use the honourable member interjecting while he is out of his seat. He does not know what he is talking about. The fact is that only 53 per cent of Greeks eligible for naturalisation have become naturalised. The next highest figure is for the Italian community, of which 62 per cent of the eligible people have so far become naturalised. Nearly 250,000 people who are eligible for naturalisation have not sought it. Why is this so? It is because the Government regards migrants as people who ought to be treated in a sub-standard manner with regard to social security and other conditions. Only this morning, one of Australia’s leading newspapers dealing with the unemployment situation stated in its editorial:

The cut in the migrant intake merely ensures that the unemployment figures look that much better at a time when they are liable to need all the cosmetic treatment they can get.

The fact is that the Government will continue to treat these people as it has been treating them because it has no planned migration programme in any way, shape or form.

Government members will recall that I have risen to my feet on a number of occasions in this chamber and pointed out what type of inquiry ought to be carried out by a responsible government in regard to education, migrant housing, the portability of pensions and pre-school education where a language difficulty arises with migrant children who, mark you, after they enter the junior grades at primary school, are at a disadvantage for the whole of their life. Have these matters been of any concern to the Government? Certainly they have not concerned the Government. It has not acted with respect to them.

I say to Government supporters that they ought to vote for the amendment that has been put before the Committee by the Opposition. The expectations held by Government supporters as to what would happen to this debate as a result of what was said on this side of the chamber have not been realised. They must accept this fact and look at this matter broadly on the basis of the needs of humanity. They should approach this subject on the basis suggested by the amendment.

Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

– You talk a lot of rubbish.

Mr FOSTER:

– It is suggested that I talk a lot of rubbish. I suggest to the honourable member that I regard migrants in my electorate as being human beings-

Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

– So do we.

Mr FOSTER:

– Although there may be some ethnic groups which show some nationalism-

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Mr Cope) - Order! The honourable member for Griffith is out of his seat.

Mr FOSTER:

– Well, chuck him out of the House for being out of order. The fact is that the second generation of migrants cannot be regarded in the manner in which the Government regards them. The Government ought to be mindful of this fact when it considers future development of Australia. If development continues to sprawl along in the way in which it does at the moment the Government will not achieve its prover aim. What is wrong with the concept of inquiry and planning with respect to population growth and the number of migrants that this country will be able to accept in future years. The honourable member for Griffith does not know what the figure is. I do not know. It is up to the experts to sit down and inquire into the matter, to call for evidence from the length and breadth of the country and to produce a report to the Parliament. I hope that, by that time, the present Government will be out of office and that a responsible party will be in office. Such a party would at least evaluate the situation and look at this matter on a proper basis. The dangerous situation that this Government faces is that if should there be a change from a capitalist oriented society to a labour oriented society it will be in immediate bother.

I implore Government supporters this evening to consider the basis of the amendment that has been moved. Honourable members opposite should forget that they believed that they were going to make some false political gains as a result of what they thought would be said on this side of the

Committee tonight. They should bear in mind that they have been shocked by the objective approach that has come from this side of the Committee. They should accept the amendment in that light. They should accept the fact that we have migration and that the planning of this country is not without its headaches by supporting this amendment. Let us get down to the business of looking after those human beings who have migrated to this country or who will migrate to this country in the next few years. The policy that we enunciate, first and foremost, is to look after those who are here and, secondly, to enable those who are here and who wish to bring their wives, relatives and friends to this country to do so. We cannot afford to permit to continue the return of a large percentage of migrants to the United Kingdom and to other countries.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Mr Cope) - Order! The honourable member’s time has expired.

Mr MacKELLAR:
Warringah

- Mr Deputy Chairman, this evening for the second time in 2 weeks we have seen the public humiliation of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Whitlam). The man whom he repudiated as the Opposition’s shadow Minister for Immigration, the honourable member for Grayndler (Mr Daly), has come into this Committee with the support of quite a number of his colleagues, led for the Opposition in this debate and moved the Opposition’s amendment. The Leader of the Opposition was not even game to show his face.

There can be little doubt that Australia’s post-war immigration policy, and its implementation, has been remarkably successful. This fact can be gauged from the figures. Although migrants comprised 18.3 per cent of Australia’s total population, and 25.3 per cent of the total work force in 1966 - and these proportions are most probably higher today - so far we have avoided any major clashes, the build up of ethnic groups in ghettoes or the development of racial disharmony and tensions in this country. This is a very proud record. At the same time, our whole way of life, our culture, and our economy have been enriched by the application of a selective immigration policy which has allowed and supported this massive inflow of people from all over the world. This is something which needs to be emphasised and repeated again and again, until people from all oyer the world will realise that Australia’s immigration policy is not a racist one bat, like those of most other countries, is a selective one.

There are 2 aspects of our immigration policy upon which I would like to comment. Firstly, do we need to continue to seek the inflow of new settlers at previous levels, and secondly, should we change our criteria in selecting new settlers? As I said in the Estimates debate last year I believe that the broad lines for selection of immigrants should be on quality, not quantity. I am pleased to see that the Government’s policy in this respect has taken notice of the comments that I made. We should be seeking those people most quickly able to assimilate into our society and contribute both economically and culturally to the development of this country. I know and appreciate the work being done by the research groups set up by the Government, which will appreciably assist the assessment of desirable levels of migrant intake, and a host of other factors concerned with immigration. I also applaud the Government for taking a more conservative attitude in respect of the intake of migrants and hope that selection procedures will be appropriately stringent.

But it is on the second aspect of our immigration policy which I mentioned that I would like to spend some time. Despite what members of the Opposition have said, there is no doubt as to where this Government stands in relation to the criteria used for the selection of migrants, or of the results of the applications of these criteria. On the other hand, recently we have seen various members of the Australian Labor Party, both State and Federal representatives, putting forward views which, to say the least, are often conflicting and in many cases are ambiguous and imprecise. Immigration, with its massive effects on the structure of our society, is a subject of the utmost concern to every person in Australia. I believe it is absolutely essential that the policies of the 2 major parties, and the effect that the implement?.’1 of each would have on this structure of our society should be crystal clear in the minds of everybody in the electorate, so that each person in Australia can have a clear idea about the type and composition of society each party is seeking to achieve.

As we all know, the Labor Party at its recent conference at Launceston came up with a different form of words for its Party platform in relation to immigration. Whilst it has been argued that the changed words represented no significant change in policy, it is the interpretation of the new words which is of paramount importance. The honourable member for Grayndler (Mr Daly) who, as we all know was described by his own leader as knowing more about immigration than anyone else in the Labor Party - and hence is of insufficient capacity to be retained as shadow minister for immigration - said on 22nd July this year:

From what I have read in the Press, the changed vording of the immigration policy does not represent any significant change from my interpretation of the policy before the conference.

But is that the honourable member’s own opinion and is it the opinion of the members or is it not?

What does the Party’s P.R. image say? What does the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Whitlam) have to say? In his speech to the Perth Press Club last Sunday he said:

There are 3 alterations which amount to a very distinct change of policy and change of emphasis.

That is very different from what the honourable member for Grayndler said. Later in the speech the Leader of the Opposition said:

The emphasis will change from, though sot necessarily entirely take the place of, Governnent search for migrants to Government assistance far those already here.

Let us have a look at this statement in some depth. Firstly, family reunion has always been given the highest priority in Australia’s immigration programme. It has been Government policy for 20 years. But it is also a fact that nominated migrants have produced less than a quarter of the skilled and semi-skilled workers who have come to Australia in recent years. Secondly, the Leader of the Opposition has said that he would allow residents of Australia to nominate not just close relatives but all relatives and friends, and would allow employers to nominate workers as well. Does this mean that employers could nominate workers who would undertake to accept less advantageous wage levels and conditions? I do not know, but I am sure Australian workmen would .be. very interested to know that the Party traditionally seen as representing their interests in fact had an immigration policy which could be interpreted as advocating, introduction of cheap labour.

But apart from this aspect of what the policy is in relation to non-European migration let. us have a look at other aspects. The Leader of the Opposition says that his policies could result in less non-European migration. Does this accord with the facts and is this what he wants? And is this what the Party wants. By not specifying close relatives, as does the Government, obviously those people in Australia with relatives overseas would be in the best position to nominate people. Equally obvious is it that those people from countries with a lower standard of living than Australia are more likely to have not only more relatives but also more relatives willing and anxious to come to Australia. The Leader of the Opposition said that people, of non-European descent were not likely to come here. He instanced Indians as not being an immigrant people. Now this is absolute and gross nonsense. Obviously he has not caught up with the fact that Australian Government offices in India - as has been said earlier in this debate - have been receiving over 50,000 inquiries a year. And how would he process those? This is what the Leader of the Opposition says but does he speak for his party? We already know that the honourable member for Grayndler has a different interpretation of the policy. How clear is the Leader’s own understanding of the policy as he interprets it? I will show you how clear it is. What does the Leader of the Opposition say? He says: ‘Do not ask me to speculate as to how we would administer these arrangements’.

Mr Duthie:

– How clear are you fellows?

Mr Grassby:

– Let us hear your policy.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Mr Cope) - Order! Perhaps the next Government supporter might explain policy but this fellow does not intend to.

Mr MacKELLAR:

– I thank you for your impartiality, Mr Deputy Chairman. I believe all Australians have a right to know just how the Leader of the Opposition would administer his arrangements. Another disturbing aspect of the whole confused mess is the attitude of other members of the Labor Party. Let us have a look at these fellows. The Premier of South Australia has been most outspoken on the issue of non-European migration and has been quoted as saying that he advocated a system of Asian immigration to Australia similar to that operating in Canada, and also of putting the proposition that a homogenous Australia was nonsense and that he would like to see the country as a radical melting pot. The Premier of South Australia and the Leader of the Opposition have both been loud in their praise of the Canadian points system. When one looks at the Canadian figures one finds that of a total intake of 161,500 in 1969, 36,000 were from non-European countries.

Dr Klugman:

– You little fascist.

Mr MacKELLAR:

– It is not clear whether the Labor Party is advocating and would encourage or permit this level of nonEuropean migrant intake.

Mr Chipp:

– I rise to a point of order. Will you, Mr Deputy Chairman, please take the appropriate action in regard to the remark made by the honourable member for Prospect?

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN- Yes. That is an unparliamentary expression and I ask the honourable member for Prospect to withdraw it.

Dr Klugman:

-I withdraw it butI draw your attention to an article in a magazine that was circulated to us all. giving details as to who supported the honourable member for Warringah against the previous honourable member for Warringah.

Mr Scholes:

– I rise to a point of order. The Speaker of this House has regularly ruled that when Government members lyingly call members of the Opposition communists it is not unparliamentary.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN - The word lyingly’ is unparliamentary.

Mr Scholes:

– I withdraw it. When Government supporters have used that term the Speaker has ruled that it is not unparliamentary. I fail to see how any other political–

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN- There is no substance in the point of order. The honourable member for Prospect definitely referred directly and individually to the honourable member for Warringah. He reflected not on the Party as a whole but on an individual, and therefore he must withdraw it.

Dr Klugman:

– Would it make any difference if I referred to him as a small ‘f’ fascist? Would that make any difference?

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN- Order! I ask the honourable member for Prospect to withdraw the remark.

Dr Klugman:

– I will withdraw the remark that he is a small’f’ fascist.

Mr Chipp:

– Because of the interjections the honourable member for Warringah has lost his remaining half-minute. I ask the indulgence of honourable members to give the honourable member half a minute.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN- The honourable member can take his second period provided no other honourable member wishes to speak but he cannot have his time extended.

Mr MacKELLAR:

– I thank the House for its indulgence. I was speaking about various members of the Opposition. Let me quote what the honourable member for Capricornia (Dr Everingham) wrote in the Fabian Newsletter’ of August 1970 in an article entitled: ‘Why Pay for White Migrants?’ In discussing the migration policies so far pursued the honourable member wrote:

Religious and political tensions are not helped by subsidising migration. It increased the Roman Catholic component of our population and so strengthens the pro-State Aid, which is a kind of pro-segregation movement. It increases the anticommunist, anti-Russian, anti-labor and pro-fascist proportions among our voters, thereby committing us more uncompromisingly to the capitalist bloc and destructive defence policies.

Is that the policy of honourable members opposite?

Sir John Cramer:

– Who said that?

Mr MacKELLAR:

– That was the honourable member for Capricornia writing in the ‘Fabian Newsletter’ last year. Has this attitude to assisted immigration ever been repudiated by any member of the Opposition? Has the avowed leader of honourable members opposite ever spoken on this topic? Has he ever said that he disavows what the honourable member for Capricornia wrote? On immigration as on so many other policy issues, the Labor Party speaks with many tongues. This country and its people deserve better.

Mr COLLARD:
Kalgoorlie

– I rise to support the amendment moved with such great sincerity and ability by the honourable member for Grayndler (Mr Daly). For approximately a quarter of a century Australia has been absorbing annually on a permanent settler basis quite substantial numbers of people from many different countries. That absorption has been carried out under an immigration programme the foundation principles of which have never been seriously challenged or criticised either inside or outside Australia during that time. While there have been some minor alterations to the Immigration Act over the years they have not made and I do not believe they were intended to make any significant difference to the initial intention of the programme. That does not necessarily mean that the Act or the programme has been completely acceptable in all respects to everyone concerned. Indeed, one could never expect to witness within the entire community anything like unanimous approval for everything that is done or not done in the field of immigration. 1 say that, because many people from many different countries with many different interests and outlooks - both social and occupational - are directly or indirectly involved. I say that, because those same people, both young and old, are spread over the whole of Australia, which in turn means that the whole Australian community, those whose parents were born here and those whose parents were not born here, and who also have different interests, outlooks and attitudes and, in some cases perhaps, memories or knowledge of events in the early part of this century which were not entirely palatable, is vitally interested in immigration. Those people are all involved in some way or another, and it is only natural that the subject of immigration always has been, and for some time at least will continue to be, a very sensitive area of deliberation. This being so, the fact that the plan has operated so smoothly over so many years and has not required other than minor alterations is, I believe, a very great tribute to the first Minister for Immigration who commenced its opera tions in the difficult early, post-war. years. I refer to the. right honourable, member for. Melbourne (Mr Calwell).

When I refer to the smooth operations of the plan I am naturally speaking of it in the broad sense and not within the narrow confines of decisions taken at ministerial or government level. It is my. . opinion that any well-founded criticism in the area of immigration is not the fault of the plan itself but the fault of the Minister for Immigration (Dr Forbes) or of his Govern- . ment’s policy going outside the definite requirements of the Act and involving a lack of sympathy and understanding. Nevertheless, unlike some other countries, which .have. a fairly large, migrant population, Australia has been free of any vio- . lence and has not experienced any real trouble which could be associated with or blamed upon in any way the broad foundation principles of the immigration programme. Here again the forward thinking of the Austalian Labor Party and its Minister for Immigration should be applauded.

Therefore, to my mind it is very important - in fact it is vitally necessary - that, in the interests of the Australian people, those who have come from elsewhere to live here and those who may be born here or migrate here in the future, we do everything possible to ensure the continuation of the generally harmonious relations which have existed up to date within the community. This must always be a serious consideration in any change in immigration policy or programme. Of course, the principles which are embraced in the policy of the Australian Labor Party are no different today from what they were in the very first years of immigration. In my opinion they have the complete support and confidence of the vast majority of people in this country and there is very good reason why they should receive that support. The Australian Labor Party has always remained firm in the belief that an immigration policy must be administered with tolerance, sympathy and understanding, and I am . quite sure that no-one would wish to argue against that principle, even though those, qualities are lacking within the Government ranks. As a result of our belief in that regard, the basis of our policy includes the welfare and integration of all our citizens. To achieve that end one of the prime factors in the selection of migrants must always be to . ensure that they will be able to fit into the Australian way of life and become part of the general community, not just an isolated section of it.

Our policy provides that Australia should have the capacity to provide such things as housing, employment, education and social welfare. After all, it is a simple fact that if we cannot provide all those necessities we not only will create unnecessary problems and suffering of an acute nature for people already in Australia but also will seriously aggravate the situation as more people come in. So it is obvious that intake must be measured against our capacity to provide those important necessities of life. We also say that there must be an avoidance of the difficult social and economic problems which may follow an influx of people having different standards of living, traditions and cultures. Our policy would also preserve the democratic system of balanced development of our nation and our national and economic security. As I said earlier, 1 am quite certain that the principles I have outlined will find favour with the large majority of the people of Australia; but, of course, for Australia to abide by and carry out those principles requires the certainty that we have the unfettered right to regulate the intake of our migrants at all times and also have a complete right of selection and rejection.

During recent years there has come from some quarters, and not in my opinion from non-European countries, a demand for changes in our selection attitude. Some go so far as to want quota systems or even open gate extremes, neither of which, in my opinion, would ever be acceptable to a responsible Commonwealth Government. I venture to suggest that some countries which did relax their entry policy are now sorry they did so and wish it was a simple matter to revert to their earlier attitudes without seriously offending or disrupting relations with certain other countries. I hope that we will always be mindful of those errors. So it seems to me that, as we have had the foresight and, no doubt to some extent, the good fortune to attract and retain migrants of very good standard, in most respects anyway - after all, we cannot expect to be 100 per cent successful, but in the main our migrants have made very good citizens - it is reasonable, desirable and wise that we continue to obtain our future requirements from the same sources. The point also arises as to whether we need to reduce our intake or whether we need only people with particular skills. In that respect I would like to refer to the words of Labor’s platform in 1958 which really still holds good. I quote:

Entry of suitable migrants is to be encouraged but is to be strictly regulated so as not to impose an undue strain on the Australian economy or to imperil full employment or Australian industrial conditions through over-competition for available work.

Australia’s economy and employment situation at this very moment - which has all of the earmarks of becoming much worse - calls for deep consideration with respect to future migrant intake. The same thing applies with regard to moneys for housing and the fall-off in building; it applies again in relation to lack of education facilities and hospitals; and it applies in some instances with respect to insufficient social service payments, all of which are affecting not only newcomers but also original Australians and those who have been here for several years.

Very certainly the time is overdue for a full scale, but a fairly quick examination of the whole field to determine just what should be done in the area of immigration. This Parliament is entitled to have that knowledge and information resulting from such an inquiry and report. We say that we should proceed with such an inquiry. We should examine the system of granting assisted passages to ascertain to what extent we are gaining long term or permanent residents as against those who use that concession as a holiday or tourist scheme to the detriment of genuine migrants. Also there is the Colombo Plan. After some 18 years of operation we may find that the scheme would be more beneficial in its purpose if we established colleges or other educational facilities together with staff to provide advanced education opportunities in the country we are assisting rather than bring students to this country who, after 3 or 4 years of Australian life are told to return. There are many other areas which should be looked at.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Drury:

Order! The honourable member’s time has expired.

Mr O’KEEFE:
Paterson

– I rise to support the expenditure of $66,286,000 as set out in the estimates for the Department of Immigration. I congratulate the Government on its immigration policy. Immigration is one of the most important matters that we have to administer as a Government. With our vast areas and resources it is impossible for us to develop without increasing our work force and providing additional manpower for so many projects necessary to achieve successful results. This Government has been aware of the necessity to keep a steady flow of migrants to this country, but it has not been engaged upon a blind and mindless pursuit of numbers. Ours is a nation that has been built up by migrants and we have not yet ceased to build. There may come a time when we no longer need to build and when we no longer need migrants. But this lies in the future. Such a proposition has no practical significance for our .time. Since migration resumed after World War II more than 2.7 million settlers have come from overseas and upwards of threequarters of a million children have been bom to them. These figures, viewed against the perspective of our overall population of nearly 13 million people illustrate the magnitude and impact of post-World War II migration on Australian society.

Of course there are critics and in the main this criticism centres on the proposition that immigration inhibits economic growth, that our policy is based on just getting numbers and ignores quality. Other critics regard immigration as the cause of pollution, of the urban sprawl, inflation and so on. Some critics say that immigration is the root cause of Australia’s problems. Inflation is neither confined to nor worst in Australia and the other great countries of immigration. The attitude that our immigration programme is simply some kind of numbers game is completely wrong. The migration target each year is related to the following: Firstly, the government’s appreciation of Australia’s needs and objectives; secondly, the availability of suitable settlers; and thirdly, our economic and sociological capacity as a nation to integrate the settlers arriving. The immi gration programme operated by this Government takes into account such factors as changes in the employment situation, availability of housing and accommodation, balance of sexes, the worker dependent pattern, and other factors bearing on the successful integration of migrant groups. This involves close co-operation between a number of government departments, in particular the Department of Labour and National Service.

Australia has a good name as a country where migrants are well accepted and taken into the community. Visits this year of Commonwealth delegations, on one . of which I had the privilege of being a member, to Turkey, Yugoslavia, Ireland and England revealed that Australia was regarded as being most acceptable to migrants from those areas. Australia was held in high esteem. In all those countries people asked us about Australia and about migrating here. We in turn must see that we are getting good types of migrants who will be assimiliated quickly and will be able to make a contribution to the skill of the trade or vocation in which they have been trained. We should be able to get first class migrants along these lines. Indeed, we have done so over the years.

One must realise, of course, that difficulties arise in obtaining migrants from European countries when the - economic situation of those countries improves. This is reflected from year to year in our intake. There is no doubt in my mind that we should be careful about drastically cutting our intake of migrants. It ‘has been said that cutting Australia’s intake of migrants would assist in combating inflation. I would like to quote very briefly from an article which appeared in -the Melbourne Age’ of 18th October. Mr R. J. Thompson, President of the Housing Industry Association, was reported as having said:

Cutting Australia’s intake of migrants would do nothing to reduce inflation, and was a backward step for the country.

The Australian economy must continue to grow, or it will be taken over - physically and/or financially,’ Mr Thompson said. ‘Rising prices are resulting from cost-push not demand-pull, and in these circumstances maintaining the migrant intake is a deflationary influence,’ -Mr Thompson said.

We ought to have regard to this matter but at the same time we do not want to regard it as the most important thing. Great damage could result from Australian politicians speaking in neighbouring countries without exercising the utmost care to be factual about Australia’s immigration policy. Anyone who has travelled in these countries knows that there are many misleading stories about Australia’s immigration policy, I have been in the East, the Near East and the Far East and I have heard these stories from the indigenous people. They stem from an extinct policy held by previous governments of all political flavourings. This policy was changed in Australia in 1966 with the full approval of all the political parties in this country. Recently it was announced that Australia was now receiving 10,000 settlers every year from Asian and Pacific countries. There is, of course, great difference of opinion among honourable members on the Opposition side and they are definitely divided over their immigration policy.

Mr Grassby:

– Who says so?

Mr O’KEEFE:

– Opposition members.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Mr Drury) - Order! The honourable member for Riverina is out of his seat and is out of order.

Mr O’KEEFE:

– We had the evidence here tonight of the honourable member for Grayndler (Mr Daly) being put back into the No. 1 immigration position on the Opposition side. He put forward a policy which somewhat resembles that of the Government but there are those in his’ Party who completely oppose this policy. Others support a policy which might be described in this way: Avoid discrimination on any grounds of race, colour, skin or nationality. Does this mean that anyone who wanted to come here, provided he could feasibly fit into the Australian community, could do so? What a stupid policy that would be. I feel sure that the Australian people would have no part of such a policy. In the main our immigration has run on sound lines. Let us keep it that way.

Finally I would like to call to task the honourable member for Riverina for his remarks here tonight about the Australian economy. We certainly have problems in certain sectors of the rural community, but Australia’s economy is as sound as that of any country in the world. There is no doubt about this. One has only to look at the exchange rates for the Australian dollar to see that we can hold our own wilh any other country. It saddens me to se people in this chamber deprecating this position and running it down, to the detriment of Australia. We have our problems, certainly. Those problems in the rural areas have been accelerated by droughts and by floods. But let us be proud of this great country. Let us pull together. Let is assure people that the economy is sound, because that is so.

Mr SCHOLES:
Corio

– It was interesting to note the remarks of the honourable member for Paterson (Mr O’Keefe). He said that the Opposition was divided on its immigration policy. I greatly doubt this. I think the fact that the honourable member for Grayndler (Mr Daly) led the debate for the Australian Labor Party is a fair indication. I would also suggest that it would be extremely doubtful whether all honourable members on the Government side would support the propositions put forward, for instance, by the honourable member for Hume (Mr Pettit). But what I rose to 3peak about were matters more directly concerned in these estimates. 1 believe that a full scale debate on immigration cannot be conducted under the circumstances which prevail in an estimates debate. We saw the situation at the start of this debate in which it was impossible for the honourable member for Grayndler to put forward his proposals in the limited time available.

I support the amendment that a parliamentary committee should be set up. I believe it is important that from time to time we should examine the accepted norms of policies such as immigration. Because immigration has been largely bipartisan over almost the entire period of mass immigration to Australia since the Second World War, the policy itself, its aims and the manner in which it is carried out have not been subject to question. At various times there have been persons who have questioned the policy, but no large body of influential opinion has ever challenged the policy itself. Because most members of this Parliament are agreed basically on immigration policy there has been no real examination of the cause and effect and the results of our post war immigration policy. It would be a worthwhile exercise and in the national interest for a real inquiry to be conducted into our immigration policies, the effects, the benefits and such detractions as immigration has brought about in the Australian community.

I do not profess to suggest that we should change our present policies to any major extent. But I think it would do no harm and it could do a lot of good if we bid a serious look at the situation. Some time ago, about the beginning of 1970, Professor Wheelwright claimed that our immigration policy was absorbing such a large amount of available investment capital within Australia in order to provide the social structure to cope with an unnatural increase in population that the nation had been forced to allow overseas capital to obtain control of substantial proportions of our industry. That may or may not be correct; I do not know. But it is one aspect which should be examined.

The Vernon Committee, which presumably studied the question closely, suggested a maximum migrant intake, but its suggestion has not been accepted because the Government’s advisers have felt that it should not be accepted. I repeat that these proposals have been put forward. I believe that it would be worth while to examine whether the conventional wisdom which has existed for so many years in relation to immigration is in fact wisdom or just blind ignorance. One could not do any harm - in fact, one could only do good - by examining whether a universally accepted proposition is in fact as good as we like to think it is.

I wish to deal now with” one or two specific matters. Some time ago legislation was introduced in this Parliament relating to education in English of migrants. I wish to draw to the attention of the Minister for Labour and National Service (Mr Lynch), who is at the table, a weakness which was pointed out at the time and which I think is seriously restricting the value of that proposition, that is, the fact that the Commonwealth does not accept any responsibility to provide buildings for the teaching of English to migrants. I know of a case where the location of one suitable building in an area in which there is a large number of schools could have provided, and would provide, an adequate service for the teaching of English to adult migrants. That building could have been put to great use. Unfortunately, the manner in which this policy has been policed, at least in the area that I know of, has provided for makeshift arrangements in various schools which can obtain the necessary quota to qualify, but in areas in which a slightly lower number of students is involved it is not possible for a school or a class to be established. After a teacher at one school had received the necessary training it was found that that school could not take her off normal teaching duties with the result that the teaching of English to migrants at that school had to cease.

The provision of proper buildings in some areas, especially areas of high migrant concentration, could greatly assist this programme. It would not add greatly to the cost of the programme. I believe that it would bc of particular value in the inner metropolitan areas where very substantial numbers of migrants attend schools and in some of the larger provincial centres where there has been a large migrant settlement. Geelong and Wollongong arc two -provincial centres where there has been very substantial migrant settlement. I think it is very important for migrants - especially to the younger ones coming to this country - to obtain as quickly as possible and under the best possible conditions a knowledge of English which will enable them to proceed with their education and employment with as short an interruption as is possible. I believe that the present system does not provide these facilities in all cases. I realise that it is difficult to provide migrant teaching services everywhere they are needed but I believe that by adding the provision of buildings to the present programme a far better facility could be provided in many areas and the teaching could be made much more efficient.

Dr SOLOMON:
Denison

– This has been an incredible debate and I do not think any better word could be used to describe it. First of all, we come to it as one in a series of debates on the Estimates with a blank speaking list from the Opposition and a row of speakers from the Government Parties. The disarray was in due course brought under control when we saw the honourable member for Grayndler (Mr Daly) - the former shadow Minister for Immigration - leading for the Opposition. He proposes as the greatest diversion in Australia since the Snowy River project a joint select committee to look into the operation of the immigration programme. He then proceeded to cast before us a chameleon-like image, the coat of many colours - of the policy of the Labor Party as regards migration to this country. He went on to refer to a programme unchanged for 25 years, an unchange which has been collaborated in totally by the Labor Party until recent months. He identified ALP policy for us as from the Launceston Conference and he then proceeded in the rest of his speech to elaborate a number of things which the committee he proposes might investigate.

The whole of this was a totally diversionary tactic away from the obvious disarray into which the Opposition has fallen in relation to this important aspect of Government or Opposition policy. I do not decry the constructive remarks made by, for example, the honourable members for Prospect (Dr Klugman), Kalgoorlie (Mr Collard) and Corio (Mr Scholes), but this is merely incidental to the performance which we have seen tonight, and the object of the exercise is clearly to try to get together something of the previous unanimity or near unanimity, the lack of which now plagues the Opposition. If in fact this Liberal-Country Party Government has any problems with inflation they are only meagre compared with the problems which obviously are faced by the Labor Party - and the personalities in that Party which clash - on immigration policy. I want to deal with some of the prime subjects who are involved in this matter, not least the right honourable member for Melbourne (Mr Calwell), to whom reference was made on a number of occasions earlier in this debate. Let me quote him from just one recent pamphlet which he produced. In fact, I think it was reported in several newspapers. It reads:

For political and diplomatic reasons the 1963 Federal Australian Labor Party Conference removed the words ‘White Australia’ from the Labor Party platform. We certainly did not try to water down the policy nor take the ideal of a White Australia from the hearts and minds of the

Australian people. Nobody wifi ever be able tj do that, Mr Daly, MHR, has quoted the conference decision in full and interpreted it honestly.

Australia, like every other country, has the inalienable right to determine the composition of its population, the rate of its development and the measures to be taken to guard its security.

The right honourable member does say other things, as is well known to many members of this chamber. For example, in commenting on the gratuitous intervention of the British Race Relations Board and the gratuitous advice we go from them on the matter of immigration the right honourable member for Melbourne said this:

It is for the Australian Government, and the Australian Government alone, to decide who shall and who shall not receive assisted passages or entry visas to this country - and (his has always been the case since Federation.

He went on to say:

I sympathise wilh the British people for the horrible mess which successive British governments have created by opening the floodgates to African, Indian and Caribbean migrants.

So much for the right honourable member for Melbourne whose stance is, I think, fairly well identified by those quotations. Let us turn to the honourable member for Grayndler who so brilliantly attempted to divert us from his problems in this matter. Recently he said:

The British political parties, both Conservative and Labour, have made a hell of a mess of immigration and now they appear to want to pass it on to us. I agree with the Government point of view th.it it is our responsibility and right lo decide who will comprise our population. The British Race Relations Board has no right to interfere with Australia or any other country. I see nothing to complain of in Mr Lynch’s statement.

He said further:

I do not wish to get into an argument with Mr Dunstan, but 1 am firmly opposed to a multiracial society. Labor is for the preservation of a homogeneous society free from racial hatreds.

In commenting in this House on immigration policy, in conjunction, in fact, with his Leader, the honourable member for Grayndler went further. He said that the term ‘White Australia’ had no place in the official vocabulary and policy as defined by him in 1 963. He went on to say:

But I maintain that Australia’s immigration policy should bc based on the principle laid down by successive governments since Federation, that we need to maintain a homogeneous population. . . . Labor’s policy is not a policy of open door, nor of a quota system. Asian workers ought not to be admitted, nor qualified people who:e talents were needed in- their home county.

So much for the honourable member for Grayndler. Another distinguished member of the Opposition, Mr Allan Fraser, commented on what the honourable member for Grayndler had had to say. On Mr Fraser’s weekly radio and television programme he said that Mr Daly had every right to decide that the misinterpretation of his attitude to Labor’s immigration programme had gone too far. Mr Fraser said that he was baffled by Mr Whitlam’s moving an amendment to Mr Daly’s motion seeking the right to speak, the amendment being that the Minister for Immigration should also have the right to speak.

I come now to a man who is not a member of the Federal Parliament but who is influential in Labor’s policy making in these areas. He is a new leftist, a man of very liberal ideas in a number of matters which I will not seek to identify in total here. His gratuitous advice on immigration to the Prime Minister of Singapore is fairly well known. I am referring to Mr Dunstan, the Premier of South Australia, who sent to the Prime Minister of Singapore a telegram which referred to close and most effective ties between Singapore, South Australia and the Australian nation as a whole in trade, culture and lastly immigration. On being questioned about his attitude to these things, Mr Dunstan said:

Australia must open its gates to people from any country in the world. We can no longer afford to bury- our heads ostrich like in isolation. A balanced annual intake of migrants would fit easily into the mainstream of life in the present Australian community. Australia can no longer afford to be’ lumped with South Africa as a country basing its policy on racial discrimination.

He also said that his policy would not lead to a brain drain from Asia .to Australia and that there would be an agreement with each country to get a balanced intake. He rejected claims that his statement would breach ALP immigration policy. Which way do we have it, Mr Deputy Chairman? On the one hand we have the utmost in liberality and then we have to qualify it, as Mr Dunstan went on to qualify it yet again in relating his remarks to Canadian and Hawaiian practice. Mr Dunstan said:

The sensible, policy should be not that you just open the doors to unskilled- ‘

Mr Grassby:

– I rise to a point of order, Mr Deputy Chairman. The honourable member for Denison has made a series of references to publications and documents that purport to represent what has been said by various members of the Opposition. I might add that he is reading from a prepared document. Would it be proper, in view of the fact that he is quoting from newspapers or journals, that he be asked to substantiate his references.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Mr Drury) - There is no point of order. Any points made by the honourable member may be replied to by subsequent speakers.

Dr SOLOMON:

– 1 will now quote, as I have been doing - this time from the speech of the Leader of the Opposition made last Sunday in which he reiterated Labor’s policy on immigration. The last 2 points are as follows:

The avoidance of me difficult social and economic problems which may follow from an influx of people having different standards of living, traditions and culture . . . The avoidance df discrimination on any grounds of race, colour of skin or nationality.

Blow me down, Mr Deputy Chairman. If those 2 statements are not in absolute opposition,, unless you care to interpret them as utterly superficial and meaningless, 1 cannot read English. On the one hand he says that we should not have any discrimination against anybody for any reason you care to mention. On the other hand he says that we should avoid all the social and economic problems which come from unnamed things like a lack of discrimination in social and similar matters. I have much more elaboration which the honourable member for Riverina (Mr Grassby) may care to have me incorporate in Hansard. I would be very pleased to do so. These are all direct quotes which set out where the Leader of the Opposition stands, if in fact he can tell where he stands.

Mr Sherry:

– Where do you stand?

Dr SOLOMON:

– I stand exactly where the Government’s policy has been enunciated in several ministerial statements, not least of which are those of Mr Lynch and his predecessor Mr Snedden within the last 2 years. The honourable member can read them. They are public documents. I reiterate that on the one hand we have the very liberal views of Mr Dunstan and the varying liberal views of Mr Whitlam. Against those we have the old hard line which most Australians would probably still subscribe to, as enunciated by the right honourable member for Melbourne (Mr Calwell) and the honourable member for Grayndler. The reconciliation of those 2 views is obviously impossible.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Mr Drury) - Order! The honourable member’s time has expired.

Mr BRYANT:
Wills

– I do not quite know what the honourable member for Denison (Dr Solomon) was trying to say, and I wish that he would stand up and throw his voice across the chamber. But I think what he was pointing out was that it is time that we had a real inquiry into the subject of migration. All he was trying to do was to confuse issues by quoting statements by people who have points of view on the subject which they are entitled to put and which I believe they ought to put. I represent what is probably the largest concentration of migrants in Australia, and nobody can blame them for that. They want to be decently represented in the Commonwealth Parliament, so they come and live in the electorate of Wills.

I put these points to .the Committee: First of all, there is this question of the social pressures that are created by migration. At the time of the previous census, which was 5 years ago - we have not got the figures for the 1971 census yet - there were some 16,000 or 17,000 people of Italian birth in Brunswick and Coburg. That represents one in 17 of all Italians in Australia. Also in my electorate there are one in every 20 of the Greeks in Australia, one in every 20 of the Maltese in Australia, and so on. As far as I can tell, despite the great pressures on the community, there has been no substantial social discord or dissent created by these people. Even those people with whom we have very little affinity, the Turks, have created no social dissatisfaction. They are just concerned that they are not getting much of a go. So the first thing I want to do is to compliment not so much the Minister for Immigration (Dr Forbes) or his Department, but all the Australian community for the way in which it has taken these people to its bosom, accepted them and. tried to give them a hospitable welcome in this country. It- is time that this fact was appreciated.

But what this has done firstly, if to place an extraordinary pressure upon the schools in the community. I support what my friend the honourable member for Corio (Mr Scholes) said on this matter. I do not think that what we have done so far in the field of migrant education is anywhere near enough or has had real impact on the situation. I say that as one who is concerned with education, who is associated with the local schools in my electorate and who knows something of the subject, because each recess of Parliament - whether it is for a week . or longer - I visit as many of the school: as possible and speak to the people who are involved with migrants.

The other point is that questions are being raised as to whether migration is causing inflation or unemployment or overfull employment. I am sure that none of us knows the answer to that question. The answer will be found only by an appropriate inquiry. In my own mind I have the feeling that if we suddenly reduce the intake of migrants we might create unemployment; that in fact the pressures (hat immigration creates might well be some of those that have created full employment. But I do not know. I have no dogmatic viewpoint on it. The other matter that has been raised continuously is this question of people who do not happen to be born with the same coloured skin as ourselves. As I see the Australian migration system, it has a very fine filter. One does not get into Australia unless one has been through the system and has been thoroughly examined somewhere along the line. I do not necessarily agree with some of the examinations, but the fact is that one just cannot come from anywhere in the world-perhaps with the exception of New Zealand and possibly to a certain extent Britain- and choose to live in Australia. Whether one comes from Italy, Greece or Asia one is examined very carefully. My own view is that the system ought to be such that if a person from any country applies for entry to Australia his application should be considered on its merits. It is as simple as that. I have no preference one way or the other about quotas. I simply put- this to all those people who have some doubts about what might be called coloured migration.

Let my friend the honourable member for Denison whom I would have thought ought to have been a Liberal man with his background and so on answer this question for ne: We bring to Australia people from all ever Europe. Some of them are closely ali:red with us. There is not much difference between ourselves and British people but the only affinity between ourselves and most Turks is the colour of our skin In religion, in political view, in social habit, in attitude to their women - ‘the sub.jection of their women - in their skills and in their language, they have no affinity whatsoever with us. The children are found wandering around the school yards in Moreland and Brunswick where the parents have dropped them on the way to work. They know not a word of English and nobody at the school knows a word of their language. These poor little people hays to be rescued and put in the class room in an effort to do something for then.

These people come into the community and do not cause any real disruption. But let Us take the case of some of my friends from Papua New Guinea or from India - people whose resemblance to and affinity with us are almost absolute. Their English, their religion, their political views, their political background, their education and their skills are as like ours as they can be. But their difference is the colour of their skin. I just do not believe that within the Australian community that single disaffinity is enough to create great social discord. I have been around the world and I know what has happened. So what I am asking is this: Will somebody tell me why a person who has as much affinity with us as has one of our friends from Papua New Guinea is more different from us than is the person who has come from, say, Turkey and is different from us in every regard?

I believe that we are paying the Australian nation a very great uncompliment if that is the word. We are placing upon the members of the Australian community a set of values which I do not think they hold when we say that it is not possible for them to accommodate in their midst people who are different to this degree. Usually, if many people are poured in who are totally different in such a way that they cause dissatisfaction because of their way of life or because their behaviour is poor, that will cause dissatisfaction whether they are black, white or brown, or whether they are Liberal, Labor, Catholic or Protestant. I wish that all those people who are worrying about this matter would take a good look at their neighbours and say: ‘What is wrong with them that I could not trust them to live with people like this as I would myself?’

A couple of years back we let our house to an Indian family. They were the first Indians in the street and in the community. They were completely enchanted with the welcome they received. If there were hundreds of them, perhaps the situation would be different. I do not know. I do not see why it should be. Yesterday and today I have heard speeches - particularly from the members of the Country Party - which have been an insult to every person in Australia who does not happen to have a white skin; and there are 100,000 Aborigines to start with. I personally believe that the migration system has shown that the Australian community has a great absorptive capacity, a great tolerance and a great resilience. There are 26 young people in the matriculation form at the Coburg High School alone, which is only a few yards from my electorate, and when they turn up on speech night and whip off half the prizes they receive a good resounding cheer from the multitude.

Mr Kennedy:

– New Australians?

Mr BRYANT:

– They come from Asia and places like that. I believe that many of the attitudes expressed by those people who doubt the capacity of the Australian people to be tolerant and understanding are quite unworthy of us. Howeover, I sympathise with all these people who do not want to open the floodgates. It is not our intention to open any floodgates. Even under the previous Minister for Immigration the administration of that Department was pretty good. In fact, it was very restrictive in many respects. I believe that the time has come for a proper evaluation of all the things that come under the heading of immigration, and that that will be achieved only if we do it in a bi-partisan way as a result of a committee of inquiry, as we have advocated here this evening.

Mr CALDER:
Northern Territory

– In discussing the estimates for the Department of Immigration, owing to the lateness of the hour I will not mention many of the figures which I intended to mention. I will refer to the approach to immigration of the Leader of the Australian Labor Party. (Mr Whitlam). Speaking in Perth last weekend, he attacked the Minister for Immigration (Dr Forbes) who was not in Australia. He complained that there had not been a full scale debate on immigration policy for the last 5i years. Until the sacking of his shadow Minister, the honourable member for Grayndler. (Mr Daly) it could be said that we did have a bipartisan immigration policy. We certainly do not have it now. I would suggest that item If) of the 1971 policy determined by the Australian Labor Party Conference in Launceston was included in the platform expressly to give concern to the honourable member for Grayndler. I think it was specially introduced by the Leader of the Australian Labor Party and the Leader of the South Australian Labor Party to be aimed directly at the honourable member for Grayndler. That is what it was all about.

While stating that its immigration policy shall be administered with the avoidance of discrimination on any ground of race, or colour or nationality, the same Labor Party Conference adopted a policy to advise Australian mothers to limit their families. I ask: Who is really the best type of migrant- or with whom is it most desirable to build the Australian population? The answer is children born in Australia of parents living in Australia. These are the best people with whom to populate Australia. They can be the children of migrants who have settled in Australia. Surely it is better to retain control of immigration as this Government has done, to be able to draw back the numbers of migrants rather than to be confronted with a flood of people over which there can be no control concerning race, colour of skin or nationality. The Acting Minister for Immigration (Senator Cotton) has said that there have been applications for 50,000 Indians to enter Australia. If the policy of the Australian Labor Party were implemented little could be done to stop the flow of these people, so with 50,000 Indians coming into Australia - or 50,000 migrants of any nationality - they, their spouses and children would represent 100,000 to 150,000 people.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Mr Drury) - Order! There are far too many interjections. The honourable member for; the Northern Territory is entitled to be heard in silence.

Mr CALDER:

– As I said, an application, has been made to enable the entry of 50,000 Indians to Australia. This is more than the number of migrants allowed for this year. Yet, at this time, Australians have been asked by the Labor Party to curtail their families. Surely the policy of the Australian Labor Party could act directly against Australia’s interests.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN- Order! I ask the honourable member to resume his seat. I have just asked honourable members to refrain from interjecting. The time is late. The honourable member is entitled to be heard. Other honourable members are wishing lo speak. I ask the Committee to co-operate and allow the . honourable member for the Northern Territory to be heard in accordance with the Standing Orders.

Mr CALDER:

– 1 thank you, Mr Deputy. Chairman, for your restraint of members of . the Opposition. Many thousands of migrants already are living happily in Australia and the immigration policy of the . Labor Party would operate directly against them. They would be gravely disadvantaged by that policy. Last Sunday in Perth when the Leader of the Australian Labor Party was asked what he would do to administer his policy he said: ‘Don’t ask. me that’. What kind of a policy is the. Labor Party’s policy? What kind of a Leader, is the Labor Party Leader? I leave the answers to honourable members to determine.

Friday, 29 October 1971

Mr COHEN:
Robertson

– This evening I think we have witnessed the lowest point in the gradual; decline of the Liberal Party. Tonight it hitrock bottom. Its members gave a disgusting exhibition of racism at its very worst. That is an illustration of how desperate they are for an issue. This falling, disintegrated rabble has suddenly discovered , that it can work on the latent and dormant prejudices in our community and build, them up into an issue.

Mr Keogh:

– They are looking for an issue on which to fight an election.

Mr COHEN:

– Like every other issue, it will disappear. There is no longer any great fear of a threat from the north and there is no longer any Communist bogey with which to belt the Australian Labor Party, so they are looking for an issue. They thought they had one going for them when the Sprinkbok tour was on because they thought they could play on the prejudices in the community. When the tour folded they suddenly discovered immigration. Where are all the great small T liberals about whom we hear so much and who are pontificating around the countryside? I refer to members such as the Minister for Customs and Excise (Mr Chipp) who pretends that he is a great reformer in the Liberal Party. Where were they when we heard exhibitions such as the one we heard from the Minister for Housing (Mr Kevin Cairns) and other speakers? These are people who say that they can communicate with the modem generation - the youth of today who are dropping out of society because of their alienation from it. Why have they not spoken? Why have members such as the honourable member for Berowra (Mr Hughes) not spoken? We hear that he is a small T liberal. I think that is the term being used. These are the people from whom we are told will spring new liberalism. Let us look at the Government’s policy. The Government is trying to smear the Labor Party by alleging that it would open the flood gates. In the last 2 years the Government has permitted into this country 20,000 migrants of mixed or non-European blood. Let us do a little arithmetic. What is the Government’s policy? The Government proposes to let in 10,000 a year for the next 30 years. My arithmetic puts the total at about 300,000 coloured migrants. They will have children. I understand that they multiply at an enormous rate. If one does a little arithmetic one sees that the Government’s policy is to have a non-European population content of 500,000 immigrants by the year 2000. If the Government wants gradually to increase the rate, which I understand it does, we can talk in terms of 750,000. Does the Government want to fight an election on that policy? Does it want to see the headlines The Liberals will allow 500,000 coloured migrants’, because that is what it has asked for this evening? It wants an election fought on racist issues. It will get that if it keeps this up. The Government knows that. The Minister at the table, the Minister for Labour and National Service (Mr Lynch), and the Minister for Customs and Excise, who is sitting behind him, know that. Why has the Minister for Customs and Excise not said anything while his small ‘f Fascists have been speaking tonight? He knows the danger to this country, as do many of the more responsible Ministers, if this kind of election issue gets out of hand.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Mr Drury) - Order! I suggest that the honourable member address his remarks to the Chair.

Mr COHEN:

- Mr Deputy Chairman. I am sorry, I did not know that you were listening.

Mr Chipp:

– I take a point of order. Mr Deputy Chairman, do you intend to permit this smart-Alick to make smart-Alick remarks like that? Did you hear what he said to you? I would suggest that you ask him to withdraw that remark .

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN- Order! If the honourable member imputed that the Chair was not listening I ask him to withdraw that remark. .

Mr COHEN:

– I withdraw. Mr Deputy Chairman. I did not know that you took instructions from the Minister.

Mr Chipp:

– I take a further point of order. There was a further reflection on the Chair in the last remark of the honourable member for Robertson. I ask him to withdraw it.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN - Order! I ask the honourable member to withdraw that reflection on the Chair.

Mr COHEN:

– I will withdraw the reflection.

Mr Reynolds:

– 1 take a point of order.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN- Order! Only one member is entitled to be on his feet. I have asked the honourable member for Robertson to withdraw a remark.

Mr Reynolds:

– He has withdrawn that remark.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN- Order! I ask the honourable member for Barton to resume his seat. I ask the honourable member for Robertson to withdraw the reflection on the Chair.

Mr COHEN:

– I did.

Mr Reynolds:

– I rise to order. Mr Deputy Chairman, I take it that you are quite competent, without any initiative from any Minister or anyone else on your side, to make a determination on whether a statement is a reflection on the Chair.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN- Order! There is no substance in the point of order. I suggest that the honourable member resume his scat.

Mr COHEN:

– I hope that the Government will come to its senses, because the last thing I would like to see in this country is a racist election. I would hate it and deplore it. I hope that honourable members on the Government side will rethink what they have said tonight. I think I am right in saying that 12 months ago I was probably one of the first in this Parliament to question immigration. I asked the Prime Minister of the day, Mr Gorton, a question about it, and at that time he said he was shocked to hear that a member of the Labor Party was questioning immigration. I think I made what was a fairly balanced speech on the Budget and I think at that time nobody took much notice of what I was saying. In the last 12 months the whole of our community has been questioning immigration. We have not said categorically that immigration is bad. What we asked for last year was that it be looked at. What we are asking for now is that there be a breathing space so that we can have another look at where we are going in immigration.

I think one of the best contributions made this evening was that made by the honourable member for Prospect (Dr Klugman) because he sees the weaknesses and the strengths in immigration. Perhaps I became a bit emotional earlier, but I have sat here and listened to some of the most insulting remarks about the Labor Party that I have heard. I have listened to some of the most gross distortions of our policy. Honourable members opposite have managed to take a policy that I believe is balanced and sensible and exploit it for political purposes. It is a moderate approach towards immigration. My view is that there will be probably not a great deal between that policy and the present policy of the Government, but honourable members opposite have exploited our policy for political purposes. To me that is a very grubby approach to a very sensitive and highly emotional question.

Mr LYNCH:
Minister for Labour and National Service · Flinders · LP

– This, I believe, is not a matter for political exploitation as mentioned by the honourable member for Robertson (Mr Cohen), nor do I believe that this Government has sought to exploit this matter for political reasons. In fact there has been on this side of the chamber no attempt to exploit the issue for purely political purposes. I would remind members of the Opposition, who obviously are very sensitive about this matter, that if the issue to which they have referred and to which the honourable member for . Robertson specifically referred is an issue in the Australian community today, it is an issue only because there has emerged in the ranks of the Opposition very deep and persisting divisions in relation to its policy towards it. That is not a secret in this Parliament. It is not a secret in the Australian community. I put it to the Opposition that it is a matter of fact .and a matter of record.

Of course, on this issue there are deep divisions between the honourable member for Grayndler (Mr Daly) and the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Whitlam), and it was those divisions which led to the dismissal as shadow Minister for Immigration of the honourable member for Grayndler, a man who has been described by his leader in this Parliament as one of the best informed men on immigration. The leader of the Australian Labor Party in fact said of the honourable member for Grayndler, in relation to immigration, that one could not fault him on that subject.

Mr Keogh:

– I rise to a point of order. Would the Minister like to tell the Committee why he was dismissed by his leader and replaced as Minister for Immigration?

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Mr Drury) - Order! There is no substance in the point of order. The honourable member will resume his seat.

Mr LYNCH:

– One does not really need to spell out this matter in detail because the interjections and points of order which have been taken by the Opposition reveal the divisions to which we have drawn attention. I put to the Opposition the Government’s view, which I believe can be. most properly sustained on any reasonable basis. It is that this matter is a question of some importance to the Australian community and that the policy of the Opposition should, in fact, be clarified. It has not been clarified tonight because we have been subjected from the Opposition to a series of prepared and set speeches which have been submitted in a sense of unreality because they have sought deliberately to neglect the issues which have been involved. The honourable member for Grayndler tonight has given one of the safest speeches which have ever been delivered in this House. I congratulate the honourable gentlemen for his dexterity, but I must at the same time observe with a sense of disappointment that he has not been prepared to make in this House the points which 1 believe he very cogently made in recent Labor Party caucus meetings in the last couple of days.

Turning to the amendment before the Chair, there is in the view of the Government no need for a joint select committee to inquire into the Government’s immigration policies. The Government’s achievements in the field of immigration are a matter of record. Indeed, at the last Australian Citizenship Convention the Leader of the Opposition paid public tribute to ‘the efficiency and humanity of the Department of Immigration under a succession of able Ministers’. However, there has been in recent times some misunderstanding - I hesitate to use the word misrepresentation’ - of the Government’s immigration policies and programmes. Let me therefore repeat what has been said on previous occasions, that Australia is not obsessed with economic growth, that we do not seek power through population and we do not seek growth for growth’s sake. The Government’s policies relate instead to the broader national objectives to which these policies contribute. Immigration cannot and must not be viewed in isolation. It is directed towards our major national objectives through its influence on the size and structure of our population. It is not, of course, the only’ component of population change, the others being births, deaths and emigration. The social, economic and demographic effects of these different components of population change vary quite substantially and changes in the size or structure of the immigration programme cannot entirely offset the effects of changes in the other factors. The particular importance of immigration lies in the fact that, of all the elements of population change, it is the one most effectively influenced by Government action.

I want to say tonight that the Government has in the national interest adopted the broadest possible approach in formulating immigration policies and in giving effect to those policies through annual immigration programmes. It has developed extremely comprehensive consultative machinery on all aspects ot immigration. I will not spell these but because of the question of time. I do not want to stress that Government sponsorship of research into various aspects pf immigration dates back for more than a decade. In 1970, three far-reaching new measures were taken. I refer to the investigation into desirable future population levels for AusTalia, to the cost benefit analysis which is being undertaken at the University of Sydney, and to the study of the experiences of 10,000 migrants during their early years in Australia. These ‘ are imaginative and far-reaching initiatives, but they form only part of a quite impressive body of research applied or in progress throughout Australia into the various aspects of immigration. The Australian National University has just published a bibliography and digest which constitutes impressive evidence of the scope and depth of research into immigration to Australia. This is in sharp contrast with the claim by the Leader of the Opposition that so little information is available and so little research has been undertaken.

It is for this reason that the Government does not believe that it would be appropriate at this time to establish a formal committee of this Parliament to undertake research until the various initiatives which have been taken show positive results. But the Government will continue as it has in the past consistently and successfully to review its annual immigration programmes, to relate those programmes to Australia’s needs, the availability of suitable settlers and our capacity to integrate them on arrival here. Despite what has been said tonight by Opposition membersI stress that our immigration programmes are not rigidly conceived, mathematically calculated and solidly pursued. They are responsive to changing circumstances. They have been so reviewed during the course of this year. The Minister for Immigration (Dr Forbes) will continue that process of review as circumstances may continue to change in future years.

I will not comment on the question of the non-European policy which has been mentioned on both sides of the Committee, except to say in a quite reasonable way to the Opposition that if the Opposition believes that its policy is misrepresented it should take the opportunity to spell that policy out clearly with a sense of detail which has been lacking in every contradictory utterance which has come forward from the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Whitlam), the honourable member for Grayndler, the Premier of South Australia, the shadow Minister for Immigration or the right honourable member for Melbourne (Mr Calwell). It is completely absurd for the Opposition to seek to provide some facade of unity on an issue which, as the Australian community recognises, shows deep division within the ranks of the Labor Party and shows that its policy can be described simply as the complete opposite of what ought to be the policy pursued by the alternative government of this country. The Government rejects completely the terms in which the amendment is moved.

Question put:

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

The Committee divided. (The Deputy Chairman - Mr E. N. Drury)

AYES: 40

NOES: 47

Majority .. .. 7

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative ,

Proposed expenditure agreed to.

Progress reported.

page 2785

ADJOURNMENT

Overseas Investment in Australia: Land Sales - Civil Aviation - Prime Minister

Motion (by Mr Swartz) proposed:

That the House do now adjourn.

Mr GRASSBY:
Riverina

– I rise to ask the Minister for National Development (Mr Swartz) to refer to the Attorney-General (Senator Greenwood) . 2 specific matters. 1 understand the AttorneyGeneral has already been requested to report upon the propriety or otherwise of the activities of Sir William Gunn in the promotion of a company to sell parts of northern Australia, particularly in the United States. The Acting Prime Minister (Mr Anthony) stated that there had been a report which indicated that Australians would now be able to make application for shares in that company. The question I pose in relation to that matter is: Has the investigation which was to be undertaken by the Attorney-General been completed? If so, when can we have a full report of that investigation?

I would also like to have, concurrently with that investigation into the activities of Sir William Gunn in relation to the disposal of land in northern Australia, the investigation of other matters. I ask the Minister for National Development to ask the Attorney-General to investigate another 2 instances of the disposal of Australian land. I refer particularly to a reference which was made to Australia in a Hong Kong newspaper recently. I have with me a copy of the ‘SCM Post’ of Hong Kong containing an advertisement which reads in very large type:

NOW- Australia Land Corp. invites you to invest in big rich resort properly for less than 2cUS per sq ft.

Mr Hurford:

– Where was that published?

Mr GRASSBY:

– This is published in the ‘SCM Post’ of Hong Kong. I have here a cutting from that newspaper. It goes on to read:

page 2786

YOU OWE IT TO YOURSELF TO GET THE FACTS . .

Offered By Growth International Realty of Hong Kong Lid. Exclusive Sales Agents For

page 2786

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN LAND CORPORATION

(A Safeguard Industries Corp. - American Stock Exchange)

There is also a coupon attached to this advertisement. It reads:

Please send me- without obligation - illustrated brochure showing outstanding features of modern Australia, and information on how I can invest in big rich Australian acreage, with low down and low monthly investments.

It would seem from an examination of that advertisement in that Hong Kong newspaper that there is situated in Hong Kong a company which is listed on the United States Slock Exchange and which is selling parts of Austraila. I ask that the AttorneyGeneral be requested to investigate the propriety of the advertisement and the offers it makes, and indeed the whole of the exercise. I also draw attention to the fact that Dr Brian Rodan of Mildura recently received from the United States information about a similar series of advertisements which have appeared in Sunday newspapers in’ California. As staled in Dr Rodan’s letter, the advertisements in the Californian newspapers read, in part: . . now is the time to grab up large chunks of Australian land to hold for a while and then sell later at a nice fat profit.

I am sure that it gives grave offence to all of us to have this sort of advertisement appearing in the United States, Hong Kong or anywhere else. I submit that the propriety of these advertisements, the companies

Which are operating and the offers is a matter which should be investigated. I ask the Minister whether he will make a reference to the Attorney-General along the lines requested by the honourable member for Berowra (Mr Hughes) in relation to Sir William Gunn. I ask the Minister to examine the information which I will make available to him at the conclusion of the adjournment debate. I ask him to examine the advertisement to see whether it is proper for companies which are incorporated in this way to advertise in this way the sale, of Australian assets and land.

Mr GRASSBY:

– I am asked whether I will table the advertisement. I will hand it to the Minister for National Development (Mr Swartz) so that he may refer it to the Attorney-General as quickly as possible.

Mr Killen:

– Table it.

Mr GRASSBY:

– Would the honourable member like me to do that now? At the conclusion of my remarks I shall do just that. Is that satisfactory to the Minister?

Mr Swartz:

– The honourable member can table the advertisement.

Mr Foster:

– Ask for permission to incorporate it in Hansard.

Mr GRASSBY:

– If there is any difficulty about the matter, I ask for permission to incorporate the 2 references in Hansard in toto,

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

-Is leave granted?

Mr Swartz:

– No.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

– Leave is not granted.

Mr GRASSBY:

– As I have only 2 or 3 minutes left, I shall hand the advertisement to the Minister at the conclusion of the debate. 1 am sure that he knows precisely what to do with it. There is another matter to which I would like to refer briefly. It relates to the 138 pilots to be retrenched by Qantas Airways Ltd. I have in the Riverina electorate a very fine young second officer who came to Parliament House yesterday to say that he is one of the 138 pilots who have received retrenchment notices. He indicated that the pilots had examined the possibility of charter operation. In fact they have made submissions which would indicate that if Qantas entered into charter operations in a competitive and proper way the 138 pilots would not be retrenched because an additional 604 pilots would be needed.

I am not in a position to comment on the operations of Qantas in that way, but a very careful and precise paper has been prepared by those retrenched pilots. It indicates 8 causes for dismissal. I list the 3 principal causes, which are: Failure of the market to expand at the predicted rate; increased competition; and the incursion of charter companies into traditional markets, lt is well known that many Australians are flying to Singapore and changing to charter nights. They are taking advantage of arrangements made by other governments and other airlines. I rise tonight to draw attention to the fact that we have 138 very fine and well trained young Australians - some of them from my electorate - who would like to continue in the flying service. They feel that there are alternatives to retrenchment. Indeed, they suggest that the total operation should be re-examined with a view to embracing the charter service operations which, alone among the countries with overseas airlines, we seem reluctant to enter, pr to embrace. Again I draw this matter to the attention of the Parliament in a preliminary way and ask the Minister whether he would refer it to the Minister for Civil Aviation (Senator Cotton) because it is a matter which touches on, apart from general Government policy, 138 young Australians who desire to keep flying.

Mr DALY:
Grayndler

– It is not like me to keep the House at this late hour of the night but a most remarkable document has reached me and for it to reach me today under the present Government shows that it must be an extraordinary document and worth reading to the House. It is entitled ‘Biographical Notes (Issued by the Office of the Press Secretary)’ and is spread over 3 pages. It is rather extensive. It is headed ‘The Prime Minister of Australia, the Rt Hon. William McMahon, M.P.’ The first paragraph says:

William McMahon became Prime Minister of Australia on 10th March 197 1, after he had been elected Leader of the Parliamentary Liberal Party. 1 suppose we could add that he was relucttantly dragged to the throne on that occasion; coming from the shadows, as it were, almost unknown. As 1 read this biography, and I will read it to the House shortly but not at great length, it seems to me to be the sort of public relations exercise which might be produced not for the Prime Minister of Australia but for somebody like the Imam of Oman or the President of the- Maldive Islands at the United Nations, if he had turned up to vote. The document continues:

The elevation to the Prime Ministership was a notable achievement for William McMahonsoldier, barrister, economist and Parliamentarian.

It says he is an economist. I suppose the justification for saying that he is an economist is that he is a Bachelor of Economics. On that basis no doubt any Bachelor of Arts is entitled to describe himself as an artist - some of them are and some are not. It goes on to say:

During 22 years in the Parliament, Mr McMahon has won recognition as a vigorous, forthright man with the determination and the ability to get things done.

But honourable members will agree that he takes his time over it. This is an intriguing article. The most interesting event that has occurred in this Parliament in many a day is that for the first time since

Sir John Mc Ewen retired he appeared here today like a ghost from the past. The minute the Prime Minister disappears, in walks his arch enemy, the man who deprived him of the Prime Ministership in 1968. The young Leader of the Country Party (Mr Anthony) is Acting Prime Minister. The old war horse of the Country Party has come back today - on cue, mind you - the minute the Leader of the Liberal Party has turned his back. How the ghosts of the Liberal Party walk! This remarkable article goes on to say:

He has brought to the Prime Ministership a comprehensive background of Parliamentary and Ministerial experience in both the domestic and external fields.

If these qualifications exist he is keeping them remarkably well hidden. It continues:

Mr McMahon first entered the Australian Parliament when he was elected to the House of Representatives for the New South Wales seat of Lowe in 1949.

He would have to get in for a start, would he not? It continues:

He was re-elected in 1951, 1954, 1955, 1958. 1961, 1963, 1966 and 1969.

One can imagine how the Press corps of Washington and London will be agog at this news that the Prime Minister of Australia actually won re-election when Sir Robert Menzies decided to hold an election. What a triumph it is for the Prime Minister to hold his seat over all these elections. I can see it headlined in the New York ‘Times’, the Washington ‘Post’, the London ‘Times’, and the Manchester ‘Guardian’ that the Prime Minister of Australia has actually been re-elected. It is really historic. This continues right through this lengthy document - 3 pages of it - which time does not permit me to read. The Prime Minister has been everything. I notice he is an economist and I understand that he was a top man in that field; that is one of his qualifications. But my information is that the honourable member for St George (Mr Morrison) was top of the class that year so, working in reverse, the honourable member for St George should have the job that the Prime Minister has at the present time. The article mentions the delegations the Prime Minister led which include those to the Economic Commission for Asia and the Far East Conference at Bangkok, the Asian and Pacific Council Conference, the Conference of Foreign Ministers, the

South East Asia Treaty Organisation Conference - according to this article about the only thing of which he is not. patron is the Girl Guides. Association. Then we go further down the list and we- .notice that another remarkable thing was, that he was born. You know, this document really gets to the bottom, of things. It states that Mr William McMahon was born in. Sydney. He would have to start somewhere and Sydney is as good a place as anywhere 1 suppose. I will not give his age because I, too, am a bit sensitive about my age. The publication then states that the Prime Minister took his law degree-r-he has taken a lot since. It also states that he practised as a solicitor wilh Allen, Allen and Hemsley, one of the oldest law firms. The only thing one can say about that is that he has been more successful than the honourable member for Berowra (Mr Hughes) - if not. at law, elsewhere.

I can remember one thing that has been left out of this document. The Prime Minister on one occasion was the Minister for Primary Industry. It was said in the Parliament at the time that it was remarkable that the Australian Country Party evidently did not have a farmer in its ranks otherwise why would its members have agreed to the appointment of the Minister for Primary Industry from the seat of Lowe in Sydney. My information was that he had a plastic hose, a canary and a geranium and they made him Minister for Primary Industry. Now they can talk about the Country Party not liking him, but that is what they had him wrung out for. Although the Country Party was made up of all of those great farmers, they could not beat that old Kings Cross farmer at that time. As I run down through the list of what the Prime Minister has done I reckon that the only thing he has not done is win the Melbourne Cup because nearly everything is on this list. The Prime Minister has been to America; he has been to Sydney. He did a course in economics for 2 years. We are told that he is a man in a hurry. The document points out that he did a 4 year course in 2 years. I heard it said in this Parliament once that to make it a bit more difficult he sat for his examinations twice.

What a remarkable document this is. How the United Nations will sit up and take notice. How delighted Nixon will be when the messenger puts that document in front of him and says: ‘Sit up straight brother, he will be here shortly and stand up when he enters’. Can honourable members imagine this? I do not think that a lawyer could have written this document. No, a lawyer could not have written it because it would have cost too much. I am happy to say that the last part of the document has a very happy ending - he married. We all know that he married a very nice lady and that he has a daughter and a son. Is that not a lovely ending to a lovely letter? The document starts by stating that he was born, goes on to state that he had a great record and concludes by stating that he is married. So now honourable members know the history of the Prime Minister of Australia.

I wonder whether this type of document will be formulated for everybody who goes overseas. I wonder whether every Prime Minister will take with him a document such as this. It is no wonder that the Prime Minister has gone for 3 weeks. It would take the people who he is visiting a week to read all about him when he gets to his various destinations. It is just as well the document was sent to America in advance because Nixon would need a couple of days to read it. Mr Acting Speaker, I hate to delay the House at this time, but it is nice to know about the product compiled by the Prime Minister’s Press Secre tary and the office of the Prime Minister. Now I know why the Prime Minister’s Press Secretary gets more money than a member of Parliament It is for the simple reason that one would have to take a lot of time and use a lot of energy to formulate such a document. However, it is nice to know about the man who leads the nation.

I believe that this document is one that should be put on the record. It is a remarkable document. As I have said, it states that the Prime Minister was born, married and is happy ever after. It states that he is qualified in economics; a man in a hurry. I would imagine that the Minister for Social Services (Mr Wentworth), who is in the chamber at the moment, is somewhat envious of this record. It is the kind of thing that the Minister would write and enjoy. Knowing his close association with the Prime Minister I think that he had a little to do with this document. Nevertheless I give that message to the House and I thank honourable members for their courtesy in listening to me.

Mr Kennedy:

– I want to raise–

Motion (by Mr Giles) agreed to:

That the question be now put

Original question resolved in the affirmative.

House adjourned at 12.49 a.m. (Friday)

page 2790

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS UPON NOTICE

The following answers to questions upon notice were circulated:

Government Aircraft Factory and Commonwealth Aircraft Corporation (Question No. 4353)

Mr Garland:
Minister for Supply · CURTIN, WESTERN AUSTRALIA · LP

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

It is considered that there is scope for rationalising activities in the Defence aircraft industry, particularly in relation to the operations of the Government Aircraft Factories and Commonwealth Aircraft Corporation Pty Ltd which ere situated alongside - each other at Fishermen’s Bend.

The aim would be to. achieve a more effective organisation, which would be in the long-term interests of those working in the. industry.

An in-depth study of the practicability of a merger of the 2 organisations is now in progress. The study is a complex one and, in relation to personnel, encompasses such questions as those asked.

The rights and interestsof all persons involved in any rationalisation scheme will be a major consideration in the subsequent discussions which must ensue in determiningthe future form of the Industry at Fishermen’sBend.

Commonwealth Cars (Question No. 4195)

Mr Barnard:

asked the Minister for Supply, upon notice:

  1. What has been the average mileage travelled by Commonwealth cars each year since 1949.
  2. What has been the average cost per vehicle of spare parts used for repairs to Commonwealth cars each year since 1949.
  3. If this information is not available for each year since 1949, would be provide it for those years for which it is available.
  4. If the information is not available for any of the years, would he ensure that in future appropriate records are kept to provide this measure of motoring costs per mile.
Mr Garland:
LP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question, in so far as vehicles operated by the Department of Supply are concerned, is as follows:

  1. No statistics are held of the average mileage travelled by Commonwealth cars each year prior to 1968-69, nor can these figures be compiled now as vehicle history cards are destroyed 12 months after disposal of the vehicles. Average mileages for the last 3 years are as follows:
  1. Statistics are not compiled in respect of the average cost per vehicle of spare parts for Commonwealth cars. Average costs per vehicle mile of repair and maintenance, i.e. including parts and labour but excluding petrol and oil, tyres and tubes, for the last 3 years are as follows:
  1. See answers (1) and (2). .
  2. It is considered that the statistics now compiled provide sufficient measure of motoring costs per mile, bearing in mind the cost which would be involved in compiling additional statistics.

Canberra Hospital: Emission of Smoke (Question No. 3433)

Mr Enderby:

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

  1. Are any plans being considered to control or reduce the excessive smoke which sometimes issues from the chimney of the Canberra Community Hospital.
  2. If not, will he ensure that steps are taken to reduce this excessive emission.
Mr Swartz:
LP

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

  1. and (2) Yes. Considerable structural alterations and modifications axe now being carried out at Canberra Hospital. These include the conversion of the existing coal fired boilers to oil firing and the installation of an additional oil fired boiler. This will enable a greater control of combustion than exists at present and should almost eliminate the emission of smoke from the boilers. It will also alleviate the added loading to the existing coal fired boilers which occurs during maintenance periods when excessive smoke could occur.

In addition ways of disposing of hospital waste other than by incineration are being explored.

Medical Practitioners (Question No. 3459)

Mr Hayden:

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

  1. What estimated proportion of general practitioners in private practice participate in the (a) pensioner medical service, (b) repatriation services and (c) systems of workers’ compensation controlled by (i) the Commonwealth and (ii) the States.
  2. What are the main reasons for nonparticipation given by those who do not participate.
Mr Swartz:
LP

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

  1. (a) and (b) Precise figures as to the number of general practitioners in private practice in Australia are not available. However, ohe recent estimate is 7,376. At 30th June 1971 there were 6,617 doctors enrolled in the Pensioner Medical Service (89.7 per cent of the estimate) and 6,206 (84.1 per cent) had been appointed as Local Medical Officers by the Repatriation Department.

A medical practitioner acting as locum tenens or who is an assistant in a medical practice is not required to enrol in the Pensioner Medical Service if the principal of the practice is an enrolled doctor. A similar position exists in regard to a locum tenens or an assistant in a medical practice where the principal is appointed as a Local Medical Officer by the Repatriation Department. The actual numbers of doctors providing services under the Pensioner Medical Service or under Repatriation Local Medical Officers Scheme are therefore in excess of the figures quoted and the percentages correspondingly higher.

  1. This information is not available. The necessary medical expenses of an eligible employee are met under the provisions of the various workers’ compensation legislation by the employer, generally through insurance. Medical practitioners in general render the necessary treatment in -workers’ compensation cases without the need to enrol or register in a particular manner. - (2) Participation by medical practitioners in the Pensioner Medical - Service and the Repatriation

Local Medical Officer Scheme is entirely voluntary and non-participants are not required to state their reasons for electing not to enrol.

Pensioner Medical Service (Question No. 3482)

Mr Hayden:

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

Can the Minister say what amount of additional finance would have had to be provided by the Commonwealth Government in each of the) last 10 years if, under the pensioner medical service, medical practitioners were remunerated in each State at the most common fee prevailing in that State.

Mr Swartz:
LP

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

The estimated additional cost to the Commonwealth is as follows:

Mileage payments for home visits have been excluded in calculating the above estimates.

Industrial Unrest (Question No. 3529)

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

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

  1. Has his attention been drawn to the comments made by the Industrial Registrar during a seminar held at the University of New England in May 1971 that short-term industrial agreements superimposed on the awards of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission and endorsed by the ACTU or a Trades and Labour Council may well be the device used In the 1970s to reduce industrial unrest.
  2. Does the Government agree with the Registrar’s prognosis; if so, what plans are intended to provide statutory accommodation for the anticipated trend.
Mr Lynch:
LP

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

  1. I have rioted the comments referred to by the honourable member. The Industrial Registrar made these comments In an address to a conference of the Royal Institute of Public Administration at Thredbo in May 1970 and copies of the address were subsequently distributed at the University of New. England residential seminar in May 1971.
  2. The honourable member will be aware that the operation of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act is currently under review by a tripartite group comprising representatives of the Australian Council of Trade Unions, the Australian Council of Salaried and Professional Associations, the Council of Commonwealth Public Service Organisations, the National Employers’ Policy Committee and the Government. The Government is also making a comprehensive review of the Act. On the completion of these reviews the Government will determine the measures to be taken to improve the effectiveness of our present conciliation and arbitration system.

Employment: Disposition of Work Force (Question No. 3554)

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

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

  1. What percentage of (a) the total workforce and (b) employees in the workforce was employed in (i) agriculture and allied trades, (ii) manufacturing and mining, (iii) building, (iv) commerce, (v) transport and communications and (vi) services, etc., in each of the last 5 years.
  2. Can he give quinquennial statistics of the same particulars since, say, 1930.
Mr Lynch:
LP

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

The Commonwealth Statistician has supplied the following information in reply to the honourable member’s question.

Estimated percentages of (a) total persons in the labour force and (b) employed wage and salary earners, in major industry groups, are shown for February of each of the years 1967 to 1971 in the table below.

  1. Quinquennial statistics of the same particulars are not available but similar figures for each of the census years 1933, 1947, 1954, 1961 and 1966 are given in the next table. Due to changes in the classification of industries at each Census, exact comparisons are not possible; however the effect of these changes on the percentages given is not considered such as to invalidate their general use.

Health: Handicapped Persons (Question No. 3591)

Mr WHITLAM:
WERRIWA, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

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

What steps have been taken, as recommended by the Senate Standing Committee on Health and Welfare in its report tabled on Stb May 1971 on Mentally and Physically Handicapped Persons in Australia, (a) to co-ordinate those functions relating to the health, welfare, education and employment of handicapped persons at present being exercised by the Departments of Health, Social Services, Labour and National Service, Interior, Education and Science and Repatriation, and (b) to collaborate with the States on legislation and services for the handicapped.

Mr Swartz:
LP

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

  1. and (b) Before taking steps as envisaged by the right honourable member it would be necessary for all the recommendations of the Committee, and the factors stated by the Committee that have led to those recommendations to receive close examination. I am arranging for such an examination to be made and I shall subsequently consider the matters raised by the right honourable member in the light of that examination.

Interdepartmental Committees: Drugs (Question No. 3689)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Minister repre senting the Minister for Health, upon notice:

On what dales have there been meetings of the two interdepartmental committees established under the Therapeutic Substances Regulations on 1 February 1956 to consider drugs and therapeutic substances (Hansard, 17th February 1971, page 236).

Mr Swartz:
LP

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

The Regulations establishing these two Committees were repealed on 12 November 1970, the date on which the Therapeutic Goods Act and Regulations were proclaimed. The Committees had not met prior to that date.

Two Committees, with functions similar to the two previous Committees, were established under the Therapeutic Goods Regulations. These Committees (which are not interdepartmental Committees) have not yet met, but are currently being established and should meet early in 1972.

Aboriginal Advancement Trust Account (Question No. 3902)

Mr Morrison:

asked the Minister for the Environment, Aborigines and the Arts, upon notice:

  1. What sum has been (a) allocated and (b) expended from the Aboriginal Advancement Trust Account for additional programmes in the Northern Territory during each of the years 1968-69, 1969-70 and 1970-71.
  2. What sum will be allocated from the Trust Account for this purpose in 1971-72.
Mr Howson:
LP

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

Alice Springs Hospital (Question No. 3953)

Mr Hurford:

asked the Minister representing the Minister Health, upon notice:

Is it a fact that (a) in one particular week in July 1971 the Maternity Ward 2 at Alice Springs Hospital, which is designed to accommodate 14 patients, held 25 patients, (b) as a temporary expedient to meet this situation which will not be finally resolved until the new hospital is completed in 1975-76, a building known as New Ward 3, will be re-opened shortly, (c) to avoid expenditure on staffing, New Ward 3, which is some distance from Maternity Ward 2, is to be opened as an annexe of that ward to avoid salary commitments for an additional senior Sister and that there is no plan otherwise to increase the total nursing establishment to enable the reasonable operation of the additional ward, (d) the staff from the old Ward 3 has been used to open a special isolation ward 7, and this will place unreasonable burdens on already seriously over-taxed senior Sisters, (e) there are only 15 positions for senior Sisters at Alice Springs Hospital, causing such a strain that not more than one can be on leave at any one time, (0 senior Sisters cannot afford to be sick and that their responsibilities are being imposed on junior nursing staff, (g) New Ward 3 has been used for the training of nursing assistants and that the hospital authorities are now forced to shift this training centre to a small building previously used as a store-room by painters and carpenters, (h) the United States community at Alice Springs, the breadwinners of which staff the Pine Gap Space Research facility, have made such representations about inadequate hospital facilities at Alice Springs, that as a result, a medical practitioner appointed and financed by the United States Government is to commence duty at Alice Springs Hospital on about 4th September 1971, (i) the St John’s Ambulance Brigade in Alice Springs, which provides ambulance services for the Alice Springs Hospital on Saturday nights and otherwise attends at sporting fixtures, is facing difficulties in meeting operation and maintenance costs, (j) the Northern Territory Director of Health has refused to recommend the allowance to the Brigade of a subsidy of $50 per month and (k) the St John’s Ambulance Brigade will cease operationif this subsidy is not received within the next few weeks.

Mr Swartz:
LP

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

  1. The number of authorised beds in Maternity Ward 2 at Alice Springs Hospital is 14 adult and 5 baby. The numbers of beds occupied vary from day to day. On 23rd July 1971 there were 23 adult patients and 4 baby patients in this ward.
  2. The question of re-opening New Ward 3 to meet the over-crowding in Maternity Ward 2 is under consideration. The Director of Health, Darwin is currently waiting for an estimate of the cost of the alterations necessary to bring this building to the required standard to care for the type of patients concerned.
  3. If New Ward 3 is re-opened it will become an annexe of Maternity Ward 2 and will accommodate 7 uncomplicated ambulatory patients only. The level of responsibility associated with their care and the small number of patients concerned would not justify an additional position of Senior Sister.
  4. The staff establishment from the old Ward 3 has been used to open Infectious Ward 7 and there has been no change as a result in the work toad of the Senior Sisters.
  5. There are 15 positions of Senior Sister at the Alice Springs Hospital of which 12 are filled on a permanent basis and the remainder provide relief. One position is at present occupied by an officer on study leave. The present number of positions in this category is considered sufficient for the size of the. hospital.
  6. When Senior Sisters are absent on sick or other leave, higher duty allowances are paid to those officers who relieve them.
  7. The building concerned was renovated years ago and has been used since as a medical store. It is airconditioned and one of the best buildings on the hospital site. Consideration is being given to using it as a training centre when necessary alterations are made.
  8. There hare been no representations by the United States community about inadequate facilities at Alice Springs. In the early stages of the Pine Gap project the American authorities offered the Department of Health the services of a surgeon because of the large number of people they were adding to the community. This offer was accepted and the surgeon has now commenced duty.
  9. Yes.
  10. The details necessary for proper consideration to be given to such an application have not yet been received by the Director of Health, Dar win from the St John’s Ambulance Brigade in Alice Springs although Departmental officers have offered to assist in the preparation of an appropriate submission.
  11. It is understood that the St John’s Council in Darwin has made arrangements for a subsidy of $50 per month to enable the Alice Springs Branch to continue operations.

Nursing Care Institutions (Question No. 3973)

Mr Kennedy:

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

  1. In which institutions in the Electoral Division of Bendigo were patients receiving nursing care benefits as at 30th June 1971.
  2. How many patients in each institution were receiving the (a) $2 per day and (b) $5 per day subsidy.
Mr Swartz:
LP

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

  1. Institutions located in the Electoral Division of Bendigo which were approved under the National Health Act for the purpose of payment of Commonwealth Nursing Home Benefits as at 30 June 1971 ; and
  2. The numbers of patients for whom Commonwealth nursing home benefits were being paid on 30 June 1971, at the rates of 82 and $5 a day, respectively, were as follows:

Commonwealth Bank Health Society: Ex Gratia Payments (Question No. 4003)

Mr Whitlam:

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

Why has he not allowed the Commonwealth Bank Health Society to maintain its longstanding practice of making ex . gratia payments to members with low incomes who incur exceptionally heavy medical expenses.

Mr Swartz:
LP

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

The Commonwealth Bank Health Society has not been requested to discontinue the practice of making ex-gratia benefit payments.

The Society rule under which the payments are made is:

Maximum benefits payable will be as set out in these Rules and the Regulations made pursuant to these Rules, provided that, in special cases, at the absolute discretion of the Committee, such maximum benefits may be exceeded’.

With the introduction of the new Medical Benefits Plan from 1st July 1970, the need for such payments has been greatly reduced.

Pharmaceutical Benefits: Supplies by Australian Companies (Question No. 4009)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Minister repre senting the Minister for Health, upon notice:

What percentage of the (a) quantity and (b) value of pharmaceutical benefits were supplied by wholly Australian-owned companies in 1970-71.

Mr Swartz:
LP

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

In 1970-71 wholly Australian-owned companies supplied 9.1 per cent of pharmaceutical benefit prescriptions, representing 7.2 per cent of the cost of the ready prepared items provided as pharmaceutical benefits, the brands of which could be identified.

The brand can only be identified when the doctor specifies the product of a certain manufacturer or when the benefit item is produced by one manufacturer only. Ready prepared prescriptions unidentifiable by brand represent approximately 10.3 per cent of the total number and 9.3 per cent of the total cost of ready prepared benefit items supplied.

Health Advertisements (Standing) Sub-committee (Question No. 4093)

Mr Barnard:

asked the Minister repre senting the Minister for Health, upon notice:

  1. How often has the Health Advertisements (Standing) Sub-committee of the National Health and Medical Research Council met during the past year.
  2. Can this sub-committee recommend changes in health advertisements.
  3. If so, in which health advertisement has it recommended changes during the past year.
  4. What has been the nature of these recommended changes.
  5. Which body has power to enforce these recommendations.
Mr Swartz:
LP

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

  1. This Sub-Committee met twice,on 14th September 1970 and 19th March 1971, and completed its task at the 72nd Session of the National Health and Medical Research Council in May 1971 and it will not meet again.
  2. (3) and (4) The primary task assigned to the Sub-committee was to review and up-date the original guide on advertising of proprietary medicines recommended by Council in 1961 and prepared by a similar Sub-committee. The new guide drawn up by the Sub-committee was accepted by Council at its 72nd Session. Major changes in the guide involve further restrictions on advertising of analgesics and vitamins and the types of professional recommendations permitted. I would be happy to make a copy of the guide available to the honourable member if he so desires.
  3. Under the provisions of the Broadcasting and Television Act 1942-71 the Director-General of Health must approve all advertisements for proprietary medicines on radio and television. Legislation for advertising in other media is the responsibility of the various States; The Australian Media Council exerts a voluntary control over advertisements for proprietary medicines placed in its members’ newpapers.

States Grants (Nursing Homes) (Question No. 4125)

Mr Reynolds:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health upon notice:

  1. What matching grants have been made to each of the States under the States Grants (Nursing Homes) Act 1969.
  2. What funds were available to each State.
  3. What accommodation has been provided in each State.
Mr Swartz:
LP

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

  1. A matching grant of $337,004.26 has been made to Western Australia.

In addition, projects which could attract subsidies under the Act have been approved in Queensland and Tasmania. However these States have not yet claimed reimbursement.

  1. Section5 of the Act provides that the amount available to each State shall not exceed:
  1. Approval has been given to State expenditure which will provide an additional 464 public nursing home beds in the following States:

Public Hospitals: Bed Costs (Question No. 4135)

Mr Kennedy:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health upon notice:

  1. What was the estimated cost’ per bed per day in a public ward of a public hospital in each State and Territory in the last year for which figures are available.
  2. What was the amount paid by the Commonwealth per pensioner per day. .
  3. What was the number of pensioner beddays involved in each State and Territory.
Mr Swartz:
LP

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

  1. The maintenance costs of public hospitals by type of ward are not available to my Depart- ment except in the Northern Territory where all beds are classified as public ward beds.

It is estimated that the daily maintenance costs (including out-patients’ costs) per approved public hospital bed (i.e. approved for payment of Commonwealth hospital benefits) in each of the States and Territories for the year 1968-69, the latest year for which figures are available, were:

  1. $5.
  2. In the financial year 1968-69, the number of pensioner bed-days in each State and Territory were:

Australian Workers Union: Awards (Question No. 4148) Mr Clyde Cameron asked the Minister for Labour and National Service, upon notice:

How many federal awards or agreements apply to members of the Australian Workers’ Union in Queensland.

What is the estimated number of members of the Australian Workers’ Union in Queensland covered by these awards or agreements.

Mr Lynch:
LP

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

  1. I am informed that my Department’s records show that as at 6th October 1971, there were 23 Federal awards and registered agreements to which the Australian Workers Union is respondent and which are expressed to operate in Queensland. However, 1 am informed that as to certain of these there are no employer respondents operating in Queensland at the present time. In one case, the award concerned is a demarcation award.
  2. My, Department is not aware of statistics which would enable an answer to be given to this part of the honourable member’s question.

Hospital Beds: Road Accident Victims (Question No. 4197)

Mr Cohen:

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

Has any survey been made to ascertain what proportion of hospital beds are occupied by the victims of road accidents.

Mr Swartz:
LP

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

I am not aware of any national survey having been carried out solely for the purpose of determining the proportion of hospital beds occupied by the victims of road accidents. On the other hand, data available on patients discharged from certain hospitals in a number of States provides some information on this question:

Of the total bed days provided in public hospitals in Queensland during 1969, 1.5 per cent were for patients with injuries attributed to motor vehicle accidents. The similar figure for public hospitals in Western Australia for 1970 was 3.9 per cent, and that for Tasmania 4.7 per cent; while . in South Australia 4 public hospitals recorded a combined ratio of 5.3 per cent for the 12 months ending 30th June 1970.

As public hospitals generally receive more casualty patients than do private hospitals, the above ratios would be higher than those for all hospitals within the respective States. In the case of South Australia the 4 hospitals, while providing just over one-third of total hospital beds, are estimated to have received at least two-thirds of motor vehicle accident cases requiring hospitalisation during the period.

Similar information is not available in respect of hospitals in New South Wales and Victoria. In these States, details are confined to those patient days which were covered by third party, claims. The resulting ratios, 2.0 per cent in New South Wales for the 12 months ending 30th June 1968 and 3.2 per cent in Victoria for the year ended 30th June 1970, are therefore underestimates to the extent that they exclude casualties from motor vehicle accidents the circumstances of which did not allow for a third party claim.

Engineers (Question No. 4225)

Mr Whitlam:

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

What were the findings of his Department’s survey of the supply of engineers and demand for them.

Mr Lynch:
LP

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

The survey to which the honourable member refers, involved a questionnaire on demand for engineers, sent to all major employers at the beginning of this year, and a questionnaire on current employment and activities sent to all identifiable professional engineers during the middle part of the year.

The results of these surveys are still being analysed by my Department. When a report is completed, I will ensure that a copy is forwarded to the honourable member.

Health Insurance Scheme: Advertising Costs (Question No. 4327)

Dr Klugman:

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

  1. What was the cost of advertising the availability of the subsidised health insurance scheme during the year 1970-71.
  2. What sum was spent on advertising in (a) foreign language newspapers arid (b) foreign language radio programmes.
Mr Swartz:
LP

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

  1. An advertising programme costing $83,000 was carried out through the press, radio and television in July and August of 1970 to help introduce the new Health Benefits Plan. Special mention was made in the press and radio advertisements of the Subsidised Health Benefits Scheme.
  2. No foreign language advertising of the Subsidised Health Benefits Scheme was carried out in 1970-71 because of the short time available for preparation of an advertising campaign between the passage of legislation through Parliament and the commencement in July of the new Health Benefits Plan. However, ‘ during the period December 1969 to March 1970 an advertising programme dealing exclusively with Subsidised Health Benefits was carried out at a total cost of $43,000. This advertising included the placement of display sized advertisements in newspapers published in11 foreign languages and radio advertising in three foreign languages.

Commonwealth Railways (Question No. 4414)

Mr Wallis:
GREY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister for Shipping and Transport, upon notice:

Have Commonwealth Railways had any negotiations with the Broken Hill Pty Co. Ltd at Whyalla seeking guarantees from the Company on its. use of the new railway from Whyalla, for the transport of steel products to markets within Australia, when it is linked to the standard gauge railway at Port Augusta.

Mr Nixon:
CP

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

The Commonwealth Railways have had discussions with the Broken Hill Pty Co. Ltd who have indicated that no firm commitment to rail their products from Whyalla could be given.

However, the Company has consigned significant quantities of steel by rail from Port Augusta, after road haulage from Whyalla, to various parts of Australia.

Postal Department: Overtime (Question No. 4430)

Mr Martin:
BANKS, NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Postmaster-General, upon notice:

What was the cost of overtime (a) inhis Department and (b) in each Division of his Department during the year 1970-71.

Sir Alan Hulme:
LP

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

  1. $38,770,864.

Telephone Services: Complaints (Question No. 4431)

Mr Birrell:
PORT ADELAIDE, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

asked the Postmaster-General, upon notice:

  1. How many telephone subscribers in each State and Territory have made official complaints alleging that they have been overcharged over the past 5 years.
  2. How many of these complaints were justified in each State and Territory.
  3. What was the amount of. refunds made to these subscribers in each State and Territory over the period.
Sir Alan Hulme:
LP

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

  1. Continuing records under States and Territories are not maintained of inquiries by subscribers concerning their telephone accounts. Sample studies are. made periodically.
  2. Individual subscriber account records are noted as to inquiries which result in adjustment of accounts but consolidated totals of such adjustments are not kept.
  3. The Department issues over 5.5 million telephone accounts each year and the high cost of maintaining continuing records under Statesof all inquiries, and the results of those inquiries, is not justified.

National Development (Question No. 3797)

Mr Grassby:

asked the Minister for National Development, upon notice:

  1. Has the report been completed on forward national development planning which has been in continuous preparation by himself and his officers for more than a year (Hansard, 14th October, 1970, page 2189).
  2. If not, when will the report be completed and examined by the Government.
  3. What other departments have been involved in the preparation of the report.
Mr Swartz:
LP

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

  1. and (2) The document discussing in depth the development of Australia’s natural resources was completed in October, 1970.

The original document has been revised and ls currently the subject of ‘ interdepartmental consideration.

  1. The document was prepared within the Department of National Development.

Immigrants: Welfare Fund (Question No. 4118)

Mr Enderby:

asked the Minister for Immigration, upon notice:

  1. Does his Department control a fund for welfare purposes; if so, what is the limit of the fund.
  2. How many claims were made on the fund during each of the last 6 years, what was the amount of each claim, and for what purposes were the claims made.
  3. How many social workers are employed by his Department in the Australian Capital Territory to perform the work of advising and giving assistance to immigrants.
  4. How does his Department determine the stage at which a person seeking welfare assistance should not seek it as an immigrant but should seek it as a non-immigrant and, in consequence, should direct his inquiries to the Department of the Interior.
  5. Does his Department publicise the fact that it offers a welfare service to immigrants in Canberra; if so, what form does that publicity take.
Mr Lynch:
LP

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

  1. The Department maintains two funds from which assistance may be made available to migrants in a situation of emergency where no alternative relief is available.

    1. the Migrant Emergency Fund, from which loans up to $10 may be made to migrants during the two year period after arrival in Australia. ‘ The loan is intended to cover essential fares, food or overnight accommodation. If loans are not repaid- normal recovery action is taken when it is known that the recipients’ financial circumstances havo improved. Budgetary provision of $2,000 has been provided to maintain the fund in all States during the financial year 1971-72; and
    2. The Emergency Clothing Fund, from which migrants may be issued wilh clothing and footwear to the value of $30 per person within a period of 30 days of arrival in Australia where, due to circumstances beyond their control, they have arrived without adequate clothing for prevailing climatic conditions. Budgetary provision of $1,000 has been provided to maintain the fund in all States during the financial year 1971-72.
  2. (i) Migrant Emergency Fund - During the six years ended 30th June 1971 an amount of $87.40 was provided as loans to migrants in ‘he Australian Capital Territory as follows:

  1. Emergency Clothing Fund - No emergency clothing issues have been made in the Australian Capital Territory to date (prior to the 1970-71 financial year the special clothing fund was operated at the Bonegilla Migrant Reception Centre specifically for newly arrived migrants including refugees many of whom had left their homelands in situations of emergency).
  2. One qualified social worker and one welfare officer.
  3. As explained above, loans to migrants from the Migrant Emergency Fund may be made only within two years of the migrant’s arrival and emergency clothing issues may be made only within a period of 30 days of the migrant’s arrival. Migrants seeking welfare assistance generally are encouraged to make use of normal community resources (the Department for example encourages community participation by making grants to enable the employment of social workers by community agencies engaged in direct service to migrants). However, the Department maintains in all States a qualified social worker and welfare service to provide assistance to migrants who require help in matters resulting directly from their immigration. No limitation as to time is placed on the provision of such services, although migrants generally are encouraged to turn to the normal welfare sources as they become settled into the community.
  4. The Department’s information booklet Australia’, which is available overseas in 2D foreign language editions, informs intending migrants that both Commonwealth and State Immigration Departments have services operating in all’ State capital cities to assist migrants. In Canberra the Department’s welfare services are specifically listed in the Directory of Social Agencies and the telephone directory.

Darwin Harbour (Question No. 4015)

Mr WHITLAM:
WERRIWA, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister for National Development, upon notice:

Since his answer on 2nd September 1970 (Hansard, page 906), has a decision been taken to publish the report on Darwin Harbour which Maunsell and Partners made in January, 1969.

Mr Swartz:
LP

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

The January, 1969 report on the. development of Darwin’s port and harbour facilities prepared by Maunsell and Partners was made public when it was given as evidence to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works in October, 1970. A limited number of copies are obtainable from the Department of National Development at $16.00 a copy.

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 28 October 1971, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1971/19711028_reps_27_hor74/>.