House of Representatives
14 September 1972

27th Parliament · 2nd Session

  1. House of Representatives
  2. 27th Parliament
  3. 1972

Mr SPEAKER (Hon. Sir William Aston) took the chair at 10 a.m., and read prayers.

page 1379

PETITIONS

The Clerk:

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

Overseas Aid

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of the Commonwealth humbly showeth: That the undersigned believe . . .

That hunger, illiteracy, abject poverty and injustice are intolerable anywhere in the world.

That the knowledge, skills and resources to change these unjust conditions now exist.

That to obtain justice among peoples, world financial and trading systems cun and must be changed.

That Australia has the capacity to play a more significant part in enabling the developing countries to achieve improved social conditions for all their people.

Your petitioners most humbly pray that . .

Australia’s Official Development Assistance in 1972-73 be increased to at least $240 million.

Australia’s aid policies be reviewed so that aid given provides maximum benefit to the peoples of developing countries.

Australia’s trade policies be reviewed to provide more favourable conditions for developing countries. by Mr Chipp, Mr Berinson, Mr Garrick and Mr Reid.

Petitions received.

Richmond Airport

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition from certain residents of the western suburbs in the Sydney Metropolitan area and surrounding districts respectfully showeth:

That due to an expanding passenger air travel business together with larger and more powerful jet aircraft, aircraft noise has already become a serious problem for people living in the vicinity of airports.

That jet aircraft operations have a detrimental effect by way of air and noise pollution on the environment and airports should be situated so as to preserve the environment of populated areas.

That protest should be made against the proposal to establish an international airport at Richmond owing to the detrimental effect it would have for the environment there and in Surrounding districts.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that this House take appropriate steps to ensure that the Government does not proceed with the proposal to site the second, twenty-four hour international airport for Sydney at Richmond or anywhere else in the far western suburbs of the metropolitan area.

And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Armitage, Dr Klugman and Mr Luchetti.

Petitions received.

Education

To the Honourable the Speaker and the Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned electors in the State of New South Wales respectfully sheweth:

  1. The nation-wide Survey of Educational Needs undertaken by the Australian Education Council has provided clear evidence that government education in the various States is failing children on a massive scale.

  2. The following conditions at the Ross Hill Infants’ school give further evidence of the needs in the State education system.

    1. Over large classes.
    2. Poor lighting in certain classrooms.
    3. The need for specially trained remedial teachers and better conditions for these teachers.
    4. More relief teachers made available and the period of teacher absence permitting relief be reduced from three plus days to one day.
    5. Shelter sheds in playground.
    6. Large essential equipment provided by mothers clubs should be provided by the Department.

Your petitioners therefore respectfully pray that your Honourable House will (1) make immediately a substantial Federal emergency grant to all State Governments for educational services and (2) carry out a public national survey to determine needs of the States after 1975.

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

Petition received.

Education

To the Honourable the Speaker and the Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned electors in the Stale of New South Wales respectfully sheweth:

  1. The nation-wide Survey of Educational Needs undertaken by the Australian Education Council has provided clear evidence that government education in the various States is failing children on a massive scale.
  2. The following conditions at the Waterloo Public School give further evidence of the needs in the State education system: Urgent need for renovation and repairs.

Your petitioners therefore respectfully pray that your Honourable House will (i) make immediately a substantial Federal emergency grant to all State Governments for public education services and (ii) carry out a public national survey to determine needs of the States after 1975.

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

Petition received.

Immigration: Entry Visa

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned residents of Lethbridge Park and surrounding areas respectfully showeth -

That as a consequence of the Government’s decision to refuse a visa to Mr A. R. Barry, a laboratory assistant from New Delhi, India, his brother-in-law, Dr Kapoor, is considering returning to India. That Mrs Kapoor, who is Mr Barry’s sister, is very homesick and is insisting on Dr Kapoor’s return to India if her brother is refused entry to Australia. That Dr Kapoor, who conducts a general practice, is highly regarded by all and is always on call and, in the event of his return, we would lose the services of a valued member of our community.

Your petitioners most humbly pray that the House of Representatives will request the Government to reconsider its refusal to grant an entry visa to Mr A. R. Barry, a laboratory assistant from New Delhi, India.

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

Petition received.

Defence Land

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 Government give urgent consideration to the return of the land compulsorily acquired from the Shire of Belmont for defence purposes namely lots 313, 314, 324 and 325 bounded by Alexander Road, Belgravia Street, Esther Street and Daly Street.

That the land be returned to the Belmont Shire for the purposes envisaged of constructing an Aged Peoples Village and a Community Development.

We further believe that this site is one of the choicest sites for residential development remaining in the Belmont Shire and we feel that the Shire has a lost a large proportion of its rateable land to the Commonwealth Government and that this will in some way compensate for the resumptions which have taken place and the lack of opportunity for community development which exists because of those resumptions.

Therefore, we urge that the matter be given urgent consideration so that proper planning and development of the Shire can continue.

Your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Bennett.

Petition received.

Taxation

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 notice of the wishes of we, the citizens, in so far as we request:

That the Commonwealth Government give urgent consideration to granting taxation concessions to those mothers who are forced to pay fees to have their children retained in Day Care and Family Care Centres.

That these mothers and children are being disadvantaged by the economic circumstances where no concession is made for the charges which must be paid to have their children so looked after. In fact, it means that a single parent is working for a subsistence wage and receiving a lower income than many who are living on Social Service at a cost to the community.

That these mothers efforts to maintain themselves and their families should be rewarded by taxation concessions for fees paid in recognition to their initiative and diligence by not placing their burden upon the community and so allow them to retain their dignity and standing in the community.

That single and married mothers are contributing to the community by the establishment of their home, the cost of which has become affected by inflation and so must continue to work to make the future for the children who are so cared for.

Therefore we ask that all these aspects be taken into urgent consideration and that taxation concessions for all child minding fees be granted to ease the burden.

We, the petitioners humbly pray thatthe House of Representatives in the Parliament assembled would take immediate steps to ensure provision of this taxation concession and your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Bennett.

Petition received.

ParliamentHouse

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

That the inadequacy of the present parliamentary building is resulting in unpleasant, inefficient and inconvenient working conditions in the House itself.

That the fragmentation of staff at West Block and other offices in the City due to the inadequacies of space in the present building causes inefficiency in staff control and working relationships.

That although the present patchwork extension system results in better accommodation for some sections of the working population in the House it has worsened the accommodation in other areas by shutting out light and ventilation.

That the older sections of the House, besides being cramped, are affected by extremes of heat and cold and quite out of keeping with modern office working conditions.

That the House lacks proper records storage facilities and other facilities, especially related to staff comfort, a requirement highly desirable in view of Parliament’s extended working hours.

That the present extensions, as with past extensions, have been costly to the taxpayer and economically shortsighted and will merely relieve the most pressing needs for a very limited period of time due to the inevitable growth of the business of this Parliament.

Your petitioners therefore most humbly pray that an early decision will be taken by the Government to build the new and permanent Parliament House which will, in the long run. be a more economical way to house the Parliament and which will, at the same time, be an impressive and proud symbol of Australia’s progress and national unity.

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

Petition received.

Lake Pedder

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of 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 is 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. by Dr Everingham.

Petition received.

Postmaster-General’s Department

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

That the Postmaster-General’s Department, Central Office, policy of centralising Post Office affairs and activities under the various titles of Area Management, Area Mail Centres, Area Parcel Centres and similar titles is resulting in both loss of service and lowering of the standards of service to the Public, directly resulting in the closing of Post Offices which is detrimental to the Public interest.

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

  1. Call a halt to all closing of Post Offices and reorganising within the Post Office, until full details of the proposed savings and all details of alteration to the standard of service to the public are made available to Parliament, and
  2. Initiate a Joint Parliamentary inquiry into the Postmaster-General’s Department, to assess the degree on which it should be run as a normal business undertaking and to what extent its unprofitable activities should be subsidised as a public service charged more correctly to National Development.

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

Petition received.

Education

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

  1. That the Australian Education Council’s report on the needs of State education services has established serious deficiencies in education.
  2. That these can be summarised as lack of classroom accommodation, desperate teacher shortage, oversized classes and inadequate teaching aids.
  3. That the additional sum of one thousand million dollars is required over the next five years by the States for these needs.
  4. That without massive additional Federal finance the State school system will disintegrate.
  5. 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 steps 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. by Mr Les Johnson.

Petition received.

Social Services

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

That on 10th December 1948, Australia signed the ‘Universal Declaration of Human Rights’, Article 25 reads: ‘Everyone has the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age and other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.’

Yet, 23 years later, in our country of great national wealth and abundance it is to the nation’s shame that many thousands of our people live in a state of being inconsistent with the dignity and worth of the human person - languishing in poverty and want, neglect and the lack of proper care necessary for their health and well-being.

We, the undersigned, respectfully draw to your attention that the conscience of the nation is not at ease while the records of our country show that social services are not comparable with that of other advanced countries administering such services, therefore, we call upon the Commonwealth Government to immediately legislate for:

Base pension rate - 30 per cent of the average weekly male earnings, all states, plus supplementary assistance and allowances based on a percentage of such earnings. Unemployed benefits equal to the foregoing.

Completely free health services to cover all needs of social service pensioners - hospitalisation, chronic and long-term illness, fractures, anaesthetics, specialist, pharmaceutical, hearing aids, dental, optical, physiotherapy, chiropody, surgical aids and any other appliances.

Commonwealth Government to promote a comprehensive national scheme in cooperation with the States and make finance available to provide for the building of public hospitals, nursing and hostel-type homes necessary to effectively meet the special requirements of aged people, in conjunction with a comprehensive domiciliary care programme to enable aged people to stay in their homes.

Mental illness placed in the same position as physical illness.

Substantial Commonwealth increase in the $5 subsidy a day per public bed pensioner patient in general hospitals. 10 per cent of Commonwealth revenue to local government for general activities which now include social welfare, health, conservation and other community needs. Commonwealth subsidy for the waiving of rates for pensioners.

Commonwealth Government to increase the non-repayable grant to the States for low rental home units for pensioners.

Royal Commission or other form of public enquiry into Australia’s social welfare structure that Australia may be brought into line with accepted world standards of the most advanced countries.

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

Petition received.

Education

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

Pre-school and after-school education facilities are in urgent need within the Australian community. The shortage has become more acute as more mothers join the work force.

In advanced countries pre-school and afterschool education are recognised as essential aspects of education for all children.

Your petitioners most humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled will take immediate steps to provide the necessary finance to enable State education departments and local government authorities to establish:

  1. Pre-school centres.
  2. After-school centres.
  3. Facilities for training the staff for such centres.

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

Petition received.

Aid for Developing Countries

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of the Commonwealth humbly showeth: That the undersigned believe:

That hunger, illiteracy, abject poverty and injustice are intolerable anywhere in the world

That the knowledge, skills and resources to change these unjust conditions now exist.

That to obtain justice among peoples, world financial and trading systems can and must be changed.

That Australia has the capacity to play a more significant part in enabling the developing countries to achieve improved social conditions for all their people.

Your petitioners most humbly pray that:

Australia’s Official Development Assistance continue to be increased so that aid given provides maximum benefit to the peoples of developing countries.

Your petitioners respectively request that the Government give consideration to these recommendations from our group study of ‘Action for World Development’:

  1. That the Government consider further expansion of the already existing machinery of the Australian Broadcasting Commission through Radio Australia to include more educational programmes for developing areas that would gain maximum benefit from such a service.
  2. That the Government be instrumental in aiding the setting up of more trade schools at district level’s in developing countries to offset the increased concentration on tertiary education.
  3. That in order to encourage more Voluntary Aid Workers for developing countries, volunteers remuneration be increased by Federal Government to at least the level that would be reached by the same volunteers within Australia. by Mr Bonnett.

Petition received.

page 1383

QUESTION

OVERSEAS TOURISTS TO WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Mr WHITLAM:
WERRIWA, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I ask the MinisterinCharge of Tourist Activities a question. Is it a fact that passengers who arrive from overseas by air in Sydney are charged about $150 to go on to Perth, whereas those who arrive in Perth are charged about $50 to go to Sydney? If so, why are international airlines, including Qantas Airways Ltd, allowed to discriminate in this way against overseas tourists who contemplate a visit to Western Australia?

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

– This would be a matter generally for the airlines to discuss. I shall take it up with my colleague, the Minister for Civil Aviation, have a look at it and get the Leader of the Opposition an answer.

page 1383

QUESTION

PRIVATE SECRETARIES

Dr SOLOMON:
DENISON, TASMANIA

– I preface my question to the Prime Minister by reminding the right honourable gentleman that nearly 6 months ago he received representations from the Private Secretaries Association seeking a review of the basis on which payment is made for overtime worked by private secretaries. I ask the Prime Minister whether he has yet been able to respond to its claim that private secretaries should be remunerated on an hourly basis for overtime worked as are all other members of ministerial staff. If not, when does he expect to be able to reply? Finally, in view of the particularly long hours which are worked by private secretaries and the dedicated service given by these officers to members on both sides of the Parliament, will he give his personal support to their claim in an effort to remedy an obvious inequity?

Mr McMAHON:
Prime Minister · LOWE, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– The House will know that this matter is within the jurisdiction of the Public Service Board, and consequently I was under compulsion to refer it to the Board. I have been in touch with the Board on at least 2 occasions since the reference was made in an attempt to get a quick decision from it. Until 10 minutes ago I had had no reply, but I will ensure that the Secretary of my Department contacts the Chairman of the Public Service Board today to see whether the matter can be quickly resolved. As to the second part of the honourable gentleman’s question, I agree with him that the position of the private secretaries needs urgent consideration. I think it should be considered on the basis that these men not only work long hours effectively but also give complete loyalty to those for whom they are working. I hope that these facts will be taken into consideration by the Public Service Board.

page 1383

QUESTION

DISALLOWED QUESTION

(Mr Daly having addressed a question to the Deputy Prime Minister) -

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The Deputy Prime Minister is not responsible for the attitude of the former right honourable member for Murray. Therefore the matter is not within his ministerial jurisdiction and the question is out of order.

Mr Daly:

– The final part of the question

Mr SPEAKER:

-I call the honourable member for Mallee.

Mr Daly:

– I rise to a point of order, Mr Speaker. I ask you this question: Am I denied the right to ask the Deputy Prime Minister, for instance, the attitude of his Party on a matter relating to the conduct of the Party?

Mr SPEAKER:

-I have already ruled the question out of order on the ground I stated. The honourable member foi Grayndler went right through a rigmarole before raising his point of order. The question he asked is out of order.

page 1384

QUESTION

OMEGA NAVIGATIONAL ADD STATION

Sir WINTON TURNBULL:
MALLEE, VICTORIA

– My question is addressed to the Minister for Shipping and Transport. There has been discussion in the Mallee electorate regarding the proposed Omega navigational aid station, chiefly in regard to where it will be located. Can the Minister supply information on his subject?

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

– A lot of interest has been created by the announcement that an Omega navigational aid station is to be installed in Australia. I have received an invitation from a councillor in Swan Hill - not from the Swan Hill Shire Council - to attend a public meeting which 2 academics who are critics of the proposed station are to attend. I regret that I will be unable to attend the meeting because of prior commitments. However, I have answered point by point the criticisms that have been made by these people. I will be happy to forward to the Swan Hill Shire Council any information it seeks on the subject.

The House will recall that I announced that 5 areas as possible sites for the navigational aid station were being investigated by my Department. The 5 areas are the Darling Downs, an area near Moree in northern New South Wales, an area north of Corowa, an area between Kerang and Deniliquin and another area north of the Divide from Wedderburn, near the town of Boort in Victoria. I am able to inform the House that the choice has been narrowed down to 2 sites following soil conductivity tests. The 2 sites are in the area near Boort and in the area between Kerang and Deniliquin.

Information is now being gathered in cooperation with the Department of the

Interior about properties for sale in those 2 areas. The navigational aid station will require about 1,000 acres for its operation. When the information is gathered, specific testing will be done on the available sites. I can inform the honourable member that Swan Hill was ruled out of calculations because the airport there is in regular use and radio interference would have been created for the Omega station. Other good, sound technical reasons came into the matter. I should point out to the House, as I have done before, that the investigating team has received exceptional co-operation from the municipal authorities in all the areas.

I have absolutely no knowledge of any disquiet on the part of any shire council. In fact, I have had representations from nearly every council in northern Victoria and the Riverina seeking to have the navigational aid station installed in that area. When the tests are concluded I will give further information to the honourable member and the House.

page 1384

QUESTION

RADIOACTIVE WASTE

Mr BARNARD:
BASS, TASMANIA

– I ask the Minister for Supply: Have quantities of radioactive waste from British nuclear establishments been dumped in Australia? In particular, were lead-lined boxes of radioactive waste flown from Britain and buried on the Maralinga testing site? If so, how much of this material was dumped? When did the dumping start and when did it cease? Why was this practice not disclosed to the Australian public?

Mr GARLAND:
Minister for Supply · CURTIN, WESTERN AUSTRALIA · LP

– The honourable member has been careful not to make any statement about the source of the allegations and I think that that in itself is significant. I have no knowledge of the allegations he has made and I will certainly look into the matter. Referring to those areas in the Maralinga region which I mentioned in an answer to a question yesterday, might I say that the British Government spent a very large sum of money making areas as safe as possible by pouring great quantities of concrete to fill in areas that had been dug deep, and in restoring the surface area as much as possible. All of this took place nearly 20 years ago. The radioactive material present in those areas has in the main a half life of some 15 or 20 years, I think, from memory and so its effect, deep and buried and covered as it is, has been very much diminished in that time. However, I will make inquiries in relation to the particular charge which the Deputy Leader of the Opposition has made.

page 1385

QUESTION

MERCURY IN FISH

Mr BUCHANAN:
MCMILLAN, VICTORIA

– My question which is addressed to the Acting Minister for Health concerns the mercury content in fish. What quantity of shark meat would it be necessary for a person to eat before any indications of deleterious effect would be evident? Is there evidence in countries such as Sweden, Japan and so on, where fish consumption is much higher than in Australia, of illness due to the build up of mercury in the human body? Will the Minister please do everything he can to bring about most speedily a correction of the regulation concerning the mercury content in fish so that the valuable fishing industry may get back to normal and so that fishermen will be allowed to return to a trade that has flourished without devastation to human health for 50 years or more?

Dr FORBES:
Minister for Immigration · BARKER, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · LP

– In relation to the first part of the honourable gentleman’s question, I am advised that, based on Japanese studies, at a level of 0.5 parts per million of mercury clinical symptons of toxicity appear at an intake of approximately 21i oz per day. I am advised also that in order to provide safety for vulnerable groups such as high fish consumers and unborn children, it is necessary to apply a safety factor of 20 to this, which reduces the safe intake, at the level of 0.5 parts per million, to one oz per day. In relation to the second part of the honourable gentleman’s question, it is a fact that in Japan there have been epidemics of fatal poisoning due to this cause. In relation to the third part of the honourable gentleman’s question, as a result of the concern expressed by several Health Ministers, the Director-General of Health, who is the Chairman of the National Health and Medical Research Council, called a meeting of the Public Health Advisory Committee as recently as 6th September, last Wednesday week, to consider the available evidence in relation to this matter. As the honourable member will be aware, after considering all the scientific evidence available on this question, the Committee reaffirmed the previous position of the Council. This will now go to the full meeting of the Council in November. I appreciate the concern expressed by the honourable gentleman, which I share but apart from the health and scientific aspect, 1 do not think I can add anything further to what my colleague the Minister for Primary Industry said, I think, on Tuesday.

page 1385

QUESTION

MINISTERIAL HOUSING

Mr ARMITAGE:
CHIFLEY, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I preface my question to the Prime Minister by drawing his attention to the fact that on 13 th September 1971 - a year ago yesterday - he indicated to the House that he had instructed his Department to prepare a submission on ministerial housing in Canberra so that policy on this question might be reconsidered by the Government. This undertaking was given in answer to questions and debates in this House arising from the controversy in respect of housing for the Minister for the Interior. I suggest that the Prime Minister should answer this question because he gave this undertaking.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I suggest that the honourable gentleman should ask his question.

Mr ARMITAGE:

– I noticed him pointing to someone else. I now ask: Keeping in mind that a number of his Ministers have this bargain rate housing, has he received that submission? If so, has it been considered by the Government? If so, will he now announce the policy on this question and why there has been a year’s delay to date in finalising the matter?

Mr McMAHON:
LP

– If the honourable gentlemen wants me to answer the question, I will refer the matter to my colleague and get him to give an answer in writing to the honourable gentlemen.

page 1385

QUESTION

ABORIGINES: EVERARD PARK PURCHASE

Mr JEFF BATE:
MACARTHUR, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I ask the Prime Minister what progress has been made in the negotiations to purchase the Everard Park property in South Australia for Aborigines under the $13m land purchase policy announced by him earlier this year.

Mi MCMAHON- I did inform the House some time ago that there had been contact between the Government and the gentleman who had entered into an agreement to purchase Everard Park and that he had shown a willingness to hand over this property at cost to the Commonwealth. I have recently been informed that there is no disagreement whatsoever between the Government and the intended purchaser. This matter is being dealt with by members of the Attorney-General’s Department and officials in the Department of the Interior. We hope that we will have a settlement soon and that this property will soon be handed over to the Aborigines themselves.

page 1386

QUESTION

REPATRIATION BENEFITS

Mr JACOBI:
HAWKER, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I direct my question to the Minister for Defence. Are volunteers who served in Vietnam denied the benefits of the retraining scheme for national servicemen who served in Vietnam? Are both national servicemen and volunteers excluded from the benefits of the war service land settlement scheme? If so, will the Minister take immediate steps to have these ridiculous anomalies rectified?

Mr Fairbairn:

– I ask the Minister for Repatriation to answer the question.

Mr HOLTEN:
Minister for Repatriation · INDI, VICTORIA · CP

– This is a matter that affects the Repatriation Department. The position is that retraining and loans are available to all national servicemen, whether they served overseas or not.

Mr Barnard:

– What about volunteers?

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The question has been asked and the Minister is entitled to answer it.

Mr Barnard:

– But he does not know what has been asked.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! This is a matter of conjecture. I suggest that the Minister be given an opportunity to answer the question.

Mr HOLTEN:

– The same benefits are available to volunteers in the Regular Army, volunteers who joined under the national service scheme and national servicemen who have served overseas, in Vietnam in this case and also those who served in Malaysia and in other conflicts. So these benefits are available under the special overseas Act and other Acts.

Mr Jacobi:

– That is not true.

Mr Barnard:

– Mr Speaker, I rise to order. 1 regard this matter as being extremely important. That is why 1 raise this point of order. The Minister, perhaps not deliberately but because he does not understand the Act, has given false information to this House.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! That is no point of order at question time

Mr Barnard:

– It is a point of order. The Minister has given false information to the Parliament.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The position here is that a question has been answered and there can be no query of it. ‘I here are other forms of the House and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition knows this. This is question time when questions are asked of Ministers. Ministers provide answers relevant to the questions and are quite in order in answering them. That is tha extent of the jurisdiction of the Chair at question time

Mr Barnard:

– Mr Speaker, I assume that I will have the opportunity at an appropriate time to let the Minister and this Parliament have the correct information.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! That is a matter for the honourable member

Dr Patterson:

– Mr Speaker, I rise to order. The position, as I understand it with respect to questions without notice, is that questions are directed to the Minister responsible. In this particular case, the war service land settlement scheme is administered by the Minister for Primary Industry. 1 think that the House is entitled to know the accurate facts on this question and the Minister for Primary Industry could give the actual facts in answer to the question.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! There is no point of order. The question was directed to the Minister for Defence, and the Minister for Defence arranged for the Minister for Repatriation to answer the question. Similarly, as the honourable member knows, it is often the case that when Ministers handle a particular portfolio the Prime Minister himself delegates a Minister to answer a particular question.

Dr Klugman:

– Mr Speaker. I rise on a point of order. Might it have been more helpful, since your ruling in respect ot question time is fairly clear that there are restrictions on the questions that honourable members can ask, if the Standing Orders were altered to refer to question and answer time?

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! There is no point of order. I call the honourable member for Calare.

Mr Jacobi:

– Mr Speaker, I rise to order, for the third time.

Mr SPEAKER:

-I am sorry. I call the honourable member for Hawker.

Mr Jacobi:

– I put a reasonable question to the Minister for Defence. Personally I am not concerned who answers it, but I am entitled to a competent reply. 1 have not received one.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! There is no point of order. I call the honourable member for Calare.

page 1387

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN CURRENCY

Mr ENGLAND:
CALARE, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Is the Minister for Trade and Industry aware that the Bank of New South Wales in its quarterly economic review has come out strongly against any revaluation of the Australian dollar? What reasons did the Bank give for this? Does this serve to prove that all qualified opinion, even amongst banking institutions, is not on one side of this argument, the resolution of which will have such far reaching effects on export industry?

Mr ANTHONY:
Deputy Prime Minister · RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · CP

– I heard a radio report of the Bank of New South Wales quarterly report only this morning. In its report the Bank of New South Wales stated that it was against a revaluation of the currency because of the deleterious effects it would have on rural and mining industries. I think this typifies the attitude of any commercial body which has close contact with industry and knows the consequences of any revaluation of the currency. This Bank has enormous accounts in the rural areas and in the mining field. It knows the difficulties that people in these industries are undergoing and it knows just how disastrous revaluation would be at this particular time. Even though it is not terribly well qualified it has done very well in reaching this decision and it was reached because the Bank had its feet on the ground. I am interested to note that the

Australian Labor Party is now justifying its position on revaluation on the basis that it is better qualified intellectually to make a judgment. One of the interesting things shown in the history of the Labor Party is that whenever there have been currency alterations the Labor Party has always moved for depreciation. This has been its attitude at times when the Labor Party has had great leaders - I will give it credit for that - men who have come up through the ranks and who understand the problems of employment, industry and keeping the economy going. But now there is a new sort of Labor Party which seems to be controlled by the intellectuals. Anybody who has the audacity to have a counter point of view to theirs is ill-educated. It is nice that the Leader of the Opposition is a man of letters, and we know that he is a great scholar in the courts but, my word, that is small compensation for being a man amongst men.

page 1387

QUESTION

WAR SERVICE LAND SETTLEMENT

Mr BARNARD:

– I ask the Minister for Primary Industry a question that is supplementary to that asked by the honourable member for Hawker. Are national servicemen and members of the volunteer forces who servied in Vietnam eligible for war service land settlement re-establishment? If they are not eligible, will the Minister confirm that ex-servicemen of the First World War, the Second World War and Korea were given this advantage? If those who served in Vietnam are not entitled to the same consideration and assistance in this respect will the Minister say why the Government has adopted a discriminatory practice against those who served in Vietnam compared with those who served in other wars in which Australia was involved?

Mr SINCLAIR:
Minister for Primary Industry · NEW ENGLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES · CP

– Even the Deputy Leader of the Opposition would be aware of some of the difficulties that are besetting those in primary industry throughout Australia today. Most of these problems relate to the size of holdings and the degree to which people are able to operate efficiently on some of these holdings. Following the establishment of the war service land settlement scheme there has been a complete re-examination in recent years of the degree to which settlers have been able to operate properly. In answer to questions asked in this House I have indicated that there is concern over the degree to which some settlers receiving benefits under the scheme have been able over the years to face declining market opportunities and rising costs. This study has shown up problems in the case of Kangaroo Island, in respect of which some provisions have been made in the Budget, and in respect of some 5 settlers in South Australia where there have been difficulties resolved in ensuring an allocation of leases for blocks.

It is true that it was felt that in the case of Vietnam servicemen, whether members of the Regular Army or national servicemen, to provide the benefits under the war service land settlement scheme would not necessarily give them the opportunities that most of them would like to have if they were to go on the land. Accordingly, what the Government has done is provide for national servicemen funds which can be allocated to them to enable them to set up in a particular business. I cannot recall the exact sum, but my recollection is that there has been a greater sum of money provided for national servicemen engaged in primary production than for those going into other businesses. The range of benefits available to national servicemen is not entirely within my responsibility, although the part relating to the war service land settlement scheme is. It is true that there is no facility available under the war service land settlement scheme for national servicemen, but it is not true that there are no funds available for those who are going into some type of agricultural venture. The question that was asked by the honourable member for Hawker, of course, covered a range of portfolios. With respect to the questions asked by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition and also to that asked by the honourable member for Hawker, I might provide an answer in writing covering all of those points which have not been answered.

page 1388

QUESTION

OVERSEAS INVESTMENT IN AUSTRALIA

Mr MacKELLAR:
WARRINGAH, NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is directed to the Treasurer and I preface it by saying that a number of my constituents have expressed concern to me that the Government’s position in relation to the acceptability of overseas portfolio investments in Australian companies is unclear. Provided such investment does not lead to acquisition or control of Australian companies, does the Government consider such overseas portfolio investment acceptable or not?

Mr SNEDDEN:
Treasurer · BRUCE, VICTORIA · LP

– The term ‘portfolio investment’ is a very broad ranging one. It covers a variety of different forms of paper that evidence an entitlement to money. But I think the honourable gentleman was relating the term to the purchase of shares on the stock exchange. It is important to draw the distinction between portfolio in the broad and shares on the stock exchange. It is also important to draw a distinction between actions which are designed to achieve control and actions which are designed to achieve a share of ownership through the stock exchange. We have a policy in relation to the purchase of shares on the stock exchange which does not erect any barriers to those purchases because, almost by definition, they are directed towards achieving ownership and not towards achieving control. Normally a takeover is made under the provisions of the Companies Act and is clearly designed as a takeover for the purpose of assuming control. I have been giving very close consideration to that matter and the Government is now considering certain papers which I have put before it.

However, I should like to make it clear that I have no recommendations in relation to portfolio investment in the form that the honourable gentleman mentioned, that is, the purchase of shares on the stock exchange. But if that purchase of shares is, to use the terminology, the action of a raider using the stock exchange to acquire control, that would be an entirely different matter and would have to be looked at in terms of a takeover seeking control. To return to the initial point made by the honourable gentleman, I have no recommendations whatever which would interfere with or put obstructions on the free flow of equity investments through the stock exchange from persons in overseas countries whose purpose was to achieve some ownership in Australia through the stock exchange in order to spread their portfolio interest in those areas where they believe that their equity capital would be well invested.

page 1389

QUESTION

LOCAL GOVERNMENT FINANCES: CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION

Mr WHITLAM:

– Has the Prime Minister noted that, following the tabling of the Voumard report on local government finances, the Victorian Minister for Local Government said that the report could not be carried out without massive aid from the Commonwealth and that the United States Congress has just authorised grants to cities and local governments twice as great as its grants to the States? In any case, I ask the Prime Minister: What response have the States made to the suggestion he put to the Premiers after the matter was raised at question time 6 months ago that local government should be represented at the forthcoming constitutional convention? In view of this forthcoming convention, has his Government given consideration to any of the recommendations which the Committee on Constitutional Review, drawn from both sides of both Houses in this Parliament, unanimously made in 1958 and 1959?

Mr McMAHON:
LP

– It must be obvious that no person in this House could yet have considered the Voumard report or its implications because, as I understand it, the report was released yesterday and is a very voluminous document. No copy has been sent to us.

Mr Whitlam:

– But the constitutional convention can.

Mr McMAHON:

– The honourable gentleman did not ask that question. If he will let me complete my answer I think he will receive the kind of answer he wants. Please let me finish the answer in my way. The honourable gentleman can then ask a second question if he wishes. It was a little premature of the Leader of the Opposition to expect thai any detailed consideration could have been given to that report by either the Commonwealth or, for that matter, the State Government. I will attempt to obtain a copy and see that it is submitted to close scrutiny quickly. As to another of the 3 complex questions that the honourable gentleman asked, I am a great believer in ensuring that the local government authorities are represented at the constitutional convention and I believe they will be represented. Whether they will have a vote is another matter, but the Liberal-Country Party Government is per sisting with its request that they be present and we will expect them to be able to express their views as fully as they wish.

As to the last part of the honourable gentleman’s question, up to the moment we are concerned only with the problem of the preliminary conference that is to be held soon. We have not put substantive requests or substantive recommendations to that Committee, nor have we put to it recommendations dealing with the constitutional reforms that were suggested by the all-party committee. Nonetheless, that part of the honourable gentleman’s question makes a lot of sense and I can assure him that, when we make our recommendations at least, we will very carefully consider the recommendations of that committee, and those parts with which we agree we will refer to the constitutional convention.

page 1389

QUESTION

INFLATION

Mr GILES:
ANGAS, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– Has the Treasurer noticed a Press comment of a report from the Bank of New South Wales relating the phrase ‘incomes policy’ to the phrase totalitarian enforcement’? Does he agree with the report that such measures would be a stop-gap attempt to deal with inflation without affecting its root causes?

Mr SNEDDEN:
LP

– I have not seen the article. I have seen Press reports relating to it. From the reports I have read it sounds as though, after labouring long and hard, the Bank of New South Wales economics writers have come up with the right conclusion. lt is my view that a prices incomes policy can never be a permanent feature of economic management. A prices incomes policy at best can only be to deal with a very special and extreme situation.

Mr Hurford:

– So bash the unions. That is the alternative.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I am sick and tired of interjections this morning. I suggest that honourable members obey my request because I believe it to be a reasonable one at question time.

Mr SNEDDEN:

– The Government has been very concerned about the inflationary pressures in the economy and we have pursued a course of action which has had some success. The honourable gentleman will remember that the December quarter showed a consumer price index increase of 2.3 per cent, the March quarter showed 1.1 per cent and the June quarter showed 0.9 per cent. To put it in annual terms: In the calendar year 1971 it was 7 per cent and from June to June it was down to 6.1 per cent. Therefore we have had some success with our policies. We intend to continue to pursue those policies. We will not be put off the course that we propose by such sloganeering as ‘union bashing’. That is not part of our policy at all. What is part of our policy is to understand the cause of inflation and to try to deal with that cause and not merely the palliative of looking at the result.

The policy, which we have pursued with some success, is to be contrasted with the policy of the Opposition. The Opposition Party spawned by the trade unions and still controlled by the trade unions, is unable to have an incomes-prices policy because it cannot have a policy on incomes at all. Last March the honourable member for Hindmarsh attempted to introduce some form of incomes policy. There was an avalanche of protest and the honourable gentleman found himself under attack within the Federal Executive and that embryonic first attempt at some wages policy had to be abandoned. The Federal Executive decided that it would reach a conclusion of great wisdom and then say nothing about a wages policy.

Mr Scholes:

– I rise to order, Mr Speaker. You have warned members on this side of the House on a number of occasions about the length of their questions. My point of order is that this is the third Minister who has made an answer which has been in excess of 3 minutes. I think that is extremely provocative.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The honourable member, as a deputy chairman, should know the situation in that regard. There is no point of order.

page 1390

QUESTION

SYDNEY WATER BOARD

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

-I direct my question to the Treasurer. I refer to the New South Wales Auditor-General’s report which indicates that the Sydney Water Board has a capital debt of $703m and that 47 per cent of its income is taken up in paying interest and servicing the debt. Has the Board now decided to finance a large portion of its capital works pro gramme from revenue because of its inability to obtain Federal assistance? Does this mean that ratepayers in the Sydney area, for example, will be obliged to pay a further $100 to $150 a year in rates to finance works from which they receive no benefit? Because of the hardship this policy will cause people on low and fixed incomes, will the Treasurer favourably consider an application for Federal grants to finance water storage and reticulation on a national basis and is he prepared to receive a deputation from the local government constituencies concerned?

Mr SNEDDEN:
LP

– I have some knowledge of the matters which the honourable gentlemen raises. I would be quite willing to receive a deputation. But I must say to the honourable gentleman that members from my own Party have been active in this matter before the intervention of the honourable gentleman.

page 1390

QUESTION

NORTHERN TERRITORY: PALMERSTON FREEWAY

Mr CALDER:
NORTHERN TERRITORY

– My question is directed to the Minister for the Interior. I refer to recent reports concerning the proposed Palmerston Freeway between the city of Darwin and the northern suburbs of Nightcliff and others. Will the Minister assure the House that if houses and land are to be acquired the owners will be fairly and adequately compensated for the almost irreplaceable loss of their position? Also, will he assure the House that one of the leading and most broadly representative sporting clubs in Darwin, which has a membership of 700, does not have its sports oval or new club house bulldozed over in the construction of the freeway?

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I rise to order. I ask whether it is in order for the honourable member to ask a question which in effect pre-empts the recommendations of the Public Works Committee in regard to the Palmerston Freeway. I point out that the recommendations of the Committee have not yet formally been presented to this Parliament.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Has the Committee completed its work in relation to this matter?

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Yes, but the Parliament has not considered it.

Mr SPEAKER:

– If the Committee has completed its work, the answer to the question can have no influence on the findings of the Committee. Therefore I rule that the question is in order.

Mr HUNT:
Minister for the Interior · GWYDIR, NEW SOUTH WALES · CP

– I have had a number of-

Mr James:

– I rise on a point of order. My learned colleague, the honourable member for Hughes, may not be in possession of certain written evidence on the subject matter now before the House on which an answer is being given by the Minister for the Interior. There is in connection with the Palmerston Freeway in Darwin written evidence in the hands of certain members of the Committee, of which the House is aware I am a member, that came through only yesterday, lt is to be considered by the Committee. Therefore I submit that the matter is still sub judice, if I might use that expression, and the question should not be answered by the Minister.

Mr SPEAKER:

– I asked the honourable member for Hughes had the Committee’s investigation been completed. The honourable member for Hughes assured me that it had. Therefore I ruled that the answer would not influence the findings of the Committee.

Mr Martin:

– 1 take a further point of order. Mr Speaker, you asked a question of the honourable member for Hughes, who is a member of that Committee. He answered to the best of his ability - and he has ability - on the information available to him. The honourable member for Hunter, who also is a member of that Committee, has now drawn your attention to the fact that additional evidence is to be presented to the Committee. In view of that, Mr Speaker, I ask you to rule that the question asked by the honourable member for the Northern Territory is out of order.

Mr Scholes:

– The Chairman of the Committee is in the House, and it would save a lot of problems, Mr Speaker, if you asked him what the position is.

Mr SPEAKER:

-I was just going to do that. I ask the Chairman of the Public Works Committee whether he has completed the report.

Mr Kelly:

– Yes.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The report has been completed. The report has not yet been presented to this Parliament.

Mr Kelly:

– It has.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The question is in order.

Mr Bryant:

– If the matter has been presented to the House and there has been no discussion on it, this question is pre-empting a discussion in this House. Mr Speaker, has there been a discussion on it?

Mr SPEAKER:

-I am informed that the report of the Committee has been presented to the House. It is a public document. If we blanket questions about a report that comes into this House. I do not know where members will get questions from.

Mr James:

– On a further point of order, 1 raise the fact that as the honourable member for the Northern Territory is a member of the sporting club referred to in his question addressed to the Minister for the Interior he has a pecuniary interest in the club and the question should not be allowed.

Mr SPEAKER:

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

Mr HUNT:

– The honourable member for the Northern Territory-

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I rise on a further point of order. Mr Speaker, you asked the Chairman of the Public Works Committee whether or not this report had been presented. I think there may be a wrong impression on your part as to the answer given. Whereas it is a fact that the Committee has concluded its report and passed it on for presentation to this Parliament, in fact the report has not been presented to this Parliament. It has not been tabled in the Parliament, and from that standpoint the public at large is not aware of the contents of the report. In that sense the question asked by the honourable members must be regarded as a hypothetical one.

Mr SPEAKER:

– I repeat my question to the Chairman of the Public Works Committee. Has the report been tabled in this House?

Mr Kelly:

– Yes, it has been tabled.

Mr Chipp:

– As the Minister representing the Minister for Works in this place, I think I may be able to clear the matter up. The report has been presented to the Parliament by the Chairman of the Public Works Committee. The next procedure is that after the Government considers the report it moves a motion that the work should proceed, or does not move such a motion. I have not yet taken that step but the report is before the Parliament.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Here is the report. It is a public document.

Mr HUNT:

– The honourable member for the Northern Territory has obviously tried to bring out a point of concern that is causing anxiety in the minds of people that he represents in Darwin. For reasons that I cannot comprehend members of the Opposition are trying to smother a reply to a very good question that he has asked on behalf of the people he represents. Of course, in the event of the Government’s proceeding with the recommendations in the report, under the Lands Acquisition Act the Commonwealth Government would purchase on fair and just terms any land that had to be acquired. The honourable member for the Northern Territory is trying to obtain an undertaking that the people whose land or property is in the path of the freeway will be compensated for any loss incurred. I think that is a perfectly reasonable request on his part. I have had a number of telegrams and representations from people who are most concerned about the proposed route of the freeway. The Government did, however, approve the Palmerston arterial road at an estimated cost of $5.4m. The Public Works Committee has presented a report and so it is before the Parliament. Certainly the Northern Territory Administration and my own Department will be considering the positions of the people involved. I assure the honourable member for the Northern Territory that his constituents will not be completely overlooked in this issue.

page 1392

QUESTION

MERCURY IN FISH

Dr FORBES:
LP

– I ask for leave to correct an answer to a question that I gave earlier.

Mr SPEAKER:

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

Dr FORBES:

– When I was answering a question asked by the honourable member for McMillan, by a slip of the tongue I said that the daily intake of fish, according to the Japanese studies, necessary for clini cal symptoms of toxicity to appear was approximately 2i ounces. The figure I should have used is 21 i ounces a day.

page 1392

AUSTRALIAN DRIED FRUITS CONTROL BOARD

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

– Pursuant to section 28 of the Dried Fruits Export Control Act 1924-1966, I present the Forty-eighth Annual Report of the Austraiian Dried Fruits Control Board for the year ended 30th June 1972.

page 1392

COMMONWEALTH RAILWAYS

Mr NIXON:
Minister for Shipping and Transport · Gippsland · CP

– For the information of honourable members, I present the financial statements on Commonwealth Railways operations for the year ended 30th June 1972.

page 1392

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH

Dr FORBES:
Minister for Immigration · Barker · LP

– For the information of honourable members, I present the annual report of the Director-General of Health on the activities of the Commonwealth Department of Health for the year ended 30th June 1972.

page 1392

NATIONAL CAPITAL DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION

Mr HUNT:
Minister for the Interior · Gwydir · CP

– Pursuant to section 24 of the National Capital Development Commission Act 1957-1960, I present the Fifteenth Annual Report of the National Capital Development Commission for the year ended 30th June 1972 together with financial statements and the Auditor-General’s Report on those statements.

page 1392

PERSONAL EXPLANATIONS

Mr CLYDE CAMERON (Hindmarsh)Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– Yes, I have been misrepresented. The Treasurer has again misrepresented me on the same subject on which he has misrepresented me before when he said that the honourable member for Hindmarsh early last year advocated an incomes policy and was rejected by the Federal Executive which took the wise course of taking no action at all. I do not know how many times I have to correct these misrepresentations but I will make the correction every time I am misrepresented. I hope that as a consequence of this explanation and of reading direct from the minutes of the Federal Executive what I say might penetrate the skulls of the Prime Minister and the Treasurer, because they are the ones who continue to misrepresent the position. The Federal Conference met on 13th December 1971 at Townsville after the Parliamentary Labor Party had dealt with this matter. A motion was moved by Mr Tack Egerton and seconded by me immediately the session of 15th December began at 9.30 a.m. That motion moved by Mr Egerton and seconded by me read as follows:

That this Executive condemns the Federal Government’s proposals to amend the Arbitration Act to the detriment of Australian workers and brands the proposals as a deliberate political stunt to provoke industrial disputes and so provide the Liberal and Country Parties with the kind of political climate that might deflect public concern from the vital issues of unemployment, rising prices, high interest charges and inadequate social services. We declare our total opposition to the retention of strike penalties in the Act and affirm that a Labour government will remove these provisions from the Act. We are convinced that penal sanctions create rather than settle disputes and we commend the ACTU in setting up a special committee to consider the question of strike penalties and the observance of freely negotiated voluntary agreements. We assure the ACTU that a Federal Labour government will work in the closest co-operation with them in the reconstruction of the arbitration system.

Mr Bill Hartley then moved an amendment which was seconded by Mr F. E. Chamberlain. The relevant part of it reads:

Consistent with the provisions of the Federal platform on industrial relations and the decisions of the recent ACTU Congress and the Interstate Executive of the Australian Council of Trade Unions of 18th November 1971, the Federal Executive determines that ALP policy supports the following principles–

This is Mr Hartley’s amendment -

  1. Labor policy does not authorise any present or future Labor government, Federal or State, to legislate for penal sanctions or to legislate to provide any form of statutory cover for sanctions in industrial agreements.
Mr Irwin:

– Mr Speaker, is this a personal explanation?

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– How can I make my personal explanation without reading the resolution?

Mr SPEAKER:

– The honourable member for Hindmarsh is not entitled to read the whole platform of the Labor Party.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– I am coming to the relevant part.

Mr SPEAKER:

– The honourable member knows that the purpose of a personal explanation is to explain how he personally has been misrepresented. He should not raise matters of Party policy.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– Exactly. I will confine myself to the statement that the Federal Executive repudiated my position. The amendment continues:

  1. Consistent with the attitudes of the ACTU, Labor policy disapproves strongly the insertion of sanction clauses in voluntary industrial agreements.

That amendment was put to the Federal Executive and was defeated because only 2 people besides the mover and seconder supported it. The motion which I seconded was then put and carried. A move to secure a presidential ruling that the decision of the Federal Executive which was carried as a consequence of my seconding Mr Egerton’s motion did not constitute a rebuff to Caucus was rejected by the Federal President of the Party. I will conclude on this note: There is no excuse for the Treasurer misrepresenting the situation, misquoting me and misquoting what the Federal Executive did, because the decision of the Federal Executive was made known to the Press at the time it was taken. The full text of the resolution moved by Mr Egerton and seconded by me was given to the Press by Mr Young and was published.

Mr SNEDDEN:
Treasurer · Bruce · LP

- Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation which involves a misrepresentation of me.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Is the Minister asking for leave to make a personal explanation as a result of a misrepresentation by the honourable member for Hindmarsh?

MrClyde Cameron - I ask whether the Treasurer claims to have been misrepresented?

Mr SPEAKER:

– If the honourable member will leave that question to me I will handle it in a moment. I also have to deal with something from the honourable member for Lalor. Does the Treasurer claim to have been misrepresented?

Mr SNEDDEN:

– I claim to have been misrepresented by the honourable member for Hindmarsh. In making his personal explanation the honourable gentleman said that I had said that he was rebuffed by the Federal Executive last year. I did not say that. I said that he was rebuffed by the Federal Executive this year - last March. In his personal explanation the honourable gentleman dealt with a series of events in 1971, culminating in December, relating to sanctions. I was talking about a rebuff in relation to a decision taken on wages policy, I think in March of this year in Adelaide. The honourable gentleman has quoted a great deal. Let me quote something which justifies the inference I have drawn, which has never been denied by the honourable gentleman. Indeed, it was the subject of very great publicity at the time the honourable gentleman wanted to institute a policy of holding down wages at what he described as the higher level of incomes. He ran into trouble with the Public Service, because the Public Service said that it would impose a ceiling and this would press the lower wages up against it. The honourable gentleman still has problems with the Public Service. It was the people in the Public Service who sent telegrams. Then there was a meeting of the Federal Executive, and the proposal put by the honourable gentleman did not last more than 48 hours. It was not proceeded with.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I do not think the Minister is in order in debating the whole question. If the Minister wishes to state where he has been misrepresented, he should do so.

Mr SNEDDEN:

– I was misrepresented by the reference to the events of last year when I was referring to this year. An illustration of the publicity given at that time is this small item taken from the ‘Australian’ of 25th April 1972:

The ALP’s shadow Minister for Labor, Mr Clyde Cameron, has angered white-collar union leaders by proposing a new wage policy which should give higher increases to employees on low incomes . . . They say the proposals, if adopted by the ALP, will destroy the long-established wage difference between different groups based on skills, responsibilities and value of work performed. The

Cameron plan will remove the incentives for promotion to upper-echelon white-collar jobs, they say.

My understanding - this is what I said this morning - was that the Federal Executive decided in Adelaide not to go along with what I described this morning as an embryonic wages policy of the Labor Party, because it would have been the first time that the ALP had a wages policy; it does not possess a wages policy.

Mr CLYDE CAMERON (Hindmarsh)-

Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– Yes, I have been misrepresented a second time. I now discover that the Treasurer was not making reference to penal provisions in enforceable industrial agreements.

Mr Snedden:

– Wages and incomes.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– Yes, wages and incomes. He was referring to something that was alleged to have taken place at the March meeting of the Federal Executive. Again he is badly informed, and when I relate to the Parliament the full facts of what happened at the March meeting I hope that he will not misrepresent me on this issue any further. I have the minutes of the March meeting of the Federal Executive meeting in the House.

Mr Beazley:

– Read them out.

Mr Snedden:

– Table them.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– I have been asked to table them.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The House will come to order. I informed the Treasurer that I would not allow him to debate the question. I will allow the honourable member for Hindmarsh to show only where he has been misrepresented.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– I will look through these minutes.

Mr McMahon:

– Ha, ha!

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– Yes, I will table them and you will be stuck with what is in them.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Does the honourable member, by leave, wish, to table them?

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– 1 wish to table the minutes of the March meeting.

Mr SPEAKER:

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

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– Now you are stuck with positive proof that you told a falsehood to the Parliament because those minutes are now formally tabled. The minutes will show that no proposition was put to the Federal Executive along the lines suggested by the Treasurer. Nothing was ever moved by me to suggest even in the most remote form a proposition to freeze wages or to have a wage or income policy or to freeze the wages of the top echelon of the Public Service. The minutes are tabled for all to see and when the Treasurer has read them I hope that he will have the decency to stand up in this Parliament on Tuesday and make an admission that no resolution was moved by me at all to freeze the salaries of the top echelon of the Public Service.

Mr SNEDDEN (Bruce- Treasurer)- Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Does the honourable gentleman claim to have been misrepresented?

Mr SNEDDEN:

– Yes, I do claim to have been misrepresented. The honourable member for Hindmarsh (Mr Clyde Cameron) said, after he tabled the minutes, that they would show that he did not move any motion whatever and that there is no income prices policy. The implication of what he is saying is that somehow, when I made my statement earlier this morning, it was wrong. Now, out of his own mouth he has said that the Australian Labor Party has no income prices policy. It leaves the accusation I made unrebutted. Labor has a prices policy but no income policy.

page 1395

EXPORT INCENTIVES

Ministerial Statement

Mr McMAHON:
Prime Minister · Lowe · LP

– Mr Speaker, 1 seek leave to make a short statement on export incentives.

Mr SPEAKER:

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

Mr McMAHON:

– The Government has decided in principle to extend export incentives beyond 30th June 1973, the date on which legislation providing for these incentives expires. The existing incentive scheme has been under review and details of the new scheme will be announced as soon as practicable. It is the intent of the Government that the benefits under the new scheme will be comparable in nature and scope to those under the existing scheme.

The Government is aware of the need for an early and positive statement of its intentions when the current scheme expires. Otherwise, doubts and uncertainties could arise in the business community, with detrimental effect on forward planning and export sales together with doubts on investment decisions. The export incentive scheme was introduced in 1961. The operation of the scheme has coincided with a period of sustained export growth from S2,150m in 1961-62 to $4,900m in 1971- 72. There are income tax rebates for expenditure made on export promotion and payroll tax rebates or incentive grants linked to export growth.

I present the following paper:

Export Incentives - Ministerial Statement, 14th September 1972.

Motion (by Mr Chipp) proposed:

That the House take note of the paper.

Dr J F Cairns:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

– The statement made by the Prime Minister (Mr McMahon) was very short. It is not my purpose to say that the export incentive scheme has not had advantages or has not achieved some results but just as yesterday, when I found myself following the Minister for Trade and Industry (Mr Anthony) who was using aggregate figures for the balance of trade to try to justify a policy when those figures concealed more about the result of the policy than they revealed, we now have the same thing this morning. The Prime Minister has come up with aggregate figures for total exports, the overwhelming proportion of which is quite unaffected by export incentives at all. He has told us that he hopes to be able to announce de new scheme before very long. He his told us that there is a need for this scheme because there is doubt and uncertainty in industry. I am glad that has been admitted and recognised because there is a great deal of doubt and uncertainty in industry not only about the nature of the new scheme and whether it will represent any advance on the old one, which has had some successes, but because it has operated long enough to reveal its very serious deficiencies. There is no evidence at all that any of those serious deficiencies will be overcome in the new scheme.

The second thing about this scheme is that, as in everything else, this Parliament is merely a rubber stamp. It is merely the place where the Government publicly announces the decisions that it has agreed on somewhere else. The Parliament plays no part in the determination of anything. It is the place where the Government makes public the decisions that have been made in a department or in the Cabinet and it is the place where the Government gathers a feedback to ascertain whether it has gone too far or not far enough. This is not a decision making place it is merely a rubber stamp. I have stressed this so much in the last 12 months or 18 months that I had hoped that somebody else would have noticed it. This case is a very good example of what I have been saying. Undoubtedly a new scheme of export incentives is needed. The Prime Minister has told us that a new scheme will be announced before very long and the Parliament will be told what it is. The Parliament is not going to be asked to take any part in deciding what the scheme will do. It will play no part at all. I would have thought that some of the Government supporters who believe in democracy, who say things about this place which would indicate that they have some appreciation for it, would be ready to object to this kind of procedure. As no-one in this Parliament is going to have any other opportunity to say what he thinks might be included in the new export scheme - I suppose it has already been substantially decided anyway - I would have thought that one or two honourable members opposite would have been ready to take the small advantage that this statement offers for that to be done.

The greatest deficiency in an export incentive scheme up to now has been the absence of any realistic provisions for long term finance for exporters. It is not so much that they want something for nothing. If we are to increase our exports of manufactured products we will have to go to many parts of the world. But we will not be successful unless we can offer much longer term credit than is normally available through the commerical banking facilities and Australia industries development provisions. Wherever these provisions are found, they add nothing at all to the normal commercial banking facilities.

Recently Sir Alan Westerman, in effect, told a Senate committee that if he were not inhibited so much by Government policy, very largely derived from the historic interests of the commercial banking system, he could use an extra, I think, $300m. It seems to me that this is an area where the scheme to be announced by the Government in the near future should concentrate on developing new facilities, and a new and much more radical attitude to the provision of long term finance. Another thing which I think should also be given attention in this scheme - one can have no feeling that it will be given attention - is an extension of the research and development assistance. At present this assistance is on a very narrow basis, but if we are to increase our exports of manufacturing goods the increase will be in those products which have been the result of research to meet needs which differ from the normal needs that are generated within the Australian economy.

Experience shows that the research and development policy of the Government is too geared to academic qualifications. It is too favourable to the large organisations which are able to have a few university graduates on their staff. However it seems to me that the most significant industrial innovations that characterise Australian history up to at least 5 or 6 years ago have come from people who did not have any academic background. The development in Australia of cultivating machinery capable of effective use in hard soils has come from a background of academically unqualified inventors. There arc significant areas of the world where this Australian cultivating equipment is very much in demand and where the product has been designed to cultivate the softer soils of north-western Europe cannot compete with the Australian product. I know of a number of very high standard equipment manufacturers in Australia who receive no research and development assistance at all because they do not have a university graduate on their staff.

I hope that when the scheme eventually comes to the House the pipeline in which all these decisions are made - decisions which the House rubberstamps - will at least have been moved to take into account these 2 matters, namely, the need for long term finance to be provided quite differently from the standards of the ordinary commercial banks and the need to extend research and development assistance. I do not believe that any dollar spent on research and development is ever wasted. I would be prepared to waste a lot of dollars in this field rather than waste them in a number of other areas I could mention.

Finally, I protest at the way these things are done. Once more this matter has simply come into the House and we have been told - I suppose we should be grateful for this - that some time in the near future the Government will announce a scheme. At least today we are given an opportunity to say something about it, but I think there should be a way in which the Government much more deliberately could provide the House with an opportunity to say what it can and to contribute what it can to the development of a scheme before the scheme is finalised.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 1397

STATES GRANTS (SCHOOLS) BILL 1972

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.

The purpose of the States Grants (Schools) Bill is to authorise payments to the States to implement the new measures of direct Commonwealth assistance to both government and non-government schools which were announced in this House by the Prime Minister (Mr McMahon) on 11th May last. I remind honourable members that the new measures consist of 2 parts. There is to be a programme of unmatched capital grants for both government and non-government school in the States over the 5 years period commencing

July 1973. In addition, from the beginning of 1973. Commonwealth per capita grants towards the running costs of nongovernment schools are to be on a new basis. Those schools will be assured of Commonwealth per capita contributions as a known percentage of the running costs in Government schools. It is the Commonwealth’s hope that the states will join it in basing assistance with running costs of nongovernment schools on the costs in government schools.

These proposals, and the legislation to give effect to them, follow the principles on which the Government has stated quite clearly that it wishes to assist Australian schools. The Commonwealth is a major contributor of funds from which the State governments derive their expenditure for both capital and recurrent purposes in schools. The Government has endeavoured to provide the States with general purpose funds from which they may improve both the quantity and quality of education. In addition, we have developed a range of programmes of direct financial assistance to particular areas in education. At the schools level we have made unmatched capital grants for science laboratories and secondary school libraries, for teachers colleges and since last December, for general facilities in both primary and secondary government schools. We have also made per capita grants towards the running costs of non-government schools. The Government has entered into these arrangements in recognition of an obligation for it to assist with particular areas of need, subject to understandings with the States and to the availability of funds and other resources. We have sought to develop programmes which will promote greater equality in the availability of facilities for all schools and all students.

Where the Commonwealth makes direct grants for capital purposes in schools, it does not attempt to interfere with the right of a State government to determine its own priorities. Under this new programme, each State will decide for itself the facilities to which priority is to be given. One State may be particularly concerned about the problems of inner city schools, others about growth in suburban areas and each will decide the relative priority of needs in primary schools as against secondary schools.

Non-government schools will receive capital grants under this programme only where a school has demonstrated that its facilities do not measure up to publicly known standards developed with the assistance of responsible expert advisers.

Let me now give some information about the provisions in Part II of the Bill for grants for capital expenditure and about the administrative arrangements which the Government intends to adopt for this new capital programme. The new grants will be available after the completion in June 1973 of the special short term programme under which $20m is being made available for facilities in government schools. Over the 5 years commencing July 1973, a sum of $2 15m will be divided between government and non-government schools in the States on the basis of school enrolments, giving $167m for government schools and $48m for non-government schools. The Commonwealth grants for the government schools are intended to be additional to funds which the States will provide within their works and housing programmes. For the non-government schools the Commonwealth grants will be virtually the only government grants for capital purposes, apart, of course, from the existing science laboratories and secondary school libraries grants.

The science facilities programme for both government and non-government schools will conclude on 30th June 1975 and, to enable the provision of those facilities to continue, the amount to be available under the new programme in each of the 5 years will be increased from the beginning of the third year. In each of the first 2 years the total sum will be $40m and this will be increased to $45m for each of the remaining 3 years. The separate programme for libraries in both government and non-government schools will continue throughout the 5 years period because of the greater outstanding demands still to be met.

State governments will be free to develop their own arrangements for use of these grants for government schools subject only to the conditions that at least 70 per cent of the total moneys are to be devoted to additional facilities rather than replacement facilities and that information will be provided each year which will enable the Minister to inform the Parliament about the particular projects on which the Commonwealth grants have been spent, lt is also the Commonwealth’s intention that each State will maintain the present share of loan funds being devoted to school construction so that the new Commonwealth grants will represent, in fact, a net addition to facilities in government schools.

For the non-government schools, the Commonwealth will appoint a representative expert committee to advise and assist the Minister and his Department in developing criteria and standards under which the new capital grants will be made available to non-government schools in the States. I am pleased to announce that Sir Ivan Dougherty of Sydney has consented to be Chairman of the new Commonwealth Committee on Facilities for Non-government Schools. In addition to that national advisory committee, there will be a single committee in each State to recommend priorities for the allocation of grants to individual projects which meet the Commonwealth criteria and standards. Representatives of the various non-government schools have agreed to form one such committee in each State. This is a most significant development as it will no longer be necessary to divide the funds in advance between Roman Catholic schools and other nongovernment schools. There will now be one priority list for projects in all of the nongovernment schools in each State. When the legislation has been passed we will move quickly to establish administrative procedures so that we may ensure that grants can be paid when the money becomes available from July 1973. It is the Government’s intention that building projects in non-government schools which commence on or after the day following enactment of the legislation will be eligible for consideration for Commonwealth grants.

Capital grants for the non-government schools will also be subject to the condition that at least 70 per cent of the money is to be spent on additional facilities rather than replacement facilities. We wish also to give emphasis to the provision of additional places, either for additional students or to reduce class sizes. The legislation lays down provisions for non-government schools to account for the expenditure of Commonwealth capital grants. In addition to ensuring that a grant is spent for the purpose approved by the Minister, a school authority will, after completion of the project, be required to furnish a statement signed by a qualified accountant certifying that the conditions attached to a grant for buildings and associated facilities have been met. In turn, the Minister will provide the Parliament annually with details of individual projects.

I turn now to the provisions in the Bill covering assistance for recurrent expenditure in non-government schools in the States. The Commonwealth and all State Governments have accepted a responsibility to make direct grants to nongovernment schools towards their running costs. However, those schools have lacked a firm an j secure base on which to plan their future development. The Commonwealth and the States have taken decisions from time to time about the amount and nature of their contributions towards the running costs of non-government schools, but there has been no arrangement for tying either the Commonwealth or the State assistance to some factor which would permit the schools to look to the future with any certainty.

The Government believes that the only way of ensuring non-government schools of continuing basic support is to tie that support to a proportion of the recurrent costs of educating children in government primary and secondary schools throughout Australia. Any other approach would fail to provide a guarantee to non-government schools. We reject the alternative concept of the application of a means test on nongovernment schools for the purpose of recurrent grants. Our policy in this regard is the policy favoured by the National Council of Independent Schools and the Federal Catholic Schools Committee.

Our attitude in this matter is based on more than a belief that every child has a right to a basic level of support from governments in education. It extends beyond our desire to provide non-government schools with the certainty and guarantee which I have mentioned. By rejecting the means test in the field of recurrent grants to non-government schools, we enable parents and friends and other interested groups and individuals to work for their schools, secure in the knowledge that they will not preclude those schools from Gov ernment assistance by improving their conditions and facilities beyond the means test level. I should add that it is very difficult for the parent of a child at a nongovernment school to accept the argument that everyone has the right to a complete Government-provided education in a government school, but that they lose any right the moment they decide to send their children to a non-government school whether it be for religious, geographic or any other reason.

Part III of the Bill will provide the authority for the new method of making per capita grants to non-government schools in the States from 1973 onwards and, as a consequence, the States Grants (Independent Schools) Bill (No. 2) 1972 is being introduced to limit the arrangements under the present Act to grants made to the end of 1972. In future the Commonwealth will make annual per capita grants on the basis of 20 per cent of an amount assessed as the estimated average cost of educating a child in government schools throughout Australia. There will be separate rates for primary and secondary schools in each calendar year and these will be determined and announced towards the end of the preceding year. The per capita rates will be derived from information provided by the States and the Commonwealth about estimated expenditure in government schools in the financial year which ends in the middle of the year in which the grants are to be made. To illustrate, the per capita grants for 1973 will be at rates of 20 per cent of the estimated cost of educating children in government primary and secondary schools throughout Australia during the financial year 1972-73.

The Commonwealth has invited the States to join with it in providing the nongovernment schools with an assured basis for assistance by themselves undertaking to make contributions towards the running costs of those schools equivalent to 20 per cent of the national average cost of educating children in the government schools. It is, of course, for each State to determine its policy in this regard and, from discussions which have taken place, I am hopeful that most, if not all of the States, will adopt a policy of tying assistance to nongovernment schools to the cost of running government schools.

The Bill lays down procedures under which non-government schools will account for expenditure of Commonwealth per capita grants. As with the present per capita assistance, a grant is to be available only for recurrent expenditure related to the school for which it is made. At the appropriate time the school authority will provide a statement from a qualified accountant certifying that this has been done. It will also be required to provide the Minister with an annual statement of income and expenditure for the school in a form which shows the major classes of income and expenditure. As with the capital programme, the Minister will provide the Parliament annually with details cf the per capita grants made in respect of individual non-government schools.

Under both the capital programmes for government and non-government schools and the recurrent grants for nongovernment schools, the Minister will be able to exercise a discretion to enable special schools, as, for example, those for handicapped children where the courses of study do not parallel those in government primary and secondary schools, to qualify for assistance. When the Prime Minister announced the new policies which are to be brought into operation by this Bill he said that they would represent a milestone in improving the education of all Australian children. I am sure that the House will endorse that view and that in the not too distant future Australians will look back on the enactment of this legislation as an historic event in Australian education. Under this measure the National Parliament will accept a basic obligation to provide supplementary support for the benefit of all school children and will do so in a manner which ensures both government and non-government schools of continuing support. I commend the Bill to the House.

Debate (on motion by Mr Beazley) adjourned.

page 1400

STATES GRANTS (INDEPENDENT

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.

The existing legislation provides for recurrent grants to non-government schools in the States at specified rates for each primary and secondary pupil without limit to the period of operation of the grants. The introduction in 1973 of a different basis for determining these rates, as proposed in the States Grants (Schools) Bill 1972, requires the termination of the present arrangements at the end of 1972. Therefore, the purpose of this Bill is to limit the period of operation of the States Grants (Independent Schools) Act 1969-72 to the end of 1972.

Debate (on motion of Mr Beazley) adjourned.

page 1400

STATES GRANTS (UNIVERSITIES) BILL 1972

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.

Honourable members will recall that in May 1970 Mr Justice Eggleston, as he then was, made certain recommendations in his report of his inquiry into academic salaries. One recommendation was that, in future, academic salaries should be adjusted automatically in accordance with national wage case decisions. The Commonwealth accepted that recommendation and has provided additional financial assistance to the States towards the cost of subsequent increases in academic salaries.

The purpose of this Bill is to provide additional contributions by the Commonwealth towards the cost of increasing academic salaries in universities in line with the increase of $2 a week awarded in the 1972 national wage case with effect from the first pay period commencing on or after 19th May 1972 until the end of 1972. For the 1973-75 triennium provision has been included in the grants recommended by the Australian Universities Commission which will be the subject of separate legislation later in this session. I seek leave of the House to have incorporated in Hansard a table showing the salaries on which the additional Commonwealth grants are based.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

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

The grants also provide for an increase of $2 a week for academic staff below the grade of lecturer.

Apart from adjustments following national wage cases, academic salaries have not been reviewed since 1st January 1970. The Commonwealth Government, after consultation with State governments, has concluded that the time is appropriate for such a review and, on 11th September 1972, I announced that Mr Justice Campbell of the Supreme Court of Queensland had been appointed to conduct an inquiry into academic salaries in universities. Mr Justice Campbell will be assisted by Professor R. L. Mathews, Professor of Accounting and Public Finance of the Australian National University, and Mr M. C. Timbs, Executive Member of the Australian Atomic Energy Commission, as assessors. It is intended that the inquiry should involve a careful investigation into appropriate salaries for the various grades of academic staff in universities and the Commonwealth will be ready to support any increases in salaries that might be recommended by the inquiry with effect from 1st January 1973, which is the beginning of the next university triennium.

Mr Justice Campbell’s inquiry will not be examining salaries at colleges of advanced education because the Commonwealth is adhering to the principles of the Sweeney report that salaries of lecturers and senior lecturers in colleges of advanced education should be broadly the same as those in universities. When the recommendations of the inquiry into university salaries are known, the Commonwealth and State governments will give further consideration to the question of academic salaries for colleges of advanced education. However, I remind honourable members that this Bill relates only to the provision of financial assistance in respect of the year 1972 for increases in academic salaries in universities in line with the 1972 national wage case decision. The cost to the Commonwealth of this salary adjustment will be $219,000. 1 commend the Bill to honourable members.

Debate (on motion by Mr Beazley) adjourned.

page 1401

STATES GRANTS (ADVANCED EDUCATION) BILL (No. 2) 1972

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

Second Reading

Mr Malcolm Fraser:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP

– 1 move:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Consequent upon the national wage case decision of May 1972, salaries for academic staff in colleges of advanced education have increased. The purpose of the Bill before the House is to appropriate additional grants in order that the Commonwealth might, under the accepted matching formula, meet its share of the additional costs involved. As a result of the revised schedule of grants for recurrent expenditure for 1972, supplementary Commonwealth grants totalling approximately $70,500 and representing a combined additional Commonwealth-State allocation of nearly $201,000 will be made available for colleges of advanced education in the States. In addition the Bill effects minor adjustments to the 1970-72 capital expenditure programme for New South Wales. These variations have been initiated by the State and they do not increase the grant previously allocated. I commend the Bill to honourable members.

Debate (on motion by Mr Beazley) adjourned.

page 1401

HANSARD REPORT

Dr GUN:
Kingston

- Mr Deputy Speaker, I seek leave to make a short statement to correct the Hansard report.

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

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

Dr GUN:

– During the adjournment debate last night I was discussing a television debate which took place between the Minister for Labour and National Service (Mr Lynch) and the President of the Australian Council of Trade Unions, Mr Hawke, at the time of the oil strike. The remarks to which I wish to refer appear on page 1360, column 2, of the Hansard report. I stated:

Mr Hawke produced a document from a senior employee in the Ansett organisation to establish that in fact the Government had put pressure on Ansett to stop them negotiating.

As I remember that television debate, what I should have said was that Mr Hawke gave details of a conversation he had had with a member of the Ansett organisation to establish that in fact the Government had put pressure on Ansett to stop its representatives negotiating. This error was inadvertent and I did not notice it until I read today’s Hansard report.

page 1402

AGED PERSONS HOMES BILL 1972

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

Second Reading

Mr WENTWORTH:
Minister for Social Services · MackellarMinister for Social Services · LP

– 1 move:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

In the Budget there is a comprehensive and balanced programme for assistance to the ailing aged - that is, those who suffer from impaired health in their declining years, and who need special care and attention. I do not think that any honourable member will deny that these merit some special provision. The Government’s programme in this field will be partly administered by my colleague, the Minister for Health (Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson), and partly through my own Department. The 2 proposals which concern me in my Department are:

  1. Increase in the subsidy paid to nonprofit homes caring for people aged over 80, so that these homes could balance their books on pension plus subsidy, and still leave their inmates enough for necessities and amusement.
  2. A 3-year crash programme to provide more hostel-type accommodation in line with our aged persons homes organisation.

This Bill which I am now presenting, is concerned with the former of these 2 proposals, and it will implement the announcement made in the Treasurer’s Budget Speech to the effect that the present rate of subsidy payable to eligible organisations providing personal care services for the frail aged in hostel accommodation will be doubled.

As honourable members will be aware, the Aged Persons Homes Act assists eligible organisations to provide suitable accommodation in hostels for aged persons in 2 ways, firstly, by means of a $2 or $1 subsidy towards the capital cost of establishing approved self-contained hostel or nursing accommodation; and, secondly, by assisting eligible organisations to help meet the cost of providing personal care services in the intermediate or hostel form of accommodation.

In order to receive personal care subsidy it is not necessary for a hostel to have been established by the organisation with the aid of a capital grant under the Aged Persons Homes Act. Many organisations which established homes prior to the introduction of the Act are now receiving personal care subsidy in respect of those homes. This personal care subsidy, which is at present calculated on the basis of $5 a week for each resident aged 80 years and over, who comprise, by the way a little under half of their residents, was introduced in 1969 to provide an alternative to pensioners who would otherwise have been forced to go into nursing homes. As I said in 1969 when introducing the legislation, the Government is concerned at the fact that people whose only infirmity is the frailty of advancing years are sometimes admitted to nursing homes and other similar institutions unnecessarily, thus causing their sphere of activity and their scope for normal living to be unduly curtailed.

The purpose of personal care subsidy is to encourage organisations to provide such people with an adequate standard of personal attention in a less institutional atmosphere and at less cost to both the individual and the Commonwealth. In order to qualify for payment of the subsidy it is necessary for a home to provide meals and to employ sufficient staff to help any residents who need assistance with bathing and dressing, the cleaning of their rooms, their personal laundry and the general oversight of their medication; also we require a staff member to be available on the premises at all times in case of emergency. As I previously mentioned, the amount of the subsidy is calculated on the basis of the number of residents aged 80 and over. This provides an inducement for the accommodation to be made available to the frailer aged category of person. Nevertheless, it is a condition of approval that the personal care services I have referred to should be provided for any aged resident who n:eds such services, whether over 80 or not.

Since this assistance was introduced in 1969 it has been highly successful, having been responsible for many organisations introducing the personal care services into their homes. The subsidy is now being paid to 360 homes, which provide hostel-type accommodation for over 16,000 aged persons, of whom nearly 7,000 are aged 80 or over. Subsidy paid during 1971-72 amounted to $1.8m. Since 1969 the level of staff wages and other costs associated with the running of aged persons homes has risen substantially. In order to ensure that the real value, or purchasing power, of the assistance is not reduced, but rather increased, the Bill now before the House provides for the rate of payment of subsidy to be increased from $5 to $10 a week and for the increase to take effect from the first pay-day after the legislation receives royal assent. The increase will, of course, go much further than compensating for cost increases that have taken place since 1969. It is intended to increase substantially the incentive for organisations to provide hostel accommodation and to expand the nature and extent of the care that they provide for the frail aged residents of such hostels.

It is estimated that this increase will cost an additional $1.3m in 1972-73 and $2m in the first full year. Total expenditure on the subsidy is thus expected to be S3. 2m in 1972-73 and upward of $4m in the next full year, with cumulative increases in subsequent years as the supply of hostel-type accommodation increases. In so far as our crash programme to accelerate the construction of hostel-type accommodation succeeds, these figures may well be substantially exceeded. Residents in those nonprofit hostel type homes who have no assets or income outside their pension will receive a pension of S20 a week plus S4 a week supplementary assistance. In addition the home will receive SIO a week for all over 80; and since about 45 per cent of their residents fall into this upper age group, the average subsidy will be about $4.50 a week a resident. This gives a total available from the Government of about 528.50 a resident a week, which should be enough to provide for running expenses and leave a reasonable spending margin to pensioners.

This Bill represents but one component of a comprehensive programme being introduced by the Government in this session of Parliament to improve the health and welfare of aged persons. I will, as I have said, also be introducing another Bill under which the Commonwealth will offer to meet the full cost of additional ho 5 tei accommodation built by eligible organisations at present conducting homes for the aged which were established either without Commonwealth subsidy or when the subsidy was paid only on a dollar-for-dollar basis. This special offer, which will be limited to 3 years, will be in addition to the $2 for $1 subsidy scheme presently provided under the Aged Persons Homes Act, which, of course, will continue to operate independently of the new arrangement. In addition, the Minister for Health has announced that he will be introducing new forms of assistance for patients who require nursing care on a continuous basis, together with other measures aimed at encouraging aged people, who might otherwise be admitted prematurely or unnecessarily to nursing homes, to remain in their domestic environment for as long as they are able to do so. This Bill before the House makes a significant contribution to this total programme. I commend the Bill to the House.

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

– May I have the indulgence of the House to explain that the honourable member for Oxley (Mr Hayden), on behalf of the Australian Labour Party, has agreed to allow this Bill to go through today so that the benefits can flow to aged people. The Government is grateful for that suggestion and will co-operate.

I hope that those honourable members who wish to speak will limit their remarks so that the passage of this Bill and the next Bill to be introduced by the Minister can be expedited.

Debate (on motion by Mr Hayden) adjourned.

page 1404

AGED PERSONS HOSTELS BILL 1972

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

Second Reading

Mr WENTWORTH:
Minister for Social Services · Mackellar · LP

–

I move:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

The purpose of this Bill is to give effect to the announcement made in the Treasurer’s Budget Speech that the Government would legislate in this session to assist the provision of additional hostel-type accommodation for aged persons. Before I proceed to give details of how the Bill does this it might be helpful to honourable members if I explained the general context into which the measure fits.

page 1404

THE AGED PERSONS HOMES NETWORK

Since 1954, when the Aged Persons Homes Act was introduced, the Government has been subsidising the building by religious and other voluntary organisations of homes for aged persons, originally on a one-for-one basis and since 1957 on a $2 for $1 basis. Three types of accommodation (all of which are, of course, run on a nonprofit basis) are eligible for subsidy: Firstly, self-contained units, where residents may live independent lives under normal home conditions; secondly, hostel-type accommodation, where residents occupy separate rooms, but have meals and other personal care services provided for them; and thirdly, nursing homes, where those who are no longer able to look after themselves receive eitherlight or intensive nursing care, as required-

Capital grants made under this legislation to date total over $150m, with the aid of which accommodation has been provided for over 45,000 aged persons - 23,000 of them in self-contained units, 17,000 in hostel-type accommodation and 5,000 in nursing accommodation. Grants made during 1971-72 reached the record level of $23. 8m, demonstrating the continuing and expanding success of this legislation.

I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a table showing the present position and the advances which have been made in recent years.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Lucock)Order! Is leave granted? There being no objection, leave is granted. (The document read as follows) -

Mr WENTWORTH:
LP

– I am glad to be able to report to the House that in 1971-72 we broke records in numbers of beds approved in each of the 3 types of accommodation, and that preliminary figures suggest that 1972-73 may also be a record year, surpassing even last year.

page 1404

PENSIONERS’ HOUSING

Homes established under the Aged Persons Homes Act, of course, accommodate only a fraction of the aged population of Australia. Of our 834,000 aged pensioners, for example, departmental records indicate that over 519,000 or 62 per cent, live in homes which they themselves own. State housing authorities and unsubsidised hostels provide for at least a further 25,000 and approximately 40,000 are living in nursing homes which were not subsidised under the Aged Persons Homes Act, mainly those being operated commercially. Departmental records indicate that many of the remaining aged persons would be living, either with their families or relatives, under conditions they themselves would not want to change or in good-standard accommodation which they rent from private owners at a reasonable rate. A residue, however, would be living under unsatisfactory conditions; that is, either living in accommodation of an unsatisfactory standard or paying a rental that they are not able to afford. It has been estimated that as many as 50,000 pensioners may be living under these conditions. There is still scope, therefore, for further expansion under our Aged Persons Homes Scheme and the accommodation subsidised to this point of time could be doubled before reasonable needs could be said to have been met.

At the present rate of progress it would take many years to clear the backlog and, of course, in the meantime the need continues to increase. It has been estimated that the number of aged people needing satisfactory accommodation is increasing at the rate of 1,000 a year. The problem is not simply a matter of accelerating the rate at which accommodation is being provided under the Aged Persons Homes Act. It has become increasingly obvious that the need is not only for more accommodation, but for more of the right type of accommodation and for available accommodation to be directed more towards the people most in need of it. In other words, it is necessary to face up to the fact that an imbalance exists between the types of accommodation available to aged people.

It has been established through surveys carried out by the Department of Health, that many aged persons who have no real medical need to go into an institution are permanently occupying beds in nursing homes. It has been reliably estimated that this may be true of at least 12,000, or say, 25 per cent, of the patients in nursing homes throughout Australia. No doubt one of the causes of this situation is that, up to now, no alternative accommodation, of the type which really suits their needs, has been readily available. There are long waiting lists for most of the organisations under the Aged Persons Homes Act which provide hostel-type accommodation. At present there are over 51,000 nursing beds in Australia, nearly half of which are in New South Wales, and even at existing rates nursing home benefits are costing the Commonwealth over $78m a year. Before the end of 1973 the number of nursing beds is expected to rise to 55,000 and the Commonwealth commitment to over $100m.

More important than the financial consideration, it is sociologically bad for people to be put under care more intensive than they need. From the medical point of view they should be encouraged to exhibit the maximum independence. Nursing home dependence causes their sphere of activity and scope for normal living to be unduly curtailed. It is medically and psychologically bad to force old people, through the lack of any real alternative, to accept a nursing home regime when they have no real need to do so. The drain upon nursing and technical resources is also significant. The ratio of patients to staff in non-profit nursing homes is about two to one, which means that for every thousand beds about 500 staff are required, comprising 170 trained nurses, 200 nursing aides and 130 domestics. With nursing beds increasing at the rate of 5,000 per year this gives rise to an additional staff demand of about 2,500.

page 1405

PENSIONERS AND NURSING HOMES

A number of reasons have been elicited for the growth of nursing homes. Firstly, the generous rates of nursing home benefits undoubtedly provide a great inducement for people to seek this type of accommodation. In effect they receive, even if only on the existing ordinary rate of nursing home benefit, a supplementary pension, free of any means test, of $24.50 a week; while for those on intensive care it is $45.50 a week. Both these figures will be substantially increased when the Budget proposals of the Department of Health become effective. Secondly, there is the lack of an effective system of screening admissions to nursing homes. As the house knows, the Department of Health proposes to remedy this situation.

Thirdly, there is the increasing and alarming trend in the community for families and relatives to look to nursing homes to solve the problem of accommodation and care for the aged. Many young couples today are either unable or unwilling to care for their aged parents, and look to the Government to find a solution to this problem. The introduction of the $14 a week extra payment for people who keep their sick relatives in their own homes, which again is proposed in the present Budget, and which will be under the administration of my colleague the Minister for Health (Senator Sir Kenneth

Anderson), will substantially ease the financial burden for those who assume or continue these family responsibilities. The fourth reason is by the relatively undeveloped state of home care services such as meals on wheels, home nursing and paramedical services, housekeeper and other home help, senior citizens centres, etc. In 1969 the States sought, and were given by the Commonwealth, matching grants to foster growth of these services, but growth is occurring very slowly. The Minister for Health and myself, as already announced, have obtained Cabinet authority to discuss with the States ways and means of accelerating this process and I trust it will not be very long before we can report some further progress to the House. The fifth reason for the unbalanced growth of nursing homes is the attitude of the States. Both nursing homes and home care services have traditionally been regarded as State responsibilities, but the States seem almost to have abrogated their responsibilities in the nursing home field and, in some cases, seem reluctant to assume their proper responsibility for home care services. Whatever the constitutional position, the Commonwealth cannot stand idly by and see the real interests of old people prejudiced by the failure of the States to face up to their responsibilities. The Commonwealth concern is the background to the comprehensive and balanced programme which I have outlined, of which the proposal in the present Bill is an integral part.

The contribution that the legislation I now place before the House makes to the Government’s multi-lateral approach to the problem, is to provide added encouragement for religious and other voluntary organisations to build more hostel accommodation as quickly as possible.

The Bill provides for the Commonwealth to make grants to eligible organisations towards the building of hostel-type accommodation on the basis of existing homes which were built either without Government subsidy or when subsidy was available only on a dollar-for-dollar basis.

The Commonwealth will meet the capital cost of providing hostel-type accommodation for two additional aged persons for every one at present accommodated in an unsubsidised home, or one additional person for every two in an existing home subsidised on a dollar-for-dollar basis, up to a maximum of $7,800 for every aged person or necessary staff member accommodated.

The Bill also provides for grants of up to $250 per person to be made towards the cost of furnishing these hostel-type beds.

page 1406

THE PROVISIONS OF THIS BILL

It will not be necessary for the organisation to make any monetary contribution to the capital cost of the new home unless the capital cost exceeds $7,800 per person, or the furnishing cost exceeds $250 per person, or the bed capacity of the new home exceeds twice that of the unsubsidised qualifying home, or half that of the qualifying home subsidised on a oneforone basis. The Bill provides that the qualifying home should be one which, unless the Director-General of Social Services otherwise determines, would have attracted a grant under the Aged Persons Homes Act if built recently. In exercising his discretion under this section the DirectorGeneral will make allowance for advances in the standards of aged persons homes which have occurred since the qualifying home was established. In accordance with the principle established in the Aged Persons Homes Act, existing homes which were established wholly with funds provided by State governments will not be eligible for approval as qualifying homes. However, where the capital cost of the home was shared between the voluntary organisation and the State, a proportion of the accommodation, calculated on the basis of the organisation’s contribution, will be acceptable as the basis for a grant under this legislation.

The Bill also includes a requirement that construction of the new hostel must be substantially commenced within a period of 12 months from the date of approval of the grant by the Director-General of Social Services. Otherwise the approval shall be deemed to have lapsed. The object of this provision is to bring about the building of the new accommodation within a reasonably short period. The legislation will operate for a 3-year period only, commencing from the date on which the Bill receives royal assent. In order to ensure that the ‘free’ homes established under this Act provide accommodation for those most in need of it, it will be a condition of approval that the accommodation is to be allocated strictly on the basis of need, without any contribution being required or received from the prospective resident towards the capital cost of the home or the funds of the sponsoring organisation. Personal care subsidy, provided under Part III of the Aged Persons Homes Act, will be payable, subject to the usual conditions, to homes established under this legislation.

I would like to reiterate that the primary intention of the Bill is to stimulate the building of additional hostel accommodation in order to reduce admissions to nursing accommodation of people who have no real medical need for nursing care. In order to preserve this intention the agreement into which organisations receiving grants under this Bill will be required to enter will provide that Commonwealth nursing home benefits shall not at any time be sought for any beds in the hostels established under this special legislation, that no existing hostel accommodation which was established under the Aged Persons Homes Act shall be registered for the purpose of receiving Commonwealth nursing home benefits on the basis of this special hostel accommodation, and that a further grant will not be sought under the Aged Persons Homes Act towards the cost of establishing nursing accommodation on the basis of the hostel accommodation established under this new legislation.

As most honourable members will be aware, the cost of establishing nursing accommodation may be subsidised under the Aged Persons Homes Act on the basis of one nursing bed for every 2 ordinary residential beds. It is not intended to permit hostel accommodation established under the Bill now before the House to be taken into account in this way for the purposes of the Aged Persons Homes Act. It will be expected, of course, that organisations which receive grants under this legislation on the basis of existing homes will continue to use the ‘qualifying homes’ as accommodation for aged persons. It will be appreciated that this new legislation is not in any sense a substitute for the existing aged persons homes legislation. That existing legislation will continue to operate unaffected by the present Bill, which is a temporary addition, to cover the 3-year crash programme. It is in order to make this quite clear that the present Bill is separate and not drafted as an amendment to the existing Act.

page 1407

THE IMPORT OF THESE PROPOSALS

It will be seen that the Bill will give some existing organisations the right to construct new hostel-type beds entirely out of Commonwealth funds, and without drawing upon their own resources. In adopting this principle in this particular case the Government has 2 considerations in view: Firstly, the organisations, by the past provision of beds before the present subsidy became effective, have already contributed their fair share, and secondly, the organisations concerned have no further need to prove their bona fides because by their maintenance of their charitable work over a span of years they have already given the most convincing proof. The organisations which will benefit under this legislation will include church organisations, both Protestant and Catholic, which for long have very properly been engaged in this charitable work. They will include voluntary organisations such as the Returned Services League, associations for blind people and a number of others. They will include charitable trusts which have long been established. These are the organisations which will be entitled to take immediate benefit under the provisions of this new Act.

The new beds in this crash programme are all to be of the hostel-type; no capital donation may be required from their occupants; and they are to be allocated strictly on the basis of need. In amplification of these stipulations, I would set out the following principles which we have adopted: In determining the allocation of beds in accommodation provided under this Act organisations will be required to ensure that the beds are allocated, as I have said, without donation either by or on behalf of the occupant or intending occupant, and in accordance with need. ‘Need’ is to be decided by the organisation concerned having regard to the following: (i) degree of frailty or medical condition; (ii) age of applicant, priority to be given to those in the upper age groups, that is over 75 years of age; (iii) existing accommodation situation - preference is to be given to frail elderly people living alone or those whose families can no longer accommodate or care for them for domestic, social or other reasons; (iv) financial position of the applicant. Other things being equal, preference is to be given to pensioner medical service pensioners, particularly those who cannot afford to meet the rental of the premises in which they are residing.

The programme is thus specifically tailored to achieve its objectives: First, the quick provision of beds of the type most needed; second, the allocation of those beds to those who are most in need of them; and third, the administration of those beds by the charitable organisations, which are best qualified to administer them.

page 1408

QUESTION

OPPORTUNITIES UNDER THIS LEGISLATION

It is not possible at this stage to give a reliable estimate of the number of hostel beds likely to be brought into being by this legislation. Available information indicates that there are nearly 10,000 beds in unsubsidised homes conducted by voluntary organisations throughout Australia, but it is believed that a significant number of these would have been established with the aid of State Government grants and therefore would not qualify for the purposes of this legislation. In addition there are some 3,400 beds in homes that have been established under the Aged Persons Homes Act on a $1 for $1 basis in place of the present $2 for $1 basis. It is estimated that expenditure under the legislation could exceed $5m in the first full year. However, because an initial period is necessary for planning projects and calling for tenders, expenditure is not expected to exceed $2m in 1972-73, but it is my sincere hope that these estimates will prove to be overconservative.

This Bill represents only one part of the overall pattern of the measures being taken by the Government further to improve the position of our aged folk this year, but I feel sure that its importance will be recognised and applauded by all honourable members and by the churches and other voluntary organisations which have for so long been serving the community by providing much needed accommodation for the aged. I commend the Bill to the House.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Lucock)Is it the wish of the House to proceed with the debate forthwith?

Mr Hayden - Yes

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Is it the wish of the House to proceed forthwith with a cognate debate on this Bill and the preceding Bill? That being so I will allow that procedure to be followed.

Mr HAYDEN:
Oxley

– As the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Whitlam) pointed out in the House a few days ago the Opposition does not propose to delay in any way the passage of social service legislation through the House. If there is any delay, it will be caused by the Government and therefore will be its responsibility. It is our aim to ensure the speedy passage of social service measures so that the proposed benefits can be quickly provided for the public. For instance, the fact that the Bill to authorise increases in the social service benefit rates is not in the House now is solely the responsibility of the Government. Any further delay is the responsibility of the Government. When the Bill does come into the House, in accordance with the commitment given by the Leader of the Opposition on behalf of the Opposition a few days ago in this House the Opposition will do all it can to see that it is passed on the same day.

The Minister for Social Services (Mr Wentworth) made some intriguing points in the course of his second reading speech on the Aged Persons Hostels Bill. I was gloriously attracted to the concluding stages of his speech in which he referred to the estimated cost of the legislation. He went on to say: but it is my sincere hope that these estimates will prove to be over-conservative.

In fact he is saying that he does not know what the costs are, and that is not an unreasonable situation when trying to calculate the cost of welfare services or many other aspects of public responsibility. In effect the Minister is saying that if there is any error it is on the side of understatement rather than overstatement. I wish that Government supporters would make that sort of error when costing the Labor Party’s proposed programme instead of being excessively liberal in calculating its cost. My next point is that I hope that the Minister and the Government will bear in mind his sincere hope that the estimates will prove to be over-conservative. It is consistent with the errors made by the then Prime Minister and the then Minister for Health during the last House of Representatives election campaign. On that occasion their estimates of the cost of changes to the health insurance scheme were nearly 100 per cent out.

It seems that there is no loss of virtue or loss of face on the part of the Government in making monumental blunders in costing its programmes, but if the Labor Party is Si out, according to its critics it is a critical situation, and it is relied on heavily by the Government. It is a relatively trivial point, but one that is elevated to great heights by Government supporters and deserves that observation. One wonders why it has been 3 years since any significant changes have been made in the general areas covered by this legislation. The term of a parliament is 3 years. Before the election of 1969 the Minister for Social Services described the home services for the aged as being an outstanding programme, but in fact it turned out to be a monumental flop in many ways. The Government was supposed to spend $2.Sm a year on a comprehensive programme covering home care, paramedical services, senior citizen centres, welfare work and nursing homes. In 3 years the total expenditure has been $2m. As I pointed out in last week’s discussion it is clear that the Government has underspent its allocation by $5.5m. But no matter, because the 1969 election is safely out of the way and it is time to move into the field again and make fresh errors which will not be discovered until the coming election is out of the way.

My major concern in this area is with the overwhelming tendency to be institutionally oriented in the development of these services. Recently in the House proposals were outlined to increase the allocation for home nursing services and a proposal introduced for payment of $14 a week for a personal care service. They are important improvements but they are narrowly conceived in terms of the overall needs of the community geriatric services in Australia. Even allowing for those improvements there is still this excessive commitment to institutionalisation. I noted the confession of the Minister in his speech. He admitted that 25 per cent of people in nursing homes - about 12,000 people - ought not to be there.

This is a scandalous state of affairs because it is well established that people who are unnecessarily in nursing homes tend to vegetate, to deteriorate mentally and physically. This trend is accelerated by the deficiencies of services in many nursing homes, the lack of stimulation, the lack of an arousing environment, and the failure of the paramedical services to provide a stimulating challenge. So we are still at the wrong end of the programme. The Government started with the institutions instead of starting in the community. It should have tried to keep people at home and to keep them involved and stimulated and interested in their community. To an extent something has been done. I have mentioned already the home care programme the Minister introduced in 1969. lt has been a spectacular flop, to this point anyway. To the extent that home nursing services exist, they have been much less developed than one would expect if one takes into consideration the sorts of statements and allocations the Government makes each year.

In relation to this legislation, although the Commonwealth indicates a level of subsidy available for home nursing, in fact what has not been indicated is that this legislation ties the amount of effective expenditure by the Commonwealth to the level of expenditure by the States. Accordingly, in 10 years there has been an underexpenditure of $22m. That means that these services could have been expanded considerably. Even so, the total amount of the allocation is relatively trivial in terms of national expenditure. It is certainly relatively trivial compared with the $100m which according to the Minister’s speech, nursing services will receive by the end of 1973. If I were to identify the priorities and distinguish where more money must go in the first place, I would say that it should be going to the home nursing services and to domiciliary services generally. The sort of controls that the Government is hoping to introduce to regulate admissions to nursing homes are belated and ought to have been introduced a long time ago. There are better ways of providing financial assistance for the development of home nursing services, but that is as much as I would be prepared to say at this time. We are getting a little tired of the Minister for Social Services picking up our clothes while we are bathing.

What is needed is a comprehensive view of what is being aimed at with these sorts of services which are being developed in an ad hoc way of the Government. First of all, what is the fundamental philosophy behind the development of the services? Why have they been developed and what are the aims of the services? If one has the answers to these questions, one accordingly can identify priorities to fit in with the aims. But there has been no such approach. It has been an ad hoc approach, largely establishing priorities according to pressures which occur in the community. Once we can identify these goals, establish where the gaps are, and, most importantly, what the needs are, we can develop an integrated and balanced programme of geriatric services in the community.

The Aged Persons Homes Act, for instance, has been in operation for 17 years. There has been no review of that Act and no major evaluation to establish whether this service has been effective. We do not know whether it is reaching into the areas which it ought to be reaching. Is there a lumpiness in the distribution of these services in the community? We do not know whether areas which are underprovided or not provided at all with these services are areas which have a great need but are missing out perhaps because of socio-economic disadvantages. We do not know whether, because of this haphazard distribution, the less affluent areas are missed out or are inadequately provided with these services.

Another aspect about which I feel some concern relates to hostel services, it seems that the money will be earmarked for established organisations or institutions. I wonder whether this might well be a case of big organisations getting bigger and areas which have none of these services missing out. Rather I would hope that this is not the case and that sort of thing can be avoided. I feel concerned about the very real possibility that areas wilh considerable need are missing out on the distribution of these services. .

Finally, I wish to refer to the Minister’s attitude towards the States, as set out in his statement. In the general terms in which it is stated, it is an attitude which I can support. I think that one of the reasons why welfare services in the community have been under-developed in many ways is that the Commonwealth has tended to take the easy way out by tying its expenditure allocations to some sort of formula which requires a commitment from the States in a fixed capacity or in a fixed amount. States have limited resources. As the honourable member for Melbourne Ports (Mr Crean) pointed out by way of interjection while the Minister was talking about this area, it is a simple problem to solve if the Government wants the States to be involved in the distribution of these services, and that is by giving them more money. But an even more effective solution is for the Commonwealth to assume greater financial responsibility, with perhaps any necessary adjustment to State allocations, and go directly to the people who are most immediately related to the public. I refer to local government authorities. They should be given more authority, more prestige and more significance in relation to the extent of administration that they discharge in the community. If this is done in this area and in other areas also, one could expect that there would be a considerable upgrading in the standard of local government.

In the long term one can see local government, co-ordinated in a regional concept, accepting much greater responsibility in the administration of the public affairs of the community. That would be a much more meaningful way of discharging democratic government in the community. Here in Canberra we tend to be remote from a great deal of the community for which we are responsible. But really we are only marginally remote compared with the relationship between Brisbane and, say, Cairns or Sydney and Murwillumbah or Perth and Wyndham. These capital cities are almost as remote from those places as Canberra is from those places. Local government authorities seem to be the best seat at which to aim if we are to try to improve democratic representation in the community.

The Opposition is not opposing the Bill. I repeat that it is our aim to expedite the progress of the Bill through the House in every possible way so that the benefits proposed will not be delayed at all.

Mr PETTITT:
Hume

– It is with pleasure that I rise to support both the Bills before the House today. They mark a very definite advance in the Government’s programme of assistance to the aged and the frail aged. Already it is a programme of which we can be proud and one that has entailed the spending of a tremendous amount of money. The need to provide accommodation in the many fields involved is very important indeed. Many organisations have taken advantage over the years of the Government’s $2 for $1 subsidy. It has been of tremendous assistance to many of those organisations. One of the very good features of these Bills is the provision of assistance to those organisations which already have proved their ability and their desire to do all that they can to assist with the provision of accommodation for the aged.

The honourable member for Oxley (Mr Hayden) said that the Government had provided money that had not been spent. Let us just get that into perspective. It is up to the organisations to apply for that money. If they have not applied then it cannot be spent. The Government is always prepared to approve an application provided it meets the requirements. I am reminded that back in 1967 when we were discussing the legislation which extended the $2 for $1 subsidy to local government bodies, the Opposition delayed the legislation for more than 6 months because it claimed that it was not specifically spelt out in the legislation that industrial unions could benefit from the $2 for SI subsidy. I remember very well that the then Minister pointed out that that was not so, that there was provision for industrial unions to obtain the subsidy. However, the Opposition held up that legislation for 6 months. It is rather significant that, as far as I can discover, no industrial union has ever applied for a subsidy. So I think the honourable member’s criticism was rather uncalled for and unfair on that point.

I wish to deal with the increased subsidy for nursing homes. This is something, of course, which has been needed urgently for quite some time. Many organisations which provide nursing homes and assistance for the aged are faced with great difficulties because of rising costs and increased wages. I feel that the personal care subsidy is an important part of this legislation. The Minister for Social Services (Mr Wentworth) very carefully spelt out in his second reading speech that in order to qualify for this subsidy it will be necessary for these homes to provide meals, to employ sufficient staff to help the residents who need assistance with bathing and dressing, the cleaning rf rooms and so on. lt is important to note that this subsidy will be paid to homes caring for people over 80 years of age and also for any other aged persons who need particular care. Again this will involve the Government in substantia] expenditure. The increased subsidy should provide something over and above the cost to the hostel of accommodation and other expenses for each patient in the home. It should allow for some pocket money, which up to date too often has been missing. The Aged Persons Hostels Bill is a timely piece of legislation. It will bring a tremendous amount of relief in this area.

As honourable members know the Government has over the years provided assistance in relation to 3 types of accommodation: Firstly, for self-contained units, which assistance has been a tremendous success; secondly, for hostel type accommodation, which has not been taken up to a great extent due, I think, very largely to the cost of servicing this type of accommodation and paying for the staff; and thirdly, assistance for nursing home accommodation. There has been a tremendous increase in nursing home accommodation. Very often elderly people are forced to go into nursing homes because no hostel accommodation is available for them. A substantial number of pensioners would fall into the category of being better accommodated in hostel type homes. The Minister has estimated that about 50,000 pensioners - which is a large number of people - would be in this category. He said also that it has been estimated that the number of aged people needing accommodation is increasing at a rate of about 1,000 a year. The present method of subsidising homes on a $2 for Si basis will never catch up on the backlog unless urgent action is taken.

Assistance for the provision of hostel type accommodation is specifically directed at increasing the availability of accommodation as soon as possible. It is well known that many nursing homes, particularly the hostel type, have large waiting lists, I know that in my own area there is great difficulty in getting accommodation for people in nursing homes and in hostel type accommodation. Many of the country hospitals are filled with geriatric cases who are accommodated at considerable expense to the taxpayers. In many cases it is unnecessary expense and these people are not in the best atmosphere. The Minister went on in his second reading speech to’ point out very rightly, that a hospital or a nursing home is not always the best atmosphere for an aged person who still is reasonably active to be living in, and that it is much better for a person to look after himself as far as is possible rather than to be treated as a patient. We know that because of a shortage of staff there is a tendency - I speak from some experience on this because of my association with the situation - for aged people to be left in bed too long, not because of any lack of interest by the staff but because of the sheer inability to get them out and moving as they should be. The costs incurred in accommodating these people in nursing homes and hospitals would go a long way to providing hostel type accommodation.

We are continually faced with the problem of a greater demand for accommodation for aged people. This is something that is part of what we call our developing civilisation, but sometimes I wonder about it. More and more people are unable or unwilling to provide for or to care for aged parents. The provisions in this Bill for home assistance will be a big factor in this regard. I think it is very good that we are encouraging people where possible, to keep their relatives at home. It is essential that where this is not possible we should provide accommodation for people who are not nursing home patients. Most of us know how aged parents enjoy their grandchildren; they are very very welcome in small doses but when they are continually around it creates friction in the home. Very often elderly people are much happier in a different environment such as a hostel type atmosphere where they are able to move about and take an. interest in everyday happenings.

It is unfortunate that there is in some sections of the State departments a resistance to establishing hostels in country areas. People who have lived in the cities all their lives imagine that to go out into a country town is to go out to the bush or the scrub where there are no facilities whatsoever. I have in mind one proposed hostel which was criticised because no facilities were available for the people. It is situated about 100 or 150 yards from 2 substantial general stores; nearby is a post office, a public hall, a library, and even a hotel should anyone desire . to go there. How many hostels in a city would have facilities equal to or as convenient as those? .. .

Another point I stress in regard to institutions located in country areas - and I am thinking now of one which is in my electorate, the Mount St Joseph Old Peoples Home in Young - is the part which is played by the town. This home has become the responsibility and interest of the town because it is the only large institution of this type in this town, other than the local hospital, which excites the sympathy and interest of the people of Young. The individuals in it remain individuals rather than members listed in a card index system. The nome itself has became the responsibility of the local people and there is human atmosphere about it. There are many senior citizens who, having gone to the city to work, are pleased to come home to the quietness and the sympathy and interest of people in a country area. I stress that there is a need and a place for hostel type accommodation in the country.

There are many successful nursing homes in country areas which will be grateful for the assistance provided under this Bill. I am delighted to see the worthwhile financial assistance which will be provided in the provision of new beds and the purchase of furniture for new nursing homes. I think that this is a tremendously worthwhile provision for institutions which have already proved their interest and ability to look after aged people. These homes are being given an extraordinary amount of assistance to increase their ability to provide services for people. In other words, we are giving support to the tried and proven and those who have shown an interest. This is tremendously worthwhile.

I know that the Minister and the Government want to get this legislation through as quickly as possible, and I know how urgent it is. There are many other aspects that one could deal with in regard to these 2 very worthwhile Bills. I conclude my remarks by saying that these Bills, particularly the Aged Persons Hostels Bill which provides for a 3-year crash programme, will provide something which has been desperately needed in this community for a long time; they will provide a challenge and an opportunity for many people to accept some worthwhile assistance for the frail aged and the people in our community who need assistance and whose numbers are increasing as a percentage of the total population.

I commend the Minister for Social Services (Mr Wentworth) for the work that he has put into this matter. I congratulate the Government for supporting him. I do not think that we have ever had a Minister more dedicated to his portfolio. I speak perhaps with a little more knowledge than many because I am Chairman of the Government Members Social Services Committee. From working with the Minister and with that Committee I know just how sincere and keen he is and how hard he works to do all he can for those who are in need in this community. I have very much pleasure in supporting the Bill and commending the Minister and the Government for one of the most worthwhile measures that has been introduced in this Parliament for social services, atleast during my time in this House.

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– These 2 Bills are of interest to the House and, doubtless, to a number of people. The Opposition, as has been indicated by the honourable member for Oxley (Mr Hayden), is not at variance with the Bills and is anxious to ensure that whatever benefits flow from the legislation will not be impeded. The legislation is described as the Aged Persons Hostels Bill 1972 and the Aged Persons Homes Bill 1972. Generally the Aged Persons Hostel Bill is designed to grant to organisations which are eligible under the Aged Persons Homes Act, special assistance. It is intended that the Commonwealth will meet the cost of 2 hospital beds for every one unsubsidised bed operated by the organisation or one bed for 2 where the accommodation was previously subsidised on a dollar-for-dollar basis. Under the other Bill it is intended to double the present rate of subsidy to eligible organisations which provide personal care services for the aged in hostel accommodation. That, of course, will increase the existing subsidy from $5 a week to $10 a week.

As I have mentioned, the Opposition does not quibble with these proposals. Nevertheless, it is apparent that once again we have evidence of the piecemeal approach being taken to this total question. We feel that it is unfortunate that the Government has never properly set out to formulate adequate guidelines or a blue-print to enable the progressive overtaking of the enormous range of deficiencies that prevail in this area. We are pleased to know that a study is being made of poverty and the inability of pensioners, aged people and others to own their own homes. Professor Henderson is probably already on the job or just about to settle down to it. But it is obvious that no one person is able to fulfil all the needs that are so apparent in investigating the areas of social welfare, housing, health and the like as they bear on the aged pensioner section of our community.

How much better would it have been if the Government had not expediently plucked the idea for this inquiry out of the air in a pre-election period but had thought about it in a sensible way and decided that there were many aspects which needed proper examination. There should be a complex of expertise conducting the inquiry instead of one person, so that the whole Parliament could come back in 6 months’ time or a year’s time and be provided with proper guidance about the way in which we should progress in the future. In connection with the Aged Persons Homes Bill, I mention that one is always gratified to see any assistance given to that very fine range of organisations which makes it its business to provide housing for the aged. Nevertheless, there is a lot to show that there are some inadequacies in the present arrangement. Again, the Government is guilty of being ad hoc in its approach to the total question of aged persons housing. I know that in my own State, where there is an enormous housing problem, pensioners represent a substantial number of those who are finding difficulty in securing homes.

Only the other day I ascertained that of the 43,000 outstanding applications with the New South Wales Housing Commission 54 per cent of the applications received in 1969-70 were from people with incomes below $50 a week. In fact, in the preceding year people earning $50 a week or less accounted for 67.3 per cent of the applications. But here is the point I make: Elderly couples accounted for 16.17 per cent of the applications in 1969-70 and 17.9 per cent in the preceding year. I have correspondence from the New South Wales Housing Commission in relation to aged people wanting housing. Presumably these are people who are unable to gain admittance to an aged persons home, possibly because they have not key money or the starting price. If they cannot get into an aged persons home, where else do they go? They apply for a housing commission home.

I have had letters from the New South Wales Housing Commission indicating that such applicants can expect to receive accommodation in 5 or 6 years. It is not very encouraging for people who are 65 years of age or more - that is the starting age for a male aged pensioner - to be told at 65 or later that they have to wait some 5 or 6 years for a house. In fact some of these people have received letters from the Secretary of the New South Wales Housing Commission stating: ‘We are unable to advise when a house is likely to be made available’. Generally speaking, of course, the problem that we are confronted with today - the inadequacy of the legislation that we are confronted with today - is the inadequacy of the total funds made available for welfare purposes in Australia. I do not want to labour this point at all, but in passing it should be mentioned that lots of people, including active people in the aged persons homes organisations, are gravely concerned that in Australia we are spending 5.5 per cent of our gross national product on social welfare. If that percentage were increased we would be able to overcome this great backlog in the provision of aged persons homes and in the provision of hostel care. In other comparable countries a much greater proportion of the gross national product is devoted to social welfare. I know that the figures have been used before, but we must be unhappy with the position. The European Economic Community countries are expending 15.2 per cent of their gross national product on social welfare. In Scandinavian countries it is 10.9 per cent.

No wonder our migrants are dissatisfied. They have less security about their future here than was the case in the countries from which they came. Many migrants with whom I have had a personal encounter are quick to tell me that this is why so many of them are leaving to go back to their home countries. I think that about one-third of our migrants are returning at the moment. They are obsessed with the uncertainty of their future. They do not know what will happen to them with respect to accommodation. They do not know whether they will have the thousands of dollars necessary to enable them to get into an aged persons home when they retire or to secure hostel accommodation, which is the very essence of one aspect of this legislation. I mention now the percentage of gross national product expended on social welfare by other countries. Canada spends 9.9 per cent; the United Kingdom, 8.8 per cent; Switzerland, 8.2 per cent; New Zealand, 6.6 per cent and Australia, 5.5 per cent.

Sitting suspended from 1 to 2.15 p.m.

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– In his speech the Minister for Social Services (Mr Wentworth) indicated that only a fraction of the aged population of Australia is accommodated under the Aged Persons Homes Act and, of course, this is the case. There is a great deal to be done. The Minister went on to say that, after accounting for those who are provided for in other ways by State authorities and the like, the remainder live in unsatisfactory conditions; that is, they are either living in accommodation of an unsatisfactory standard or paying a rental they are not able to afford. I am pleased to see the Minister’s frankness in this regard. I am not sure whether he has overstated or understated the position.

Mr Wentworth:

– It is about right.

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– The Minister said that it is about right. I do not want to quibble, but if that is right it is a serious enough situation. He said that there are as many as 50,000 pensioners with unsatisfactory living conditions. We know that in Australia approximately half of all single pensioners do not own their homes; and I understand that more than 200,000 married pensioners do not own their own homes. It is obvious that a very serious situation prevails. There is a need to spend more money on aged persons bornes and hostel-type accommodation, which is substantially the subject of this legislation. The Minister has indicated that there is a need each year for some 5,000 extra beds, but there is nothing in the proposals before the House at the moment, nothing in this pre-election gesture, which would make any significant impact on that outstanding backlog.

The Minister said that 5,000 additional beds per annum are required. When one thinks of such a great annual requirement one does not just think of capital cost, though it is significant enough, or the kind of resources that this Government has been ploughing into the alleviation of the problem over previous years. There are other factors. In fact it has been indicated that for every 1,000 beds that are required 500 staff need to be obtained. The Minister broke that figure up in the following way: 170 trained nurses; 200 nursing aides and 130 domestics. We are told that 2,500 staff are needed each year to meet this yearly 5,000-bed demand. Where is the anticipation and planning directed towards the fulfil ment of this staff deficiency. It is obvious that there is a lot left to be desired and that this legislation will hardly scratch the surface of the problem. It is fair to say that the Government has abdicated its responsibility for the frail aged people. It has relegated this responsibility to private enterprise. We see from time to time in the Press headlines such as ‘geriatric boom’. We learn that the nursing home area of private enterprise is going on to the stock exchange, that the rate of profit is up to 19 per cent and that people are being required to pay between $50 and $100 a week for nursing home care, with no capacity to gain admittance to a home run by a public authority. Obviously there is a great need for us to stimulate the endeavour to increase public accommodation for aged persons. In a way we are just tinkering with the problem here.

Among the proposals before the House is one which intends to increase the subsidy from $5 to $10 a week for the care of people over 80 years of age in aged persons homes and the like. There are a number of matters to be looked at here. We are told that there are 7,000 people over 80 years of age already accommodated in some 360 homes. Their problem is serious enough, but why do we have to isolate these people on an age basis? If one is frail and incapable of caring for oneself in a nursing home or any other sort of accommodation, it does not matter what one’s agc is. If one is 60 years of age and incapable of caring for oneself or to go into one of these establishments, one would place the same burden on an aged persons home or nursing home as a person 80 years of age would. This is just the tip of the iceberg that this Government is tinkering with in this legislation. I know of situations in my own electorate - the Sutherland area of Sydney - where there are elderly people incapable of looking after themselves in self-contained or hostel-type accommodation who are bedridden and under 80 years of age. Just how many people are there who are not being accommodated under this legislation. What surveys are being carried out? We should ascertain the extent to which we are making an impact on the problem of people over 80 years of age by increasing the subsidy from $5 to $10. What does this really do? What is the cost of caring for these people? What is the extent of the deficit left to the people, organisations, churches and the like who run these establishments?

It is not just the capital cost of providing that care which is important. It is also a matter of meeting the cost of providing nurses and domestics to look after these people. And it is not just a matter of providing, as the Minister said, an adequate amount for persons 80 years of age and over, because there is still this great area that remains substantially unattended and neglected. The fact of the matter is that we have had this piecemeal approach to the care and accommodation of aged people generally, and as a result there is a disparity between the level of care being provided around Australia. The Minister would readily acknowledge that, because we on this side of the House have extracted from him from time to time information along those lines. We are able to say, for example, that in New South Wales the proportion of people of pensionable age in accommodation provided under the Act is 2.26 per cent; in Victoria it is 2.88 per cent; in Queensland 2.47 per cent; in South Australia 6.73 per cent; in Western Australia 4.73 per cent; in Tasmania 4.29 per cent; in the Australian Capital Territory 3.28 per cent and in the Northern Territory 1.71 per cent. Why is it that we have such a high level of accommodation provided for such people in South Australia - 6.73 per cent - and such a low level - 1.7 per cent - in the Northern Territory? Obviously this shows an ad hoc approach. We leave it to the entrepreneuring capacity of churches and organisations, when the obvious thing to do is approach the total problem on a regional basis so that we can ascertain the real needs. If it is a question of priorities we should be allocating funds proportionally throughout Australia.

The other criticism that can be made of the situation that prevails, and that will prevail even after this legislation is passed, concerns the insufficient emphasis placed on the need to keep these people in their own homes or to. keep them in the care of relatives. It is not always a good thing to cause people to receive institutional care. There has been insufficient concentration and emphasis on this particular problem under the Government’s administration over 23 years and during the period that the Minister has been in office. We need to give local government and other regional authorities the capacity to provide some services - physiotherapy, nursing care, visiting nursing aides, home medical, occupational therapy and social worker services - so that people who would like to stay in their own homes would have the back-up paramedical and social facilities available to them to enable them to stay there. This would release resources being made available under the Aged Persons Homes Act and other relative legislation and these could be concentrated on providing for people who have a genuine need for institutional care. The Minister for Social Services has acknowledged this. He said that many people go into such establishments who ought not to go there and I believe that there will have to be a more composite and package deal approach to this problem which, up to the present, has been approached in a piecemeal, fragmentary and ad hoc way.

Mr IRWIN:
Mitchell

– I congratulate the Minister for Social Services (Mr Wentworth) on his vision, his enthusiasm and, above all, his understanding and his humanity in the administration of aged persons homes. The proposal before the House is that a subsidy will be paid to nonprofit making homes to enable them to break even - that is, so that they will not be out of pocket. The homes will be allowed up to $5 a week for each encumbent so that the residents may purchase personal necessities for their own use. Up to date, the difficulty has been that where the survivor has been left alone at an advanced age, in many cases that person finishes his life in a nursing home, though he would be better off in the sort of home for which this Bill gives assistance.

It is surprising how many people who are in nursing homes would be much happier and contented and better served in an aged persons home. Statistics that I have seen show that up to 50 per cent of the inmates in nursing homes do not require nursing home attention. In point of fact, loneliness is their main difficulty. They need someone nearby with whom they can converse and exchange confidences and, at times, to supply minor services and assistance. Very often the survivor is left in a family home which is far too commodious and which, because of its size, creates difficulty with which the aged person cannot cope. Experience has shown that where one is left alone, one becomes disinclined to prepare meals. There is a tendency to live on prepared meals such as bread and butter, cake and the like, instead of having a balanced diet with nutritional value.

A medical friend of mine has studied this problem overseas. He went to various food producing services and when he returned to Australia he found that a good number of aged people, especially, as I stated, where only one person remained in the family home, did not go to the trouble of preparing a well balanced meal. Under this scheme to assist aged persons homes, a subsidy will be paid not merely to encourage people over 80 to live in such homes. The homes will be required to provide meals and to employ sufficient staff to help any residents who need assistance with bathing and dressing, the cleaning of their rooms, their personal laundry and the general oversight of their medication. It also requires that a staff member should be available on the premises at all times in case of an emergency.

The honourable member for Hughes (Mr Les Johnson) stated that, ostensibly, the services were only for people over 80 years of age. That is not in accordance with the Minister’s wishes. The Minister stated:

As I previously mentioned, the amount of the subsidy is calculated on the basis of the number of residents aged 80 and over. This provides an inducement for the accommodation to be made available to the frailer category of person. Nevertheless, it is a condition of approval that the personal care services I have referred to should be provided for any aged resident who needs services, whether over 80 or not.

The services are being extended considerably. In my electorate there are 3 aged persons homes with a total of 174 beds. Previously, they did not participate in this scheme. However they will now receive a subsidy of about $1.25m. So, although the honourable member for Hughes said that this scheme does not embrace all that he would like, there are 3 homes in a small portion of Westmead and Wentworthville in New South Wales which will attract a subsidy of about $ 1.25m.

The Minister for Social Services is to be congratulated. People who are now residing in aged persons homes and various institutions for aged people would be far better off if their families had the necessary conveniences to look after them and in another Bill to be introduced into the House, those families will receive $14 a week for looking after aged persons. Many aged persons homes which previously did not attract a subsidy and which were in business before 1954 will, because of their character and the services that they have rendered to the community, receive the total subsidy to which I have just referred. I congratulate the the Minister for Social Services and the Government on what they are doing in this regard. Comparisons are odious. Honourable members opposite have spoken about Sweden and Switzerland. Of course, they have been established for 1,000 years and they have the advantage of time. In most cases, they are pocket handkerchief size in area and they do not have the huge area with which Australia must contend. The Minister for Social Services should be proud on what he has accomplished.

Mr HURFORD:
Adelaide

– I am very glad to have an opportunity to say a few words on these 2 Bills. I refer firstly to the Aged Persons Homes Bill 1972 which will amend the Aged Persons Homes Act. This Bill provides for an increase in the subsidy from $5 to $10 a week for each of those persons over 80 - the frail aged - residing in aged persons homes, as long as the accommodation reaches the agreed standard. We have no quibble about that provision, although, in the short time that we have had to read the second reading speeches of the Minister for Social Services (Mr Wentworth), I was interested to note that when examining just what funds would be available to approved organisations the Minister spread this $10 a week over everybody in the organisation and came up with an average figure of $4.50. In other words, the Minister, too, realises that there is a great need for extra income for many of these people, whether they are over 80 years or not. However, a little is better than nothing and we are very glad to know that some organisations which have residents who are over 80 years of age will receive this extra help.

I could perhaps remind the House at this stage that the attitude of the Opposition in debating these Bills today, as the Minister has realised, is that it does not want to hold up the payment of these benefits. The benefits are to be paid from the date of the royal assent. At one stage, we were prepared to have only our spokesman on this matter speak in the debate. Since then we have learned that many members of the Government parties want to speak to the Bill, and this affords an opportunity to the rest of us also, at short notice, to talk about the Bill, to congratulate the Minister for Social Services on those areas where, as I have said, a little is better than nothing and also to mention errors of omission.

The second Bill, the Aged Persons Hostels Bill 1972, is a little more difficult to understand. From the quick look I have had at the Minister’s second reading speech, I believe that he has overlooked altogether setting out again just which organisations will benefit by this and the formula under which they will benefit. Perhaps he felt that there was no need to do this because it was set out in the Budget. The Treasurer (Mr Snedden) said in the Budget Speech:

To encourage the provision of hostel accommodation for the aged we will, as a special arrangement limited to 3 years-

I repeat that I have read the Minister’s speech only hastily but I did not see anything in it about the limitation to 3 years -

  1. . grant organisations that are eligible under the Aged Persons Homes Act special assistance. The Commonwealth will meet the cost of 2 hostel beds for every one unsubsidised bed operated by the organisation or one bed for 2 where the accommodation was previously subsidised on a $ for $ basis.

I was very interested in the whole of the Minister’s second reading speech on this Bill but, in the short time I have had to look at the speech, I could not find where that was brought in, and that is the kernel of what this Bill is all about.

As I understand it, having taken that formula, those organisations which are approved organisations will receive $7,800 per person to provide the hostel bed, buy the land and build the building, and will receive $250 extra for the furnishing of the room related to that particular bed. I would like to have learned from the second reading speech just how far the $7,800 will go. Unfortunately, in searching my files, I have found that the relevant documents are in Adelaide. Only recently I wrote to a number of the leading organisations in this field in South Australia to find out what their bed costs are at this time, in relation to the amount of donation which the average person is expected to find to make up the difference under the existing Aged Persons Homes Act. The Minister will realise that, when he comes to apply a means test in relation to the pensions payable, he is allowing a limit only for each one of these donors who goes into these homes. I think that the limit is about $2,500. I think that in South Australia our land and building costs are the lowest. In previous speeches in this Parliament the Minister has mentioned that we have the. lowest costs in Australia in relation to this matter. That is one of the reasons we have the provision of more beds under this Act. In South Australia alone the average donation that is required these days under the Aged Persons Homes Act is nearer $4,000 than $2,500. This leads me to believe that many of these organisations will have to find a margin over $7,800 plus the $250 for furnishings.

If the Minister has any more recent information about this I would be very grateful if he would enlighten the House, because I consider that it would be misleading the public to give the impression that donations will not be required. I know that donations cannot be asked for from those who will benefit under this Bill because the whole purpose of these extra hostel beds is to provide beds for people, who have not the wherewithal to provide the donation. But donations from the public to the organisation may have to be sought in order to make up the balance over $7,800 per bed plus the $250 for furnishings.

The next aspect of the Minister’s speech on which I invite comment from him relates to those who will benefit under the Aged Persons Hostels Bill. I realise that they will mainly be those who are in greatest need and who have not been able to provide donations for the type of accommodation which has mainly been available under this Act hitherto. I commend the Minister for that. But he made a lot of play in his second reading speech about how this would relieve the nursing homes; how a tremendous number of people in nursing homes, who are costing the community a lot of money, may be transferred; and how we hope that they will benefit under this legislation and therefore relieve the nursing homes. On the other hand, elsewhere in his speech he talked about the 834,000 people in our community who are pensioners. He divided them into 519,000 who are in their own homes, 25,000 who are in state nursing homes or unsubsidised hostels and 40,000 who are in unsubsidised nursing homes. He did not actually mention the balancing figure, but his figures seem to me to leave some 200,000 pensioners who either live with their families or live in adequate rental accommodation. That leaves 50,000, to use the Minister’s own figures, who are living in unsatisfactory conditions. It seems to me that it will be those 50,000 who are at present in unsatisfactory conditions because they cannot afford the donations required to take advantage of the Aged Persons Homes Act, who will use this hostel accommodation and that the Minister will not be relieving the pressures on the nursing homes as he hoped, as I understood his second reading speech.

I now want to echo or reinforce what has been said already by the honourable member for Oxley (Mr Hayden) and the honourable member for Hughes (Mr Les Johnson) in relation to the whole field of housing for aged persons. I think it should be mentioned here that one of the tremendous problems in providing accommodation under these existing Acts relates to another part of Government policy. I am now referring to land prices and building costs in Australia. As the Minister knows, before coming into this House I was on the board of the largest organisation in South Australia providing this accommodation. I left because I felt, from experience after coming to this House, that I was not able to attend board meetings, that the responsibilities were great and that it was of no use continuing on the board if 1 could not play my part at the board meetings.

Mr Brown:

– The honourable member will be able to go back next year.

Mr HURFORD:

– We will see whether the honourable member for Diamond Val ley or I go back to our previous callings first. I will make no boasts about it but let me say that I am quietly confident. Anyway I would hope that they would have me back. At that time I was on the board of the Elderly Citizens Homes of South Australia Incorporated, providing over 1,200 beds under the Aged Persons Homes Act. It is the cost of land and building prices generally that is making it extremely difficult to provide accommodation of the right sort at about the $4,000 mark donation if the proper reserves were being put aside to look after nursing home accommodation and the other needs. Once one took responsibility for people coming within the organisation one not only had to see that they had their individual living unit but also that this hostel type accommodation was provided for them when they could no longer look, after themselves entirely or, when they could no longer live in hostel type accommodation, that there were nursing homes available’ providing, on the one hand, ordinary nursing home care and then, later, intensive care. 1 want to make the point quite clear’ here ‘ that we would be helping enormously the whole field of housing for the aged if we tackled this other, problem of land prices and building costs. This should be mentioned in this context because in my view the present Government does not have a policy in this area. Wc need the sort of policies that my party is outlining in this very field. If we could bring down land costs we could provide far better housing _ accommodation for these older people.

The other matter I want to mention under the- heading of errors of omission - because now is the time to clear this up - is one that the Minister knows about because, he and I have had a number of dealings with him in regard to it. I refer to my belief that this Act should provide the funds to enable the modernisation of older accommodation. The Minister was good enough to come with me on a hot Sunday last summer to the Cottage Homes Incorporated group of flats in the suburb of Prospect, which is in my electorate of Adelaide. There we found the original organisation ‘ in South Australia providing the sort of care that the Minister and I seek for older people. The organisation has some magnificent sites and some buildings which were adequate in days gone by but which are now inadequate. For a sum which is far less than the sum required to put up a new unit, existing units could be modernised with great saving of resources to the community. At the same time, this would save a lot of old people the problems associated with moving away from the area in which they have lived and have been very happy for many years.

Instead, under this existing legislation, this organisation and others like it throughout the country are forced to sell up their existing sites. It is not economical for some of them to do this. However, they are forced to take this action. They are forced to use the sum which they receive for their sites to build a new set of units. Often, they require donations from those coming into the new units in order to make ends meet. The Cottage Homes Incorporated organisation is at present attempting to raise funds in South Australia in order to modernise its units and save the community the resources about which I talk. I am sure that the Minister will support me in hoping that the appeal is successful; but there is doubt about this. How much better it would be it the Aged Persons Homes Act provided funds to enable organisations such as the Cottage Homes Incorporated to modernise their flats and thereby make a lot more people a lot happier.

I remind the House that we have not had the time in this debate to be in touch with the relevant organisations in our electorates which will be affected by the legislation in order to ascertain their views about it. However, over the next week or so I will be learning about their views and I hope that I will be able to contact my colleagues in the Senate so that they can discuss this matter when the legislation comes before that chamber. However, in the meantime I congratulate the Minister for what is good in these 2 Bills. However, I also lay emphasis on what I consider to be the errors of omission.

Mr LLOYD:
Murray

– Opposition members in this debate, whilst supporting the legislation, have criticised it. One of the criticisms has been that it is an election gimmick. To me when people use the criticism of something being an election gimmick they mean that they really do not consider it is necessary, but because there may be some popularity attached to it, that particular action is being taken. I believe it is up to the Opposition to say quite clearly whether or not it believes that this sort of legislation is necessary because by using the term ‘election gimmick’ I contend that members of the Opposition are saying that they consider that the legislation before us is not necessary. We on the Government side believe this legislation is most necessary. The Minister for Social Services (Mr Wentworth) and the Government are to be congratulated on instituting it.

Members of the Opposition have also said that the legislation is piecemeal, partial, and ad hoc. I believe, after listening to speakers from the other side of the House that they show piecemeal, ad hoc and partial reasoning because there seems to be some confusion on what the priorities should be. The honourable member for Adelaide (Mr Hurford) said that perhaps we should modernise some of the homes rather than add to their numbers. Another Opposition member spoke about nursing homes and the number of 5,000 beds a year was quoted. He said that perhaps this was not sufficient. But the purpose of this legislation is to reduce the need for the great number of nursing home beds that are appearing year after year. If anyone says that this legislation is ad hoc, partial or piecemeal I believe that this only indicates that he has not read properly the 2 second reading speeches of the Minister for Social Services, the Budget announcements or the statement by the Acting Minister for Health (Dr Forbes) on related nursing care measures which also must be considered in this context. These measures, possibly more than any of the other Budget proposals, reveal an overall planned approach to the achievement of important comprehensive social goals.

Furthermore, the extent of the Commonwealth initiative goes beyond these 2 important measures that we are debating at the moment. One has to consider other Budget announcements within this context. Just in passing I refer to some of the points made in the statement of the Acting Minister for Health on nursing care benefits. The Minister outlined increased nursing home benefits for pensioners, the inclusion of nursing home insurance benefits in the voluntary hospital insurance scheme, the new domiciliary care benefit of $14 a week for aged persons cared for in a private home and the increased subsidy for home nursing services.

The 2 Bills we are debating, together with these other measures which I have just mentioned, have important social objectives. The first is to provide a 3-year crash programme with unmatched Commonwealth grants for increased hostel type accommodation and to do this in a way that will provide a measure of justice to those organisations that were pioneers in this field and which provided these beds prior to the 1957 government initiative of $2 for $1 for every bed provided. Furthermore, a part of the requirement in respect of these beds is that there will be no ingoing or key money, whatever one likes to call it, attached to the provision of these beds. The beds will be allocated on a needs basis. By the provision of the money to organisations with a proven record in this field, I believe, these extra beds will be more quickly and more efficiently established than by channelling money through any other source.

The second objective is to provide more facilities for the aged who need care, but not the intensive care that is provided by a nursing home. The legislation makes the provision of extra hostel accommodation plus the doubling of the personal care allowance of $5 to $10 a week plus the home nursing care subsidy. All these benefits will provide an impetus in the desired direction - that is to allow more beds for those people who require some form of assistance but not the type of intensive care assistance that is provided by a nursing home. The third social welfare objective that these measures will achieve is for these desirable developments to take place at less cost to the Government than would be the case if the alternative development of more and more nursing home beds were adopted.

Unlike some speakers from the Opposition who talk about this assistance going only to certain areas, I would like to remind the House that these benefits will certainly go to many country areas. In Victoria many of the long-established old folks homes are sited in provincial cities and not necessarily in the metropolitan area. There is a large group of self contained units for aged people, known as Miller homes, scattered throughout Victoria. I have 3 of these groups in my electorate. As the honourable member for Hume (Mr Pettitt) mentioned earlier in this debate, the higher average age of the community in rural areas places a heavy responsibility for the care of aged people on local hospitals, filling beds in the hospital with what are really geriatric cases and on the smaller percentage of working age people. This occurs because of the higher average age of the community in rural areas. The provision of these funds will reduce this burden on both local hospitals and that section of the community which is called upon to assist with everything that is required to keep a rural community going.

Finally, the channelling of these funds through local community and religious organisations, as the Government is doing, I believe will mean that there will be more personal and involved concern for the aged people who are to be cared for. This will avoid much impersonal institutionalising - a term that has been used by the Opposition in its criticism. I believe also that we will avoid much of the criticism that has been forthcoming, because there will be more personally involved care at the local level to avoid the institutionalising that occurs in many of the larger State run homes and in some of the other countries that the Opposition has put forward as examples we should follow. I believe that the Government’s provision of these funds to established organisations will enable us to avoid this pitfall. I have very much pleasure in supporting this legislation and in congratulating the Government and the Minister concerned.

Mr BERINSON:
Perth

– By general agreement, the Aged Persons Homes Bill and the Aged Persons Hostels Bill which were introduced this morning will be put through all stages today. This will ensure that increased benefits will become payable earlier than might otherwise have been possible, and the procedure is acceptable on that basis. However it carries with it the serious disadvantage that there has been no chance to consider either the detail of the Bills or the supporting speeches of the Minister for Social Services (Mr Wentworth) except in the most superficial way. As a general principle, I think it ought to be said that this is highly undesirable. In the nature of things this same procedure is likely to be proposed regularly, at least on social service matters. Rather than allow that to happen I believe it would be preferable to draft appropriate legislation so as to provide benefits from the date of introduction rather than from the date of enaction and to allow an ordinary and more considered debate to follow.

In the present circumstances I propose to make only 2 brief comments. .The first is related to the Bills presented and the second is related to more general aspects of the workings of the aged persons homes scheme. By way of introduction I make the general comment that the aged persons homes scheme, whatever its deficiencies, is a good scheme. It represents one of the best initiatives that the Government has taken in the field of social services and these Bills will improve it further. Not the least important of the features of this legislation is that it provides for an increase in hostel accommodation and for an enforced departure from the earlier and present emphasis on donation-linked entry. This is highly desirable in relation to the hostel type accommodation provided, and it is only to be regretted that this same change has not been introduced in relation to ordinary unit accommodation. I have spoken on the question of income-linked entry before in this House, and I urge the Minister to continue to consider ways in which this linkage can be reduced.

One area that has still been left unsatisfactory by these Bills is the continued ineligibility of State institutions for Commonwealth subsidy. In his second reading speech the Minister said:

The fifth reason for the unbalanced growth of nursing homes is the attitude of the States. Both nursing homes and home care services have traditionally been regarded as State responsibilities, but the States seem almost to have abrogated their responsibilities in the nursing home field . . .

The limitation of State contributions to the provision of nursing home beds extends also to their lack of provision of hostel and self-contained accommodation for the aged. For example, in Western Australia until this year no State housing accommodation at all was available for single male aged pensioners, and for both male and female single age pensioners there is now a waiting list of five or six years. Why is there this poverty of State assistance in such an important field?

The Minister asked a question to which he provided the answer himself later on in his speech when he said:

In accordance with the principle established in the Aged Persons Homes Act existing hemes which were established wholly with funds provided by State governments will not be eligible for approval as qualifying homes.

Frankly, I cannot see and have never been able to see what principle governs this limitation. It precludes the States from the $2 for $1 capital subsidy on accommodation. It also precludes them from the personal care subsidy for hostel residents over 80 years of age, which is being increased by this Bill to $10 a week. The exclusion of the States is a curious anomaly and a serious disincentive and it must contribute to the Minister’s own estimate of 50,000 pensioners still living under unsatisfactory conditions. Again 1 urge that this is an area requiring obvious and simple amendment. I cannot imagine why these amendments have not been introduced before. I can see no reason for their being delayed further.

May I put a further question to the Minister? In his speech he states: . . the primary intention of the Bill is to stimulate the building of additional hostel accommodation in order to reduce admissions to nursing accommodation of people who ‘ have no real medical need for nursing care. In order to preserve this intention the agreement into which organisations receiving grants ‘under this Bill will be required to enter will provide that Commonwealth nursing home benefits shall not at any time be sought for any beds in the .hostels established under this special legislation …

If I understand this provision correctly, it says that for all practical purposes the new hostel beds are not to be changed to nursing bed accommodation at any time in the future. I question whether this is really wise. After all further on in his speech the Minister lists one of the criteria that qualify entrants in this way:

Age of applicant. Priority to be given to those in the upper age groups, that is over 75 years of age;

In other words, we are dealing with people who potentially at least will require nursing home accommodation and assistance within a few years. In these circumstances why should we be shutting out all our options so completely? The Minister will know well enought the problems of those organisations which have residential accommodation only or residential and hostel accommodation only and find elderly residents requiring nursing home care. The result is often a virtual eviction either to a private nursing home or to another centre, often accompanied by great personal distress. If an organisation is prepared to plan its hostel well enough to allow a later changeover to nursing home accommodation, why preclude it from such a change for all time? Why be so inflexible about it?

I am not suggesting that we move from this stage to an open slather. There may be the possibility of some sort of improper advantage being taken of the proposal I put to the Minister, although frankly I have to say that I cannot really envisage what form that could take, given that we are dealing exclusively in this area with non-profit organisations. I therefore put to the Minister that nothing would be lost by qualifying the proposed absolute prohibition either by setting a period of years beyond which the limitation would no longer apply, or alternatively and probably preferably, by vesting the Director-General of the Department with discretion to allow a changeover if the circumstances justified it. Again 1 see no reason why such an amendment should not be made. I put it to the Minister seriously for his consideration.

The only other matters to which T want to refer now relate more generally to the operation of the aged persons homes scheme as a whole. In particular, I think it is most undesirable that the Commonwealth, after making such an enormous contribution in the field - it is now in excess of SI 50m for capital works - should withdraw completely from any responsibility or control of any sort of all over the operations of the homes once they are established. It is also most unfortunate that the Commonwealth in drawing up the agreement with approved organisations has not reserved some sort of right of participation for the residents of these homes. Even the financial accounts of the homes are not available to the residents. In my contact with residents I have not come across one aspect of administration of the scheme which has produced so much antagonism, frustration and unhappiness.

I see no reason for the secrecy and no reason for the Commonwealth to have refrained in the past and to continue to refrain from requiring resident participation and the presentation of financial accounts as a matter of course, to both the Commonwealth and the residents. The only check that the Government has reserved for itself is to be found in clause 1 1 (2) of the current agreement. It reads:

The organisation shall furnish to the DirectorGeneral at his request all records, books of account and documents relating to the approved home or homes in the possession or under the control of the organisation, and afford all requisite assistance to enable the Director-General or his agents to ascertain the true financial position of that home.

In other words, all that is required is that the home, on request of the DirectorGeneral - and only on request - is obliged to make this information available. So far as I have been able to ascertain, no request has ever been made by the Director-General to any home in Western Australia for a statement of its financial accounts. I have previously complained in appropriate debates that not only has that not been done but also it has been pointed out to me that a member of Parliament inquiring on behalf of his constituents is not entitled to make such a request.

I am also informed that if the DirectorGeneral did make such a request for financial accounts and received them as required by the agreement, he would not be in a position to make that statement available either to members or to the residents concerned. I think that is an absurd situation. We are dealing with enormous sums of public money - totalling over $150m. Every year millions of dollars must be paid by residents as rentals, maintenance contributions or ingoing. Further enormous sums are contributed in this way and there is no conceivable reason why secrecy of the sort that has been established should be allowed to continue. 1 again make it clear, as I always do when I raise this subject, that there is not the slightest question of improper practice by the voluntary organisations running these homes. They are doing a magnificent job; the whole scheme could never have got under way without their assistance. To have loaded the Commonwealth with the administrative burden probably would have aborted the scheme from the start. There is no question of improper practice by the organisations, but why they, and why the Commonwealth going along with their views, should insist on the retention of what amounts to a secrecy provision is really, so far as I can see, unsupportable. I add that to my list of suggestions to the Minister and again put it forward seriously. Only a simple alteration would be required and it would provide benefits in terms of the satisfaction of the residents out of all proportion to any minor administrative difficulties that might be involved for either the Department or the organisations.

The matter I have just raised in relation to the financial accounts of the homes is related directly to the question of rentals. Among the aged persons homes in my electorate there is at least one that has been in the practice of charging up to $11 a week rent for a single pensioner resident. I have also pointed out on earlier occasions that that is better than or equivalent to commercial rent, bearing in mind that the aged persons homes are free of ordinary rating requirements such as water rates and council rates, are exempt from land tax and that two-thirds of their capital funds have come to them from the Government.

I am quite sure that they would be better investments than commercial buildings, if one wants to look at it that way, when $11 a week is received; but even apart from that extravagant example, a highly undesirable situation has developed. I believe that it must be related to the lack of resident participation to which I have already referred. Very modest rents are still generally paid, and the example I have in mind concerns a home at which the rental has gone up to $3.80, which we would regard as modest enough except when related to the previous rental of $2 a week. In that case it is a shock to the system and we have to appreciate the feelings of the people on whom an increase of almost 100 per cent is landed overnight.

In at least one other home a move has been made not only to increase rent quite substantially in percentage terms but also to adopt a procedure whereby rent in future will go up automatically with each pension increase. In the case I have in mind a decision has been made that the cost of single pensioner accommodation will in future be 20 per cent of the single weekly pension. This has absolutely no relevance. It is completely unrelated to any questions concerning the cost of running homes of this sort. I believe it is wrong in principle and it is also inconsistent with the general policy that has governed the operation of this scheme. I refer to the recent budget when pensions rose by $1.75 and rents were due to increase by about 40c accordingly. This is not justified on increased costs or any basis other than that the pension had risen. I think it is an undesirable trend and inconsistent with the nature of the scheme. It is related directly to the forfeiture by the Government in earlier days of any right to have a continuing role in the running of the homes. It also goes without saying that it is linked to the inability of the residents to have the right to participate. I think these are all serious matters. The people are elderly and sensitive and in many cases have financial difficulty in meeting even the modest rents. I think the time is long overdue to take these residents into the confidence of the Government and of the management committees and to give them a say in their own affairs.

I am sorry to have taken as much time as I have. I conclude on the note on which I started: The scheme is a good one. I welcome the improvements that are made to it by the provisions of this Bill. I think we all appreciate the efforts of the voluntary workers who have done so much to keep this scheme advancing so well. I would like to add one word of appreciation for the way in which the Department has administered the scheme. It has been flexible. I think it has realised that it is dealing with voluntary workers and voluntary administrators - I was. about to say ‘amateurs’ but I do not mean that in a disparaging way - who were not always up to the position of dotting their i’s and crossing their fs as far as applications are concerned and who sometimes disqualify themselves from assistance in the strictly formal terms. I find that in its administration of this scheme the Department has been very understanding, very flexible and consistent in emphasising the intention rather than always the letter of the legislation.

Sir JOHN CRAMER:
Bennelong

– I do not propose to take vew much of the time of the House because I think the occasion does not justify it. The details of the scheme have already been explained to the House and I do not want to spend a great deal of time on it. I do not want to over-emphasise it so far as you are concerned, Mr Speaker, because whilst you have been concentrating upon old people and their troubles, I understand on good authority that you have just become a grandfather. So you must be concentrating in your mind on very young people at the present time. I am sure the House congratulates you.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Thank you.

Sir JOHN CRAMER:

– The 2 Bills which are being discussed together comprise only part of a well planned scheme of help for the aged. They are 2 very important parts and they are 2 absolutely new initiatives that have come from this Government. The Minister for Social Services (Mr Wentworth), who is sitting at the table, is to be congratulated, because I have no doubt that he thought of these new proposals. They are something new to be added to the great volume of assistance that is given to old people in this country. I congratulate the Minister on putting forward these new ideas.

I think the Government should b2 congratulated because until 1954, when this Government was in power, nothing of this nature had been done for old people in Australia, It was this Government which initiated the idea of homes for the aged, and this has been a magnificent scheme which has been implemented throughout the length and breadth of Australia. It has catered for and given happiness to tens of thousands of old people all over Australia. I think it was the honourable member for Perth (Mr Berinson) who said that local government authorities are not doing very much under the Aged Persons Homes Act. I would remind him that participation by local government authorities is not precluded at all.

Mr Berinson:

– 1 was referring to State governments.

Sir JOHN CRAMER:

– An amendment was moved last year, I think, to allow local government authorities to participate under the Act, and I hope that they will continue to take some part in this scheme. Although this legislation is part of the general pattern of the Government’s help for the aged, it has nothing to do with other legislation which will be introduced. We do not want any confusion about the fact that this legislation actually has anything to do with new legislation that will be brought forward in relation to the home nursing scheme or domiciliary care, which is part of this Government’s policy and which is designed to see that old people are encouraged to be looked after in their own homes or their relatives’ homes. Those matters will be included in further legislation that will be introduced at a later stage. The scheme envisaged in the legislation before the House is to encourage the building or extending of homes already in existence for old people and is to provide for the way in which they are looked after in hostels. It is a very excellent scheme indeed. I remind the House, because nobody has mentioned it, that the part of the scheme which under the Aged Persons Homes Act provides for a personal care subsidy will apply not only to people who are living in premises under the Act as it exists at present but also to the building of new hostels and the extension of existing hostels. I understand that the new personal care subsidy will apply in those circumstances.

The only criticism of any note that I heard coming from the Opposition was that made by the honourable member for Oxley (Mr Hayden) who is the shadow Minister for Social Services. The honourable member said that the Government was institutionally orientated, and I think this criticism has been repeated by a number of other speakers. This criticism becomes significant when one looks at things that are happening in other fields, and I draw attention to it. It appears that what the Opposition would like to do is bypass the States and give money directly to local government authorities under section 96 of the Constitution. Of course, this would mean a centralising of power in Canberra, and this is in line with a lot of other things that the Labor Party advocates. I draw attention to this because it must be remembered that the States themselves bear a great deal of responsibility for the welfare of aged people. Of course, local government authorities are instruments of the States. However, I think the States bear equal responsibility with this Government. The Minister drew attention to this point, and I hope that the amount of money being provided by the States for this purpose will not be reduced in any shape or form.

The public, too, should be encouraged to assist in schemes of this kind. Great benefits that have accrued to some of the big institutions throughout Australia that are criticised by the Opposition stem from public assistance. It is because of public participation in these great organisations that they have prospered and done so much for old people. I do not want to go through the whole list of these organisations. I am particularly interested in two of them. One, which is in my electorate, is the Montefiore Jewish Home. In my opinion, there is an unfortunate tendency for some of our present younger generation not to give the proper respect and attention to our old people. One must admire, as I do, people like those of the Jewish community who always attend to their old people. 1 think this is something which we have to encourage and I believe it is in the Minister’s mind when he deals with a question such as this. This institution in my electorate is one which will benefit very greatly by this scheme, and I know just how it will use these benefits.

Another institution with which I have been connected is in the electorate of Mr Speaker. I refer to the Little Sisters of the Poor at Randwick. This is one of the very biggest organisations. It is doing a magnificent job. I would imagine that its participation in this scheme will be of tremendous help in expanding that very worthwhile organisation. There must be hundreds of such organisations, but these are 2 about which I have particular knowledge and which will benefit tremendously under this scheme. But the point I am making is that this scheme is presented in such a way as to encourage public participation - citizen participation - to help our old people, and I think it is a very worthwhile scheme. This is getting away from what the Labor Party would want, that is, to centralise the control of these things and not encourage proper public participation.

I do not want to speak for much longer in this debate. I just want to refer, as the honourable member for Mitchell did, to the fact that old people live a lonely life. It would be better for them to live in their own homes. Those who are eligible for assistance under the aged persons homes scheme can get that assistance. I repeat that aged people who perhaps do not have many relatives live a very lonely life but in hostel accommodation they meet other people in their own age group and make personal friends, and their requirements are serviced. This gives to them some happiness in- their old age. In this respect I think we all have a responsibility to aged people. None of us can avoid this. I would hope that there would arise a greater recognition not only of the physical needs of old people but also their psychological needs and happiness in their old age. This Government and the. Minister are to be commended upon these innovations which are only . part of a well planned scheme for assisting the aged people .in this country. I say again to this Government: Congratulations for being the only government in the. history of Australia which has paid attention to the need for. assistance to be given to aged people in Australia.

Mr FOSTER (Sturt) ‘ (3.27)-] realise that . a restriction has been placed on the time we take for this debate and I am not opposed to it. I do not say that by way of criticism. I rise to associate myself with the remarks that have been made in this debate by speakers on this side of the House - the honourable member for Adelaide (Mr Hurford), the honourable member for Perth (Mr Berinson) and the honourable member for Hughes (Mr Les Johnson). The honourable member for Bennelong (Sir John Cramer) appeared to indicate that no assistance had been given by previous governments in regard to the housing of elderly citizens. I do not want to join him in any bitter debate on this point but I think he has overlooked the fact that under previous governments, of different political complexion or persuasion, there was a rebate system under which a percentage of the money allocated by the Commonwealth was given to the various State housing authorities or trusts which made a direct contribution by erecting homes for the elderly citizens in our community. I have just been informed by my good friend and colleague the honourable member for Stirling (Mr Webb) that in Western Australia this situation still obtains.

It is all very well for supporters of the Government and honourable members on this side of the House to say that the Government is to be commended for having introduced these measures. I feel that it would be much better to say in this place this afternoon to the Minister for Social Services (Mr Wentworth), without being critical in any shape or form, that it is indeed most heartening to see that the Government, which is the main taxing authority in the Commonwealth if not the only one insofar as measures of this kind are concerned, has met its responsibility. The Minister will recall quite a bitter debate between himself and myself on a previous occasion in this House on this very matter. I have not dealt with these matters to the extent that one may consider a person who has some interest in them would, but I am pleased to say in regard to some of the homes in my own area which were showing very inherent weaknesses that, as a result of what I have said in this place and as the result of consultations with pensioners in these homes, most of the suggestions and most of what I have had to say in this House has been put into effect by the board of the Aged Cottage Homes. I refer to such things as the employment of a full time officer and active and open participation in the running of the homes by the residents in the form of committee work. They are recognised by the board and they are invited to meetings by the board. I am not sure how often this takes place but there is now a dialogue between the residents and the board and this has meant that much of the bitterness which previously existed has disappeared. This in itself is a good thing. One matter which I had continually raised was the manner in which the board dealt with residents. There had been a great deal of mental anguish particularly on the part of the aged female residents of the homes. I am happy to say that this has now been overcome or is about to be overcome.

I note that the health provisions will be a matter for debate later. There will be a continuing Commonwealth interest, if I may use that term, which will commence some time during next year. This is one of the matters which I have often raised in this place and it is one which I feel should be given further consideration because there ought to be a continuing interest by the Commonwealth in these homes. I think we all agree that the increasing cost structure, that is to say the cost of maintenance, rates, local government rates which include water rates, and the rates imposed by taxing authorities within the State sphere, is beyond the control of various nursing homes. Consideration ought to be given to this point.

I would appreciate the assistance of the Minister in regard to a matter that is still before the board of a home which I will not name and which is in my electorate and about which I am sure the Minister is aware. I draw his attention to the suspension by his Department of a rent subsidy. If the Minister would like me to take up this matter with him later I would be only too happy to do so.

Mr Wentworth:

– Of course.

Mr FOSTER:
STURT, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I hope that the provisions in this legislation will quickly be recognised by those organisations which have a great amount of work to do. I conclude on the note that it is not quite true to say in this place this afternoon - the Government brought in the relevant legislation in 1954, from memory - that nothing has been done in providing accommodation for the aged. I think the Minister will readily agree, because he visits these homes not only within my electorate but electorates throughout the Commonwealth, that a very great amount of work has been done by church and voluntary organisations over the years in regard to elderly people. Some of these organisations are very large, catering for the very infirm down to those people who merely want accommodation in their declining years and who are still quite active and are not as unfortunate as others in the community. I regret that time does not permit me to say anything more because I promised the Minister that I would take only 5 minutes. I hope that this Government, for the short time that it will remain in office, will continue to recognise its responsibilities in regard to this matter.

Mr BROWN:
Diamond Valley

– It is not often that we hear the honourable member for Sturt (Mr Foster) in a quiet, reflective, expansive mood. I must say it is a very pleasant change. I think that on this occasion we should express our appreciation to the honourable member for drawing our attention to the favourable situation that exists in South Australia, at least at the moment, so far as these facilities are concerned and thank him for what I understand to be the implied if not the almost expressed recognition of the. work of Mr Ian Wilson and his distinguished father in this field. I think the honourable member is to be commended for his generosity in that regard. In the course of this lively debate I think there has already been enough detail given as to the operation of the scheme envisaged by the 2 pieces of legislation which are before the House at the moment. I will not go over them again. Suffice it to say, very briefly and really just for the purposes of history when this speech of mine comes to be considered, that the Aged Persons Homes Bill increases from $5 to $10 a week the subsidy paid to non-profit homes caring for people over 80 years of age to provide personal attention for these people.

The Aged Persons Hostels Bill provides for very substantial appropriations by the Commonwealth Government for the provision of hostel accommodation. I mention briefly - nevertheless I think it is significant - that the Minister for Social Services (Mr Wentworth) expressed a hope in the course of his second reading speech that the legislation with respect to the subsidy increase from $5 to $10 would have the effect of enabling aged persons homes organisations to balance their books in view of the very precarious situation in which a lot of them have been. There is only one such organisation with Which I have had association myself. I do not profess, as has probably become apparent already, to be an expert in this field. However, there is one such organisation and one such home that I have had something to do with, namely, the Judge Book Memorial Village in Eltham which is run by the Community Welfare Foundation of Melbourne. I have spoken to officials of that organisation and I must say that they are very pleased indeed at the legislation with which the Government is now proceeding. They have indicated that this measure to increase the subsidies will quite clearly bring about a very substantial improvement in the situation at the Judge Book Village. This, of course, has been assessed already, at least in general terms and the officials can see the very real contribution that the Government has made to the effective continuing operation of the organisation of the Judge Book Village and they are, of course, most appreciative. It would seem quite clearly that the Minister’s hope will be justified. He deserves every congratulation that has been given to him by previous speakers for his work on this important step forward.

Finally, because I think it is important that we should put these things into perspective, I turn once again, but briefly, to the honourable member for Sturt and some of his comments in reply to my colleague, the honourable member for Bennelong (Sir John Cramer). Honourable members will recall that the honourable member for Bennelong drew attention to. the fact that the vast series of measures for the benefit of aged persons in this field were new. The point he was making was that it was a new programme in a new field and that new benefits had been conferred in recent years under these schemes. The honourable member for Sturt took issue with him on this. All I say is that the facts stand for themselves. If the honourable member for Sturt and other honourable members will look at the record in this field they will see quite clearly - I can see your own approval of this proposition, Mr Deputy Speaker - that these are new schemes with new benefits that have been introduced by this Government.

One can take this further, I refer briefly to this aspect because I do not want to get too far from the subject of the debate, but it is important to regard these measures that we are considering within the whole context of social services. Quite clearly in Australia comparatively few social service measures have been introduced by Labor governments in the history of this country. Indeed, one could say that the most desirable social service measures always have been introduced by non-Labor governments. If we look through these measures and at the various types of facilities that we are discussing, such as the Meals on Wheels programme, assistance to handicapped children, sheltered workshops and the home care programme, we see, of course, that they were all introduced by this present Government or its immediate predecessors. I think this should be borne in mind in view of the comments that come from members of the Opposition suggesting that the Government is not concerned with social welfare. This is absolute nonsense. As I have said, it can be easily demonstrated that the most worthwhile measures have been introduced by this Government and its predecessors.

Mr FOSTER (Sturt)- I wish to make a personal explanation, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Cope)Order! Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?

Mr FOSTER:

– Yes. I have been misrepresented by the honourable member for Diamond Valley (Mr Brown), who has just resumed his seat. He made certain inferences. It was my unfortunate experience in relation to my 2 predecessors in this House to have to work most actively prior to the last election to ensure that eviction notices issued under the name of a board with which those 2 members were associated were, in fact, withdrawn and not served on 87-year-old widows. I do not want to say this but-

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! There is no personal explanation.

Mr O’KEEFE:
Paterson

– I support the 2 Bills before the House and congratulate the. Minister for Social Services (Mr Wentworth) and the Government on their introduction. They have been met right across Australia with acclaim and I feel sure that this is why so little opposition has been expressed to the legislation. This indicates clearly that the legislation is good and that there are very few points in it which could be opposed by the Opposition. J feel that the Bills will be of great benefit to the aged persons and will assist those wonderful citizens who have, in many instances, taken on the responsibility of looking after aged persons homes and, in particular, those, people looking after the hostel type accommodation. Several of these homes are situated in my electorate and they are conducted by dedicated citizens who have, over the years, battled financially to keep them going. The 2 homes to which I refer are the Maitland Benevolent Society at Maitland, which the Minister recently visited with me, and the

Elizabeth Gates Memorial Homes at Singleton. They are both very fine institutions doing a magnificent job with local committees of dedicated people. This legislation will be of inestimable value to these organisations and to their inmates.

I also pay tribute to the service clubs, the Returned Services League and the public generally who have given support to enable many of these homes to remain financially sound and to provide services and attention for the aged folk. The legislation that we are presently debating will be of great benefit to those already existing institutions. A visit to such homes is always an enlightening experience. To see at first hand the accommodation and comforts provided for the aged inmates and to see their independence and contentment gives a visitor an appreciation of the wonderful work being performed in this most important field. As has been stated by the Minister, the Government’s programme in this fi eld will be administered partly by the Minister for Health (Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson). The proposals with which the Minister for Social Services is concerned provide for an increase in the subsidy paid to non-profit homes caring for people over 80 years of age and a 3-year crash programme to provide more hostel-type accommodation in line with our aged persons homes organisation.

Australians are living longer these days. More aged people are in need of accommodation than ever before. It is interesting to note that in 1950 there were 211,081 people over 75 years of age; in 1960 there were 275,940 people over age 75 and 120,832 people over 80 years of age. By 1970 there had been a tremendous increase to 380,481 people over age 75 and 178,041 people over 80 years of age. These figures draw attention to the fact that it is necessary to look after the aged people. Under this Bill the present rate of subsidy payable to eligible organisations providing personal care services for the frail aged in hostel-type accommodation will be doubled. It is a condition of approval that personal care services be provided for any aged resident who needs such services whether he or she be over 80 years of age or not.

It is extremely interesting to note that at present a subsidy is being paid to 360 homes of hostel-type accommodation caring for over 16,000 aged persons, nearly 700 of whom are 80 years of age and over. Last year’s subsidy in this field was to the order of $1.8m. With the increased costs of running hostel-type homes it has become necessary to increase the rate of payment from $5 to $10 a week and it has been pleasing to hear the Minister announce that this increased payment will be available from the first pay day after the Bill receives the royal assent. Therefore let there be no delay in the passing of this legislation. I was pleased to hear the honourable member for Adelaide (Mr Hurford) echo these sentiments. Surely this increased payment of $10 a week will be an incentive to the establishment of more hostel-type accommodation. It will cost the Government, on present figures, $14m in a full year. This figure, of course, may be substantially increased depending on the demand for hostel-type accommodation under the crash programme. This Bill is a practical application of the Government’s desire to improve the health, contentment and well-being of aged persons.

I would like to say a few words on the Aged Persons Hostels Bill which provides additional hostel-type accommodation for aged persons. Announcement of this measure was made originally in the Budget Speech by the Treasurer (Mr Snedden) and the passage of the Bill is being handled by the Minister for Social Services today. The assistance provided to non-profit organisations for building since 1957 has been on a $2 for $1 basis, and the total assistance given by the Government in this field to date totals over $150m. This is surely a magnificant contribution to this sector of the social welfare field. It demonstrates too the success of the policy adopted by the Government. I have witnessed many aged persons homes being built under this plan in country areas and in each instance great success has been achieved, I have already mentioned that local committees have been formed on a purely non-profit, voluntary basis and have given splendid service.

It was interesting to hear the Minister state in his second reading speech that of our 834,000 age pensioners over 519,000, or 62 per cent, live in their own homes. Of course, it would be a wonderful situation if that could be arranged to a greater extent.

State housing authorities and unsubsidised hostels provide for a further 25,000 people while 40,000 people live in commercially operated nursing homes. Some are living with relatives under excellent conditions. However, it is estimated that 50,000 pensioners may be living under unsatisfactory or poor standard conditions and paying high rent. It is these people for whom the Government is endeavouring to provide. There are long waiting lists with the organisations providing hostel-type accommodation under the Aged Persons Homes Act. This Bill will give some existing organisations the right to construct new hosteltype accommodation from wholly Commonwealth funds; that is, they need not touch their own resources.

For 2 very good reasons I feel that the Government has been very fair in its adoption of this procedure. Firstly, the institutions have already contributed a fair share by providing beds themselves before the present subsidy became effective. Secondly, the institutions have no need to prove their bona fides, because their actions over the years have given undoubted proof of it. The new accommodation to be provided under this crash programme is all to be of hostel-type and no capital donation will be required from the occupants. The accommodation is to be allocated on the basis of need and the Minister today gave a very detailed account of the regulations that will apply in this regard. The Bill also provides grants of up to $250 for each person towards the cost of furnishing these homes. These 2 Bills will be of great benefit to aged people right across Australia and clearly spell out the Government’s regard and concern for the welfare of the aged.

Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

– It gives me considerable pleasure to speak on the Aged Persons Hostels Bill this afternoon, and at the outset I offer my sincere congratulations to both the Minister for Social Services (Mr Wentworth) and the Government for what they have done in this field of social welfare. We have heard during the debate this afternoon a number of comments from both sides of the House; from the Opposition side they have been critical comments. I suppose at this time of the year, just prior to an election, this is only to be expected. Anyone who cares to read today’s Hansard tomorrow and to analyse what has been said by the Opposition will see that what Opposition members have said comprises fairly empty comments. This in itself is an acknowledgment that what the Government is doing is of great value. I heard one Opposition member earlier refer to the Bill as trifling, and as a result I made some calculations to see how it will affect my own electorate. In my electorate there is the Hospice at East Brisbane which will now qualify for 40 new beds, the Lutheran Church Senior Citizens Home at Woolloongabba which will qualify for 14 beds and the Bethany Aged Christians Home at Norman Park which will qualify for 7 beds. The Hospice will receive S3 12,000, the Lutheran Church at Woolloongabba $109,000 and the Bethany Aged Christians Home $54,000. I can assure honourable members opposite that when I conveyed this news to the people in charge of those homes they did not regard it as trifling.

If we were to look closely at the effects that this proposed Act will have throughout the nation we would find that it would be most beneficial, particularly to Australia’s older citizens. We have heard comments this afternoon from various honourable members about the problems of growing old, and the Minister mentioned in his second reading speech the alarming trend in the community for families and relatives to look to nursing homes to solve the problems of the accommodation and care of the aged. He also mentioned that many young couples today are either unable or unwilling to care for their aged parents. 1 would prefer to think that they were unable rather than unwilling, because I believe that if a person is in a position to do so - and I may be branded old fashioned for saying this - he or she has an obligation to do something for the parents. Upon looking at what this Liberal-Country Party Federal Government has done, I, as a member of one of those Parties, bear no shame for what this Government has done for the aged, because since it came to power in 1949 a great deal has been done. Prior to that time - and I know that there are Opposition members who would probably condemn their own Party’s performance when in government - very little was done to assist the aged in this country. We have seen the introduction of the Aged Persons Hostels Bill and this, coupled with the Aged Persons Homes Bill and the States Grants (Dwellings for Aged Pensioners) Act certainly is taking the worry and concern out of growing old.

In my electorate in the last couple of years 3 or 4 blocks of units for aged persons have been erected jointly by the Commonwealth and State governments. Single pensioners who do not have a home of their own and who have been found to be living in below standard circumstances are given a unit for which the single rate is about $3.50 a week and the rate for a married couple is approximately $5 a week. In my time as the honourable member for Griffith, I have seen the establishment of the Panorama Lodge by the Methodist Church where approximately 70 people now have accommodation in what I regard as very satisfactory surroundings. All these actions combined are certainly tangible evidence that this Government has been a government that has cared. When I look at the table and see the Minister for Social Services sitting there, I recognise him as being symbolic of the concern which has been shown over the years and I know that he derives a great deal of satisfaction from witnessing the strides that have been taken in recent times.

The Opposition was fairly political earlier today in denigrating what is being proposed in these Bills so, just as it has been political, I feel it is fitting that I should conclude my comments today on a political note. I do not regard politics as being just a game because politics involves people. Each side of the House attempts to make political capital out of the other side and for our side to ignore this completely would be to let down the entire nation. The Aged Persons Homes Act permits local councils to erect aged persons homes. This is another benefit which has been introduced by this Government. In my home city of Brisbane we have a Labor city council which has a budget larger than that of Tasmania. Many people presently are wrestling with the rights and wrongs of what is being done by the State Government in that city. Since the introduction of the provision which enables local councils to contribute one-third of the cost of aged persons homes, that Australian Labor Party city council has not driven even a bent wooden peg into the ground. Yet, honourable members opposite masquerade around pretending they belong to a Party of concern. Certainly, it is a Party of concern around election time.

Honourable members opposite claim that everything that the Government is doing at this time is just political and is designed to win votes. What is politics all about? Governments stay in power by responding to the wishes of the people and if, on occasion, a government can more than anticipate the needs of the people through proper planning, I believe that in so doing it is showing the nation that it is not a tired government that has been in office for 23 years and is showing that it is not time that it was kicked out because it is lethargic. It is showing that it is able, as it has been in the last 2 decades, to lead this nation into the future as capably as it has been led in the past.

In conclusion, I wish again to congratulate the Minister for Social Services on this innovation. The Aged Persons Hostels Bill is a little different from the Aged Persons Homes Bill in that it stipulates that no key money is required to gain entry into these new hostels. This means that in the electorate of Griffith some 61 aged persons who could not otherwise have afforded to take advantage of the. Aged Persons Homes Act will soon be able to seek and obtain accommodation to ensure that their latter years are pleasant years.

Mr WENTWORTH:
Minister for Social Services · Mackellar · LP

– in reply - I thank honourable members on both sides of the House for what they have said during the course of this debate. May I just sum up and try to put some matters in perspective. The 2 Bills which we are debating together are part of a pattern. The doubling of the personal care subsidy will enable the hostel type accommodation to be run without loss by the organisations concerned and still leave a spending margin for the inmates. The new subsidy for hostels will enable the organisations to expand more quickly the hostel type accommodation. This is a crash programme for 3 years and is designed to have quite an immense impact upon the entire situation.

Since we are not going to have a Committee debate, may I take this opportunity of reiterating some of the details of the Aged Persons Hostels Bill in case they are not quite clear in the minds of honourable members. The qualifying home really is one which has not received the full subsidy. If it is a qualifying, unsubsidised home and it is a home which, in essence, is the same whether it be maintained as a hostel type, nursing home type or unit type aged persons home, it will qualify. The unsubsidised home is one which has received no subsidy. The subsidised qualifying home is one which was built between the years 1954 and 1957 and which therefore received only a $1 for $1 subsidy. This is the basis of the computation on which the subsidy will be paid. For every bed in an unsubsidised qualifying home, there will be 2 new subsidised beds. For every 2 beds in a subsidised qualifying home there will be one new subsidised bed. So, if we take the example of an aged persons home which has 50 beds and which has received no subsidy, under the new provisions it will be entitled to receive the new subsidy on 100 beds. In the case of an aged persons home which has 50 beds and which, in the past, has received a $1 for $1 subsidy, it will now be entitled to receive the subsidy on 25 beds.

Mr Berinson:

– Does that mean that there will be no subsidy for homes which had received a $2 for $1 subsidy?

Mr WENTWORTH:

– No, they have already received their full subsidy. The subsidy is $7,800 per bed, to which is added $250 for furnishings which, in round figures, is a total subsidy of $8,000. This subsidy must be spent on hostel type accommodation without donation by the incoming residents and accommodation must be given in accordance with need. However, a new hostel need not be built on the same site as the existing home. The organisation will have a free choice as to whether it will invest the new subsidy in its existing home on its own site or whether it will move to another site. The organisation will have a free choice in that regard and it may use the money for one home or for 2 homes as it sees fit. We are not going to try to trammel that. What we want are hostel beds quickly. We want them without donation by incoming residents and we want them allocated to those in need. These are the requirements. Because they are going into the administration of organisations which have, by their past actions, given evidence of their full bona fides, we will ensure that the best possible use will be made of this money.

I have instanced to the House church organisations, bodies like the Returned Services League, organisations for the blind and charitable trusts of long standing. These organisations are all run by good people and they will find it no hardship at all to take the money, to say ‘We will take no further donation in respect of it’ and to allocate it in accordance with need. Do honourable members think, for example, that organisations like Chesalon Church of England, St Vincent de Paul, the Little Sisters of the Poor, the Lutheran homes or the Montefiore homes will find these conditions onerous? Of course not. It will be very much the opposite. I am sure that they will be welcomed. I want to see from this an efflorescence of hostel beds all over Australia to meet the needs of old people and to prevent the undue incursion of aged people into nursing homes in the future. This is what the programme is aimed at and this is what it will do.

I think that the honourable member for Adelaide (Mr Hurford) raised an important point when he asked: ‘Will this $7,800 be sufficient?’ In general I think it will because we are dealing- with hostel type accommodation which, taking it by and large, is the most economical type of accommodation to build. Our investigations indicate that at present, for this amount or less, a bed can very conveniently be provided. It may be that they will not be able to provide the full number of beds. I do not know this. The plans will be approved from time to time by my Department. This scheme is very flexible. It is inflexible, I suppose, in the sense that it has to be directed to those most in need and it has to be run by those who are best qualified to run it, but in its administration within those limitations it will have a great deal of margin for operation and I believe it will be very quickly effective.

I do not know what the reaction of these organisations will be - I have not been in touch with them - but I think I can predict it fairly certainly. I feel that these charitable organisations - seeing the need, knowing that they can now go ahead without further capital expenditure themselves and knowing that because of the cognate Bill on the subsidy they will be able to run without loss - will feel that they have every reason to act quickly. The honourable member for Oxley (Mr Hayden), I think it was, spoke about our estimates of cost. How can we have a firm estimate of cost when we are dependent on what voluntary organisations themselves decide? We cannot command them. But it has been a principle in the past with the Aged Persons Homes Act that a proper application for a subsidy has never been refused on financial grounds, and I see no reason to believe that the present Bill will not be the same in that regard.

I have taken note of the other matters that have been raised in this debate but I shall not refer to them in detail. Perhaps I should mention but one or two of them. The honourable member for Hughes (Mr Les Johnson) spoke about this scheme being piecemeal. It is not piecemeal. This is part of a scheme to help the ailing aged, the most comprehensive scheme, the most effective scheme, traversing the Department of Health and my Department. I think it is the most comprehensive and the most effective scheme that we have ever had in Australia and, in all probability, it is the best and most forward scheme that exists in any part of the world, because it covers the whole spectrum in a way in which I do not think any other scheme does with the same efficiency and effect. It is perfectly true that we will not solve these problems overnight. Buildings take time.

Mr Bryant:

– About 23 years.

Mr WENTWORTH:

– An honourable member has said ‘23 years’, but in that time this Government has made greater strides for the real benefit of the ailing aged than have ever been made before. We have a system here, in our aged persons homes organisation of which we may well he proud. I have heard the phrase ‘key money’ used in this debate. I have heard people speaking of the nation’s take. I remind the House - honourable members will know this from the monthly statements which I circulate to all honourable members - that the majority of beds which are being built under the old system are free of donation. I remind the. House also that even the beds that have been built with donation eventually become charitable beds, because each bed will have 10, 12 or 15 occupants during the course of its lifetime. Old people, generation after generation, will use them and be. grateful. We are accumulating a stock of real charitable beds. This could not have been done so quickly or effectively under any other scheme. This new Bill that we are bringing in is by no means a substitution for our existing’ aged persons homes scheme. The aged persons homes scheme as we have it will go on unchanged. This will be a temporary addition to it, a crash programme designed as part of the Government’s scheme to help effectively the ailing aged.

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 Wentworth) read a third time.

page 1434

AGED PERSONS HOMES BILL 1972

Second Reading

Consideration resumed.

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 Wentworth) read a third time.

page 1434

STATES GRANTS (UNIVERSITIES) BILL 1972

Mr Malcolm Fraser:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP

– by leave - I would like the indulgence of the House to clarify a point in the second reading speech I made this afternoon on a Bill concerning additional supplementary payments. I spoke to the honourable member for Fremantle (Mr Beazley) about this earlier and he explained that it was not possible for him to be here. I wish to draw the attention of the House to what may be regarded as an ambiguity in my second reading speech on the States Grants (Universities) Bill 1972 and in my public announcement of 11th September when virtually identical words were used relating to the date of effect of increases in academic salaries arising from the inquiry to be conducted by Mr Justice Campbell. The position is that the Commonwealth will stand ready to make supplementary grants to the States on the basis of the usual formula in order to cover increases in academic salaries to take effect from 1st January 1973 which may arise from the recommendations in Mr Justice Campbell’s inquiry. Any such increases will, of course, require a Government decision on Mr Justice Campbell’s recommendations. That is the point that I have not made clear - that any rises would require a Government decision.

page 1434

QUESTION

NATIONAL SERVICEMEN

Mr HOLTEN:
Minister for Repatriation · Indi · CP

– by leave - I seek the indulgence of the House to clarify and correct an answer I gave to a question asked by the honourable member for Hawker (Mr Jacobi) this morning. After studying the proof of the Hansard report I realised that I misheard and misinterpreted the question and therefore part of my answer related to the repatriation benefits for treatment and pensions which are available to all Army people who served in Vietnam on special service. I have, discussed the matter since with the honourable member for Hawker and I learnt then precisely what he meant in his question by the word ‘volunteers’. The honourable member for Hawker told me that he was referring to those who enlist for short term service in the Regular Army. The first part of the honourable gentleman’s question was:

Are volunteers- that is short term Regular Army personnel - who served in Vietnam denied the benefits of the retraining scheme for national servicemen who served in Vietnam?

The correct answer is that the retraining benefits of the national service vocational training scheme are not available to Regular Army personnel. The national service scheme is available to all national servicemen whether or not they served overseas. It is designed to help compensate them for the disruption to their civilian occupation. As to the other part of the question relating to the war service land settlement scheme, this is a matter concerning the Minister for Primary Industry who outlined the situation in that area in his answer to a question asked by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Barnard) at a later stage during question time.

page 1435

APPROVAL OF WORKS - PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE ACT

Construction of Post Office and

Telephone Exchange, Shepparton, Victoria

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

– I move:

The proposal is for the demolition of the existing post office and its replacement by a new post office and telephone exchange. The new building will house a ground floor post office and two upper floors of telephone exchange equipment. The estimated cost of the proposed work is $1.4m. The Committee has concluded that there is a need for the work and recommends its construction. Upon the concurrence of the House in this resolution, detailed planning can proceed in accordance with the recommendations of the Committee.

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I will not keep the House very long on this matter but I think that one aspect of it justifies some special mention. The construction of this post office and telephone exchange at Shepparton is not a large undertaking. As the Minister for Customs and Excise (Mr Chipp) indicated, it is to cost $1.4m. The proposed work is for a new post office and telecommunications centre. This complex will serve a great region - the Shepparton region in Victoria. The matter which gave the Public Works Committee some concern - and I think some conclusions ought to be drawn for our benefit in future - is that in the view of many people the construction of the proposed works will involve the destruction of a building of historical significance.

The post office and the court house which this proposal intends to destroy was constructed in 1883. Many people who know the Shepparton area regard the existing post office and court house as a landmark in that region. It is used on post cards and the like. A number of people have indicated in various ways their opposition to the destruction of this complex. Such people include representatives from the Country Women’s Association of Victoria and the Shepparton Historic Society.

The court house was acquired from the State of Victoria in 1870 and the post office was transferred to the Commonwealth at the time of federation. I can assure honourable members who have never seen this building that it is magnificent and in my view it is a shame that it is to go. We were told that in Victoria alone the Post Office holds some 29 buildings which have been classified in some way by the National Trust. This particular building has such a classification. Earlier it was classified by the National Trust as being of sufficient interest to be recorded. Subsequently it was reclassified. The current classification of the building is that its preservation is desirable. This contention worried a number of members of the Committee who have learnt, through their involvement in public works matters, to be non-vandalistic and to have some regard for the aesthetic factors in life:

There are in Victoria a number of outstanding buildings among the 29 post offices which have a very high classification. I hope that no government will ever want to destroy some of these buildings which are part of our national heritage. Some of the post office buildings that are of significant historical value are located at Sale, Koroit and Maribyrnong. Some investigation was made into the possibility of preserving the post office building at Shepparton. Speaking from memory 1 think that an additional $490,000 would be involved if that objective were pursued.

The point I want to make is that this desirable business of classifying post offices of historical significance should not be entrusted to the Post Office. In my view, the process of determining whether or not post office buildings should undergo a modernising programme or remain as they are should be accepted by the Government as a governmental responsibility. I should like to suggest that the Ministry for the Environment, Aborigines and the Arts - this Ministry which is very ambiguous in many respects and which from the environmental standpoint hardly seems to have come down to any positive line of objectivity - should start to accept some responsibility in this regard. I believe that the Government should look at all such post offices in Australia - and they are 150 in number - which have a National Trust classification. The Government should determine a real sense of priority about them and decide whether any of them are to be subjected to a modernisation programme.

I do not know whether the Minister for the Environment, Aborigines and the Arts (Mr Howson), who is in the House at the moment, has consciously applied himself to this matter and whether in fact he concedes that it ought to be the responsibility and the prerogative of his Department to liaise with the Post Office in this case and indeed with many other Departments where there is a responsibility to determine whether an historical building, such as the Customs House in Sydney, is to remain.

Mr Howson:

– We have talked to the National Trust about this.

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– One of the unfortunate facts, if the Minister has associated himself with this problem, is that no evidence was given to the Committee about the Government’s interest in retaining this building, or if in fact it has any interest in retaining any building at all. It is quite impossible for members of the Public Works Committee to see the relative historical merit of buildings because we could never see all the post offices in a State or, for that matter, in Australia. I venture to say, in all reality, that it would not be possible to retain all the buildings which have some historical value and significance. It would be of very great assistance to the Committee, the Parliament, and the community at large if a scale of priorities was determined by the Minister. I strongly commend the idea that he should apply himself to working towards that end.

It is of some interest that although the building is to be removed it will be removed in such a way as to facilitate its rehabilitation or reconstruction by the Shepparton City Council on an international centre. Of course, a lot of historical significance will go and some damage will occur in the removal, but at least it is some solution. I would be greatly encouraged if the Minister would make some comment as to the suggestion I have made regarding the desirability of his Department preparing a scale of priorities for the preservation of historical post offices.

Mr LLOYD:
Murray

– I support the proposal before the House for the construction of a new post office and telephone exchange at Shepparton, which is in my electorate. I congratulate the Public Works Committee on this recommendation and on the conscientious and detailed study that it made of these proposals. I think its example in this regard is a most worthy one for a parliamentary committee doing its work in a conscientious way. Not only did the Committee study the alternative proposals which were put forward, but it visited the area and allowed local opinion and the views of Shepparton people on the proposed demolition of the existing building to be heard.

The honourable member for Hughes (Mr Les Johnson) referred to the problem that arose because this building is of historical value in the Shepparton area. The real problem the Committee faced was to decide whether the existing building could be maintained and altered to provide sufficient facilities for the Shepparton area in the future or whether it would be better to demolish it and build a new post office and telephone exchange. I believe that the Committee made the right decision, because Shepparton is one of the most rapidly growing provincial areas in Australia, and growing with it is the postal and telecommunications business, which will require a larger and more up to date building than can be provided by the alteration of the existing building.

I am glad that the honourable member for Hughes also mentioned the careful demolition of the existing building. In the evidence the Shepparton City Council requested careful demolition so that the building material could be obtained, free of charge, for re-erection on another site. I remind the Parliament that it was stated by departmental representatives at the hearing that the Shepparton City Council could be assured of the co-operation of the Commonwealth in arranging the careful demolition of the building, and the contract would provide accordingly. I hope that the Commonwealth adheres to this assurance and also that the Shepparton City Council is able to continue with its project to re-erect what is the only old building of any significance in the Shepparton area. I repeat that I support the proposal and congratulate the Committee on its good work.

Mr BRYANT:
Wills

– I wish to voice brief support for the sentiments expressed by my friend, the honourable member for Hughes (Mr Les Johnson). I do not know Shepparton all that well, but 1 have driven through it on numerous occasions. Part of the charm of our country towns is the buildings that were put there by our great grandparents and our grandparents. I do not care what is done to the Shepparton Post Office as part of taking it down and putting it up somewhere else; not only is the building being shifted but the charm and character of the street in which it stood is being changed. I am confident that no other country in the world would proceed in this way. It is true enough that we have only 100 years or so of this kind of history. If this generation had been operating in Britain over the last 2 or 3 centuries I have no doubt that the British would no longer have Canterbury Cathederal or Westminster Abbey. I believe there is a total Philistine approach to this question of what might be called progress. I oppose it.

I recall when I first entered this Parliament the long and homeric battles that took place about the Customs House in Melbourne. There were those who said that that valuable building must be destroyed. They said: ‘We can put something else on the site’. After long battles in which the Public Works Committee played a very important part, the building has been preserved, I think, to the advantage of Melbourne- certainly to the advantage of the Federal members whose offices are there. It also sets standards different from those that prevail in this rather materialistic and vandalistic age. I am a little disappointed that the honourable member for Murray (Mr Lloyd) does not see it that way. I have been through the transcript of evidence taken by the Committee on this matter in a hurried way. I do not think he appeared before the Committee and put a point of view one way or the other. I would expect that members of this Parliament at least ought to be attempting to preserve those aspects of the past which give us charm, character and some stimulation. The longer I live the more gratitude I feel and the more respect I have for my grandparents’ generation. Under great difficulties and with minimal resources at their disposal they created many of the things that give Australia its character. I will be astonished if the subsequent building that goes up - probably a glass box and a reinforced concrete structure - will preserve the existing charm of the street in Shepparton where the post office is presently situated.

Mr CORBETT:
Maranoa

– I want to make a few brief comments with regard to the Shepparton Post Office. I have been informed that the Australian Post Office has a category of priorities in relation to the historical value of its buildings. It has taken the trouble to look at the buildings that it has throughout the Commonwealth with the object of giving a higher priority to the buildings which have a particular, special or greater historical significance. So the Post Office has not been neglectful of this angle. I also pay a tribute to the interest taken by the honourable member for Murray (Mr Lloyd) in this matter. He has discussed it with me.

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– He never appeared before the Public Works Committee.

Mr CORBETT:

– It is his own prerogative whether he comes before the Committee. I feel that he had such confidence in the Committee that he felt it would lake the right decision, which he has just complimented it on doing. So he has taken a very keen interest in the matter. It would not be possible to retain all the buildings that perhaps even the honourable member for Wills (Mr Bryant) might like to retain. There is a cost involved iri doing this. While I have a great respect and admiration for the historical societies and the work they do - in fact they are operating in my own area - I feel that- some degree of priority has to be given to those buildings we should preserve. I believe also that there has to be some measure by which assistance can be given to those organisations who want to preserve buildings such as the Shepparton post office. But we also have to look at the cost to the community over all. Perhaps some measure, some pattern or some formula could be arrived at whereby people could make application for assistance in the renovation or the preservation of these buildings, provided they themselves are prepared to undertake perhaps the maintenance of them in the future. I am not setting down specific guidelines, but I believe this is something that could be looked into. I repeat that my understanding is that the Post Office has a priority system under which it has placed into various categories the buildings which it thinks should be preserved because of their historical significance.

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

– I am grateful to the members of the Public Works Committee for having raised the preservation of important and ancient Commonwealth buildings. I have already been giving a lot of thought to this subject, and I have had discussions with members of the Australian National Trust, who often advise on the category buildings should be placed in and their importance. Suffice it to say that after hearing the debate today I shall be reinforced in my determination to see whether we can do more in the future than we have done in the past. Honourable members may know of the success that I had as the honourable member for Fawkner in saving the South Yarra Post Office from destruction. I therefore can say that over the years I have shown as much sympathy to the problem as have members of the Public Works Committee.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Redevelopment of Kormilda College for Aboriginal Students, Darwin

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

– I move:

That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969-1972, it is expedient to carry out the following proposed work which was referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works and on which the Committee has duly reported to Parliament: Redevelopment of Kormilda College for Aboriginal Students, Darwin.

The proposal involves the construction of new buildings to provide residential and educational facilities for 310 male and female Aboriginal students preparing for secondary education or undertaking 3-year post primary courses. The estimated cost of the proposed work is $3.3m. The Committee concluded that there is a need for the work and recommends that it proceed to construction. Upon the concurrence of the House in this motion, detailed planning can proceed in accordance with the recommendations of the Committee.

Mr JAMES:
Hunter

– I support this motion with a great deal of pride and enthusiasm. In the 6 years that I have been a member of the Public Works Committee I cannot recall the Committee’s showing such a deep interest in a reference before it. I think the members of the Committee were truly reflecting the interest of the Australian people expressed a few years ago their vote in a referendum proposal put to them by the Government, by which they expressed concern for the uplifting of the standards of the Aboriginal people. The inquiry by the Public Works Committee was very lengthy. The Committee’s Chairman, the honourable member for Wakefield (Mr Kelly), who is known for his devotion to his task, worked us almost to. breaking point When the inquiry was held in Darwin, on some nights we did not finish taking evidence until after 10 o’clock.

The Australian people should be proud of achievements in the higher education field for the Aboriginal people through Kormilda College. It certainly did want uplifting. It was one of the most dilapidated buildings ever to be inspected by the Public Works Committee. Many parts of it were riddled with white ants. It was an old Army building and I think that all Australians would have been embarrassed had visitors from overseas seen the dilapidated condition of the building in which Aborigines were being educated.

The proposal involves the construction of new buildings at Kormilda College to provide residential and educational facilities. As the Minister for Customs and Excise (Mr Chipp) has just said, these facilities are for 310 male and female Aboriginal students preparing for secondary education or undertaking 3-year post-primary courses. Some evidence was given to the Committee which made it difficult for the Committee to reach its conclusions. We welcomed conflicting opinions given in sworn evidence before us. There was merit in many of the opinions expressed to us by studious and wise people.

We had evidence from Miss Sommerlad of the Australian National University who had done a 12-month study of the way of life of Aborigines, particularly at Kormilda College. Her opinions conflicted with those of representatives of the Northern Territory Welfare Branch.

Evidence was also given by Mr WesleySmith, a very enterprising young fellow who shows a deep interest in community affairs in the Northern Territory and throughout Australia. He is an agronomist with the Department of Agriculture in the Northern Territory. I thought his evidence was rich in merit. He suggested that resort be had to different educational practices. He was not opposed in any way to the rebuilding or modernisation of the College. Miss Sommerlad believed, as did all witnesses before the Committee, that the uplifting of Kormilda College would be beneficial to the education of the Aboriginal people. The main conflict before the Committee concerned the educational training methods for Aborigines. Mr Wesley-Smith pointed out that there should be greater encouragement and greater use of Aboriginal teaching students. He said that they should be used at all levels in the educational programme and, in that event, he wanted to know where the appropriate accommodation had been planned in the new buildings.

While we might agree that it was an interesting and intelligent submission we are cognisant of the fact that a ceiling must be placed on the expenditure, no matter what is the project. Mr Wesley-Smith was suggesting the provision of accommodation for the families of Aboriginal teaching students. I hope that one day, if it is found that the employment of Aboriginal teaching students as teachers at Kormilda College is a step in the right direction, provision will then be made to house their wives and children. Mr Wesley-Smith was supported in his view by Mr Bruce MacKenzie, a director of the Young Men’s Christian Association at Darwin.

Mr Wesley Smith also referred to the work of Japanese Professor Mazrui, a world authority on education who teaches children of 4 years of age to play the violin. Mr Wesley-Smith emphasised that the basis of the professor’s success lay in teaching the mothers of the children to play the violin.

He related that point to housing the parents of the students at the college or in its immediate precincts. However, the estimated cost of the project is S3. 3m and that could be doubled if all the recommendations of the witnesses which conflicted with the views of the Welfare Branch were implemented. All members of the Committee were concerned with the cost.

Committee members also expressed concern with the problem of plural marriages in the Territory. The honourable member for Hughes (Mr Les Johnson), perhaps could place greater emphasis on that aspect. He was interested in the moral degradation of young girls who attend Kormilda College, return to the missions and become virtually victims of the lust of elderly Aborigines. As a father of daughters I regard that problem very seriously. The Welfare Branch is trying to discourage this practice but I think more vigorous efforts could be employed to abolish it.

Mr Chipp:

– Is that practice not dying out?

Mr JAMES:

– I do not believe it is. It is certainly not dying out to the extent that the Committee would like to have seen and it caused us some concern. Other members of the Committee are probably waiting to speak to this motion. This is a step in the right direction. The Committee welcomes the raising of the standard of the buildings. I personally want to go on record as congratulating the Government for what it is doing in this regard. I think the whole of the Australian people would be behind the Government in the spending of this S3. 3m to upgrade Kormilda College at Darwin.

Mr CALDER:
Northern Territory

– I rise to support this proposal. In commending the Government on the planning that it has put into these proposed works, I could not omit to commend the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works which spent so much time and gave so much consideration to the many problems which came up during the hearings in relation to Kormilda College. During the year of its existence Kormilda College has been of tremendous and real value, to Aborigines and Aboriginal students from every corner of the Northern Territory - including those in Arnhem Land, those at Port Keats Mission and those down in the central area of the Northern Territory. The buildings which comprise Kormilda College were pre-wai Army huts. They were in a very bad state and a lot of money needed to be spent to do the upgrading work which is now proceeding.

One of the things that I would not like to see overlooked is the spirit in which the people assisting and teaching these boys and girls at Kormilda College have done their work. I have been there when the rain has been pouring in and driving across their open air theatre. Despite the state of the buildings and these other hardships, these people have still maintained this magnificent spirit. I think this spirit has been passed on to many of the students at the College. I have seen the students performing at sport and performing at their theatre and 1 have noticed that they do have a very fine college spirit. The College is doing a tremendous amount of good. These people are able to come from all over the Territory to a place that will help to develop their character. I hope that Yirara College at Alice Springs will do the same thing.

I commend the Government on the thought and the planning that it has put into both of these colleges. With the provision of these new buildings Kormilda College will have a manual trades area, art, craft and domestic science buildings and also buildings in which the students will be taught agriculture and animal husbandry. This is a very good approach because many of these boys and girls come from settlements and missions and areas where cattle husbandry is carried on. In some areas there are beef cattle studs and other studs as well as the growing of agricultural products. If the students can gain some training in these matters at the College it will be a very good thing. I notice in the plan for the College that there is a natural amphitheatre in the area. This is to be developed as a corroboree ground where students can perform native dances. Also they will be able to put on concerts which I am sure will be enjoyed by the students themselves and by any visitor who might be present. So I commend the Government and the Public Works Committee for the work that is being done at Kormilda College.

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– No-one can quibble about the need to replace the old buildings which Kormilda College has occupied for some years. I think the College was established in 1967 but the buildings were established some 30 years ago. They have been used as an Army hospital, a transit centre for Qantas Airways Limited, and they have a warehouse effect about them rather than that of a modern educational institution. The buildings which will replace this complex of shacks are of very suitable design. The concept of this College actually emanated from a report of the Watts Gallagher Committee of 1962. I think that the work done by that Committee probably served in some measure to update the thinking which took place 10 years ago about the concept of providing residential colleges for Aboriginal people.

There are approximately 6,000 Aboriginal children in schools in the Northern Territory, and the likelihood is that many of them will leave their home towns and come to one of the 3 residential colleges being provided in the Northern Territory region. The Dhupuma College at Gove was established this year. Kormilda College is operating in these old fashioned buildings and, of course, the new Yirara College is being established at Alice Springs. It will open in 1973 and accommodate some 300 students. With the 610 students able to be accommodated at Kormilda, there will be at any one time approximately 700 or 800 children in these residential colleges. Obviously this is a matter which has to be thought about very carefully because it involves taking the children of this race of people in substantial numbers away from their tribes and villages.

The honourable member for the Northern Territory (Mr Calder) spoke of the beneficial efforts on children who attend Kormilda College. Doubtless there have been some very beneficial effects, but there is obviously a need for the people in the departments who are responsible for these children to have a very good, hard look at the situation. My colleague the honourable member for Hunter (Mr James) touched on this matter earlier when he referred to the research worker, Miss Sommerlad, who spent, I think, about a year there in 1970. She revealed a number of deficiences and some very serious problems which need attending to and which need to be accommodated in some measure in the design and utilisation of the complex of buildings which we are now discussing. For example, she was able to establish that in 1970, the year she was there, the dropout rate was 43 per cent. She established that only 17 per cent of the students who enrolled in 1968 or 1969 and who could have completed a post primary course - that is a 3-year course - in fact did so. Of the students who did not drop out, 83 per cent had no further education when they returned to their home communities. In total, more than 63 per cent of all students dropped out before completing a minimum of 2 years. Of all enrolments in the first term of 1970, 43 per cent dropped out during the year.

All of us here would have liked to have seen a much better result. We cannot blame the result on the Aboriginal children, many of whom go to these colleges with great anticipation, great hopes . and great enthusiasm, but something happens to them when they get there. Without over-emphasising this point, Miss Sommerlad referred to the incidence of deviant behaviour. I am not putting emphasis here on the interpretation of deviant behaviour as we usually understand it. The fact of the matter is that there was a very large incidence of deviant behaviour involving running away from school, being absent without permission, breaches of discipline, and some of the other more undesirable things. Miss Sommerlad said that some 23 per cent of the students surveyed engaged in 4 or more types of deviant behaviour. More than half of the students have been absent from the College without approval on at least 2 occasions, and a considerable number engaged in promiscuous behaviour. This sort of thing happens these days in this permissive society among all races and in all age groups. However, the incidence among these students might be more alarming than we would like to see.

She mentioned also that there were psychosomatic symptoms among many children. She found 10 different types of psychosomatic stress. Only 2 students failed to exhibit any symptoms at all. Twenty-five per cent showed at least 4 symptoms. They involved maladjustment, identity confusion, suffering from nightmares and symptoms of high sickness. Basically it seems that these symptoms often emanated from a change of life style involving emotional stresses which these young people were not equipped to cope with. This young lady, whose investigations have been the subject of an expression of appreciation by the Northern Territory Administration, went on to make some proposals as to how these problems could be overcome. 1 want to emphasise 3 or 4 of them.

We have ascertained that insufficient Aboriginal staff was employed at Kormilda. In an institution where there is a great problem about finding employment for graduates one would feel that there would be much more application to this matter of facilitating the employment of Aboriginal people on the staff of an Aboriginal students college. Miss Sommerlad believes that there should be greater parental involvement at the College. This is not always easy because the children come from far-off places, but it is important to ensure that facilities for parents are provided and for them to be encouraged to come to the College from time to time and participate in the community life. She believes that there should be greater emphasis in demonstrations and practice of Aboriginal culture. The honourable member for the Northern Territory referred to this. There is some recognition of the need for these things but in the view of Miss Sommerlad and others who have a hard application to Aboriginal affairs insufficient is done. She believes that the children are left to their own resources to too great an extent after school hours and that more staff should be available to service these periods. She strongly advocated that there should be a school counsellor and a vocational guidance officer.

Her criticism included the contention that there is very little interaction between the Aboriginal people and the white people in the local community. She said that there is very little encouragement to Aboriginal identity; there is little chance to practice skills, decision making and to engage in business accepting responsibility. There were others who made critical remarks. My colleague, the honourable member for Hunter mentioned the very forthright evidence given by the Director of the YMCA,

Mr McKenzie. He was not carried away with the Kormilda idea at all. In fact he had this to say to the Committee:

It is another act in the continuing Aboriginal tragedy. Very little consultation has been solicited from Aboriginal people; even the Administration hand-picked Advisory Council seems to have been ignored.

He said that there is no question that there was insufficient consultation with the Aboriginal people. In fact after the Committee had virtually completed its inquiry it decided to re-open it because at that stage not one Aboriginal person had given evidence, nor had any representatives of the missions from which many Aboriginal children come. So we decided to re-open the inquiry to encourage the representatives of these missions and the representatives of Aboriginal organisations to come before the Committee. Surprisingly there was little response. Mr Bill Ryan, who is an Aboriginal Welfare Officer, came along. He was the person of Aboriginal descent who stood out as a witness, and he had the most forthright ideas about the whole Kormilda concept. He disparaged it and indicated that he himself had come from an entirely different situation.

I believe that we have to look hard at the alternative which he put forward. During the war years he was moved from the Northern Territory down to an area in my electorate known as Otford where a number of Aboriginal children came, and he said that the desirable thing was to get them out of this segregated atmosphere and maybe have a residential place for them to live but otherwise to send them into community schools where they could obtain an effective association with the white community. Mr McKenzie of the YMCA questioned the Kormilda College concept and he said that there was insufficient emphasis on physical education, sex education, recreation and counselling. He said:

The socio-cultural, socio-economic and sociointegration/segregation aspects of Aboriginal life have been ignored.

This whole inquiry has not been without controversy by any means. I believe that the time has come for something more expert than the Public Works Committee to conduct an objective inquiry into the form of Aboriginal education to be under taken in the Northern Territory. It obviously should be the prerogative of skilled educationalists.

Views along these lines were expressed by a number of witnesses including Mr Wesley Smith, who was referred to by one of my colleagues. Generally speaking I would acknowledge that the dedicated people who comprise the staff of the College have been working under great difficulties. There were some who would like to have given the Committee the benefit of their experience, and I will mention this aspect of the matter. There seems to me to be in the Welfare Division in the Northern Territory a pervading intimidatory atmosphere the like of which is not known in any other government department that I know of in Australia. We have had several instances during the course of various Committee inquiries where some people have expressed the view that if they gave evidence before the Committee, giving the benefit of their experience and their involvement in Aboriginal affairs, they could be the subject of prejudice in their jobs.

This is a Public Service community; so much of the Northern Territory is like that. In Alice Springs, in Darwin and in other parts of the Territory the very wellinformed people are public servants. Sometimes they are not in the department which is the subject of the inquiry but they have useful information to give. One is the deputy headmaster of this school. One or two people who have have very worthwhile experience in the Kormilda institution wanted to speak but it was clear that they had received advice that they could put their jobs in jeopardy if they gave evidence. This kind of intimidatory atmosphere has to be swept away if we are to get the benefit of the views of these people who have applied themselves to these problems for so long, lt is all right to go through the motions of bringing some Aboriginal people along who have been trained in the school and say to them: ‘What do you think about this place?’ Invariably they say: ‘It is a good place’. If we say: ‘Can you think of duy way to improve it’, they say: ‘No’. Obviously many of these people lack the experience to identify potential and the alternatives and too often the Administration uses this technique to justify its proposals.

It is far more desirable that they should bring in the experienced people who are educationalists or welfare officers and expose all this business to sensible examination. The best interests of the Aboriginal people are going to be served only if we face up to the facts. It is not a matter of embarrassing governments. It is not a matter of identifying undesirable things to the discredit of anybody. The positive approach is to tap all these sources and informed views so that there will be a better deal for the Aboriginal people in the future than there has been in the past.

Mr CORBETT:
Maranoa

– I just want to add a few words to this debate with regard to the rebuilding of Kormilda College. As my colleagues on the Public Works Committee have pointed out, this reference aroused a very great deal of interest. The Committee investigated it with as much thoroughness as was possible having regard to the time which was available to it and the amount of work which the Committee has to do. 1 think it is worthy of mention that because some people were not able to give evidence at the initial hearing and because the Committee felt that further evidence might be desirable we considered the matter on a second visit to the Territory so that people would be able to give further evidence. The Committee did request evidence to be given on behalf of some of the churches in particular so that we would have as good a picture as possible of the type of building and the type of education which would be in the best interests of the Aborigines. I believe that the Committee faced up to this aspect. One of the great difficulties that faces Australia today is to provide the best type of education possible for our Aboriginal students. I walked around the College with a number of groups, as did my colleagues. I talked to members of those groups and discovered that they had received a reasonable standard of education. Their education was improving. It was obvious that as a result of the Government’s approach to this matter we are providing the younger Aboriginals with a better standard of education and this is gaining a more ready acceptance of Aboriginal parents. However, this is no easy matter.

The need to promote the best type and standard of education for our Aboriginal children should give us great concern. From what I saw of Kormilda College I believe we are fully justified in reconstructing it. Although this is somewhat outside the Committee’s reference, I believe there will be a need to see that those students who are educated at the College are provided with the best type of employment commensurate with their education. They should be encouraged to take employment. This aspect should be followed up. I believe that the education methods being adopted at the college are as good as the Government has been able to devise. The College will play an increasingly important part in educating Aborigines who, in turn, will be able to influence their families and other Aboriginals in the community to recognise the advantage of a better educational standard. 1 have travelled around the Northern Territory with the honourable member for the Northern Territory (Mr Calder) and have visited some of the settlements and Aboriginal missions. I have seen the great need for this type of education. As the honourable member for Hunter (Mr James) pointed out, there are differences of opinion as to how best education can be provided. I commend the honourable member for Northern Territory for the tremendous interest he has shown in this and in many other projects in the Northern Territory. He is always alive to the need for improvements in his electorate. I thank him for giving me the opportunity of seeing at first hand the Aboriginal problem in the Northern Territory in a way that I would not have been able to see it without his assistance and the benefit of his tremendous knowledge. 1 am confident that Kormilda College will play a tremendously important role in the education of Aboriginal people in the Northern Territory. I believe that it is necessary to expand the College as much as possible because it is through Aborigines that we will be able to reach those other Aborigines who are not yet convinced of the need for and the benefits of a higher standard of education.

Mr BRYANT:
Wills

– It was interesting to hear the adulation of the honourable member for Maranoa (Mr Corbett) for the honourable member for the Northern Territory. It is obvious that the honourable member for the Northern Territory has hidden talents which as yet have not been exposed to the public gaze in this Parliament. I do not advocate the preservation of the buildings at Kormilda College on the grounds of antiquity. At least we can be gratified that they have given long and faithful service since the Army had them erected in 1942. I do not suggest that we know the answers to the problems with which we are confronted. This is not an exercise in criticism of the Government. None of us knows the answers to the questions concerning the development of the culture of the Aboriginal people in such a way that they are able to fit into our societies. The Aboriginal people face a different challenge from the challenge facing the rest of the community, most of whom are able to live in a totally Western European type of society. The Aboriginal must live in a society which is basically Western European, in the numerical state of the nation, and also with his own race. This is a challenge to the intellect, psychology, emotions and spirit of a people and we really cannot understand it. It would be presumptuous for anybody to say he knew the answers. At least we can say that Kormilda is a step in the direction of trying to find the answers. As the honourable member for Hughes (Mr Les Johnson) has pointed out, we are a long way short of those answers.

I should make it clear, though, that the late arrival of the Government in showing interest in Aboriginal education was dictated more by the activities of the Labor Party in this Parliament than by any other factor. The Aboriginal Affairs Committee of the Labor Party has visited Kormilda on several occasions, the last as recently as July of this year. I suggest to the House and to the appropriate authorities the need to start looking beyond Australia’s horizons for answers to these questions. My colleague, the honourable member for Hunter (Mr James), referred to some of the answers that Japanese researchers and social scientists have discovered to some of these questions. The whole problem of education of the Aboriginal people is still a closed book so far as we are concerned. Delving is proceeding throughout Australia, but we do not know the answers. At Easter time when I was in the Northern Territory for a conference of the Federal Council for the Advancement of Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders I had an interesting discussion with 2 people involved with the Aboriginal people. One was a senior inspector of schools in the Northern Territory. He pointed to the need for the young Aboriginal people who are going to make the pace for their own people becoming completely absorbed in the English language. The other man, who operates in Alice Springs among the Aboriginal people, said how important it was that they should be educated in their own language too. We have not developed techniques for bi-lingual or bi-cultural people in our society and therefore the Committee’s investigations have opened up a new area for examination by us.

As has been pointed out this afternoon, we will have to turn all the wit, will and expertise in the community to the problem. I simply reinforce those statements that have been made about this question. Kormilda College, with all its adventurousness and with the new concept that we hope will develop inside it, will still be faced with tremendous problems with the Aboriginal children who come here. I refer to its utter loneliness and to the fact that children will be taken from their total communities 300 miles or 400 miles away and be placed into another community where basically the people who run it are not of their race. They will be isolated from the general community so we must develop many more techniques for parental involvement and community involvement. I do not think it matters much if we spend a few more million dollars doing this, as it is one of the greatest social and intellectual challenges Australia faces.

I should like to see more trained Aboriginal people involved on the staff of the College. I would agree that the time has come when we could place there people who do not fit our concepts of what the public service should be. Some of the best people to place as house parents would, of course, be people from the students’ own background. The challenge is the same as it is for ourselves. How do we make education for the Aborigines relevant? We have not found the answers yet for adolescent education in Australia and therefore we need not be totally disheartened because we have not found it for the Aboriginal people. I appeal to the House and to the Government to make some general appeal to the international bodies concerned with questions of education and the training of across cultures rather than cross cultures. We should be a little less chauvinistic about these matters and should turn all our wit and will to them. I hope that Kormilda is a success and that we will provide all the resources that it needs. But, as has been pointed out and as is manifest in the evidence which has been made available to me - over 500 pages of it - the staffing and management of Kormilda still has to be a good deal more adventurous.

Mr CROSS:
Brisbane

– I do not propose to take up much of the time of the House but I would like to say something about page 2 of the report where it refers to the aims of the College. I take it that on both sides of the House we are, without exception, supporting the expenditure of this money on Kormilda College. However, somebody should say, as did the honourable member for Wills (Mr Bryant) who preceded me that there are certain values in the Aboriginal society that we tend to take for granted. On page 2 of the report of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Public Works it states that the Government’s policy is for assimilation of Aborigines, a parallel education system and so on. lt goes on to spell out a number of criteria. I would like to join with my colleagues in making a plea for greater Aboriginal involvement in this College. 1 realise it is not just a question of providing buildings, because if the culture of Aboriginal people is to be recognised and respected by teachers and instructors - and this comprised one of the items on page 3 of the report - it is obvious that the choice of staff has to be made very carefully. lt seems to me that there is something arrogant about our society that has permeated all our activities over the last 200 years in the sense that most Australians now regard the Aboriginal society and culture as an inferior society and culture which will eventually be replaced by our own. 1 do not accept that proposition at all.

A college such as this must guard against trying to turn the people who go there into what might be called white blackfellows. Many of those young people will go back and spend their lives in the communities from which they came, and this is a good thing. But if in the future the Aboriginal parents are to agree to their children going to Kormilda and other similar colleges much will depend on the effect that their time at Kormilda has had on these young people. It will also depend on the opportunities for gainful and rewarding employment that are provided in their communities. It is not enough to expect Kormilda College to be a halfway house in the transition of young Aborigines from the Aboriginal society into our own society. We have to recognise that most of these young Aborigines are interested in learning something about our society, but probably most of them will choose to return to live in their own communities. This is not a bad thing; it is a good thing. The College should genuinely reflect these desires among the Aboriginal people and respect them. The point was well taken by the honourable member for Wills that there is much about Aboriginal people that we do not understand. In those circumstances it behoves us all to tread warily.

Mr FULTON:
Leichhardt

– I did not intend to speak in this debate but, as a member of the Public Works Committee, I should say that it was not the Committee’s duty to investigate educational facilities. Its duty was to examine the site and see that the building was suitable and that the work was necessary. The educational facilities are a matter for the Department of Education and Science. However, during the hearing of evidence a lot of information came before the Committee with regard to this College and it was stressed on many occasions by witnesses that they would like to see more Aboriginal involvement in the teaching of Aborigines. We would all agree with this. But it was not the duty of the Public Works Committee to examine the educational facilities at the college. Its main object was to see that the site was suitable, that the building would be adequate and that it was necessary to spend this money on building the College.

Throughout our investigations a lot of questions were asked about educational standards and how they would be achieved. I do not think that this was wrong. But at the same time in my opinion it was not the duty of the Public Works Committee to investigate the educational standards or the methods of teaching. The College will do a good deal for the advancement of Aborigines in the area providing we do not frighten these people off. We cannot expect to bring these Aboriginal children into our’ society and up to our standards of education without looking at their side too. We frighten many of these children off with our education because they do not understand what we are trying to do for them. In fact we might be doing wrong in trying to build their standards up too fast. Along with my colleagues, I believe that there should be more involvement of Aboriginal teachers and others who understand the Aborigines and understand what we are trying to do for them. They must understand that by what we are trying to do for them they can improve themselves, but we must not force upon them something that they do not want. Too often we try to do this.

The College could be successful providing we take a proper attitude towards the environment there for these children. I say this guardedly because I have lived in an area which has a lot of Aborigines and I have been to school with these people. They do not understand what we are trying to do for them. They think we are trying to bully them to come up to our standards. This is not right. They have to be taught that we are trying to help them, but we have to understand them in the same way as they have to understand us. The College could be the beginning of an understanding between both races. If it is successful then we have done a good job. However, the Public Works Committee was presented only with the task of finding out whether the site was suitable, whether the building was suitable and whether the expenditure was warranted, and this is what the Committee has done. The Committee has done everything it can to encourage educational facilities, but I feel sometimes that we are trying to force the Aboriginal people into doing something they do not want to do. if we can involve some of our educated Aborigines in the education of their people we could do a lot more for them than we are doing at present.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 1446

NEWSPAPER ARTICLE

Mr DALY:
Grayndler

– I seek leave of the House to make a brief statement relating to an article that appeared in the Courier-Mail’ on Wednesday, 13th September 1972, about the salaries of members of this Parliament.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Cope:
SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES

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

Mr DALY:

– In the ‘Courier-Mail’ of 13th September 1972 under the headline: 3 Members seek more House power’ and the sub-heading: ‘MPs gripe at pay, facilities’, the following appears:

CANBERRA.- Federal politicians of both parties grumbled yesterday about poor pay, inadequate offices, lack of staff and the grass roots of the Parliamentary system.

The article continued:

Mr Daly said salaries were too low and the general public could not be blamed for thinking parliamentarians were not ‘up to much’ if they earned only ‘a couple of bob more’ than the average. (The salary of a Parliamentary backbencher is $15,200, including an electorate allowance of $3,200).

As is normal, the article is unsigned. Consequently I rise now to correct what was said in this article. I do so in the interests of all parliamentarians and particularly in the interests of the public. So let me put the record straight. City members of Parliament get a base salary of $9,500 and an electorate allowance of $2,750 making a total of $12,250, compared with the $15,200 referred to in this newspaper article.

Mr Barnes:

– Will they make up the difference?

Mr DALY:

– 1 want to get to that. A country member of the Federal Parliament receives a salary of $9,500 plus an electorate allowance of $3,350 - a total of $12,850- as compared to the $15,200 stated by the ‘Courier Mail’. So, honourable members can see that either somebody is holding out on us and we are being underpaid or this article is completely false. Without being suspicious in any way and without reflecting on anyone, 1 would say that we are not being held out on but that this article is completely false and, as such, it should be corrected.

No-one minds proper comment on members’ salaries and conditions but the strange thing about the Press of this country - this writer probably is no different - is that the only salaries it criticises are those of the members of this Parliament. Although I am not quibbling about their salaries, I understand that metropolitan members of the Queensland Parliament receive $9,690 and I think that they have just been granted an 11 per cent increase which has been back dated. What does the ‘Courier Mail’ have to say about that? Every State parliamentarian in Australia, practically without comment from the Courier Mail’ or any other newspaper, has had an increase in salary in the last 12 months. There have been increases in New South Wales, South Australia, Victoria, Tasmania, Western Australia and Queensland. I would say that the lowest paid members of Parliament in Australia are the Federal members of Parliament, when people ask for wage restraint, they should point to Federal members of Parliament. It is almost 5 years since the salaries of Federal members of Parliament were increased. So, why do the ‘Courier Mail’ and the author of this article not give a bit of credit to the Federal parliamentarians who are even bearing the increased costs of newspapers to read this rot that this person writes. This kind of misrepresentation has gone unchallenged for too long and I think that we in this Parliament are entitled to demand that it be corrected.

The honourable member for Griffith (Mr Donald Cameron) has just given me a cartoon which appeared in today’s ‘Courier

Mail I am sorry it cannot be incorporated in Hansard. Mr Deputy Speaker. Contained in the cartoon are the words ‘vote 1 for your sitting member’. People are standing around the member of parliament and the caption reads: The kindest thing we could do is to vote him out of his misery’. That cartoon is based on this inaccurate - I would say deliberately inaccurate - article by an unknown reporter. I would go so far as to say that the reporter and the editor of the newspaper should be called before the Privileges Committee of this Parliament to explain why he has denigrated members of Parliament when he could have checked this information as easily - probably more easily than - any other information in the Parliament. 1 do not make that statement idly. This reporter should at least be called upon to apologise to the Parliament and to correct his statement and we should demand that the correction be printed in the same way as the original article. Ail members from both sides of the Parliament could well be affected by this article in the forthcoming election.

Let us not forget that when newspapers attack the salaries of members of Parliament, they do not attack Liberal or Labor members. They attack every member of the institution. For some strange reason, they believe the only people in any section of society anywhere in Australia who are not entitled to a fair - not an extravagant - remuneration are members of the Federal Parliament. It is time that these people were called to book. In order to bring up to date this insignificant individual who wrote the article and the editor of this newspaper, I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard this public document which sets out the salaries and allowances of Federal members of Parliament.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Corbett:
MARANOA, QUEENSLAND

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

In addition Senators and Members receive: Free air travel on Parliamentary business plus one trip to a Territory each year, also one trip to New Zealand each Parliament ; and the services of a Secretary-Typist. Living-away-from-home allowance and travelling allowance to or from Canberra for Parliamentary sittings, party meetings and Parliamentary and party committee meetings, $22 per day (not paid to Ministers and Presiding Officers). Ministers and Presiding Officers' Travelling Allowance- Prime Minister, 842 per day; Senior Ministers, 836 per day; Presiding Officers and Ministers, $33 per day when away from home and when travelling to or from Canberra on official business, but excluding whole days spent in Canberra. Leader and Deputy Leader of Opposition (Representatives) $36 per day and $28 per day respectively. Member's wife - free air travel from home to Canberra four times per year OR free travel home to Canberra twice per year and free travel interstate on one occasion per year. {: .speaker-6V4} ##### Mr DALY: -- I hope that they will copy it. I do not wish to take up any further time of the House. The Leader of the House **(Mr Chipp)** was good enough to grant me a few minutes. I rise only in the interests of every member of this Parliament and in the interests of those who believe in good reporting. To see the 'Courier Mail' printing an article of this nature and then following it up with a degrading cartoon is something that, quite seriously, this Parliament should challenge. I place on record my contempt for the article that has been written. I would hate to have that reporter keeping my accounts, when he is $4,000 or $5,000 out when trying to add together 2 amounts. If that is the way the newspapers are run, it is no wonder that they get little credit in the community. I thank the Leader of the House for giving me the opportunity to speak and I hope that some action will be taken by the House in relation to this matter. {: #debate-41-s3 .speaker-KIF} ##### Sir ALAN HULME:
PostmasterGeneral · Petrie · LP -- by leave - The honourable member for Grayndler **(Mr Daly)** drew attention to the article in yesterday's 'Courier Mail' and to the cartoon in today's newspaper. However, he did not draw attention to the article which appeared in today's 'Courier Mail'. If I might say so, it contained a most ungracious withdrawal. It was written on the basis that Federal members expected, whichever Party was in power after the election, to receive an increase in salary. The article pointed out that, in fact, in yesterday's edition a figure of $15,200 had been mentioned and that this was incorrect. I think that the 'Courier Mail' added insult to injury in the so-called way it withdrew today and corrected the article which appeared in yesterday's newspaper. I think that this is an unfortunate situation because the people who make up the Press of this country - the media of this country - are supposed to be informing the public of facts. I think that that is the last thing they do. They almost mislead the public by misinterpreting the real facts and I think it is unfortunate that this so often is directed at members of Parliament who spend a great deal of time trying to do an honest, decent job on behalf of their constituents. Bill presented by **Mr Howson,** and read a first time. {: .page-start } page 1449 {:#debate-42} ### STATES GRANTS (ABORIGINAL ADVANCEMENT) BILL 1972 {:#subdebate-42-0} #### Second Reading {: #subdebate-42-0-s0 .speaker-0095J} ##### Mr HOWSON:
Minister for the Environment, Aborigines and the Arts · Casey · LP -- I move: In presenting this legislation I wish at the same time to give honourable members a brief account of Commonwealth activity in the field of Aboriginal advancement during the past year, in continuation of the accounts that I and my predecessors have given in previous years. The Bill provides for grants to the States totalling $ 14.5m in 1972-73. Hence it concerns only slightly more than one-quarter of the total provision for direct Commonwealth expenditure on Aboriginal advancement for the year. To illustrate the substantial provisions made by the Commonwealth since the 1967 referendum, I have had prepared a table - No. 1 - which T will later seek to have incorporated in Hansard. This paper reveals that the Commonwealth proposes to provide a total of $53.285m in 1972-73 compared with $31.3m in 1971-72, and $8.97m in 1967-68 immediately after the referendum. Honourable members will also be interested to know that the Bureau of Census and Statistics on 15th August issued a public authority finance bulletin entitled 'Commonwealth Outlay on Aboriginal Advancement 1971-72', showing in national accounting form the growth in Commonwealth expenditure from 1967-68 to 1971-72. I expect that similar bulletins will be issued each year and will provide a valuable indication of the growth and variety of the Commonwealth's provision. Of the total proposed Commonwealth provision of $55.3m for 1972-73 it is intended that, in addition to the $22.545m available in the Aboriginal Advancement Trust Account under my control, of which the $14.5m for the States forms part, $24.5m be provided in the votes of the Department of the Interior for expenditure on Aboriginal advancement in the Northern Territory, $305,000 in the votes of the Department of Labour and National Service, S3.73m and $75,000 in the votes of the Department of Education and Science for secondary and study grants and for the continuation of special projects in the Northern Territory, and $150,000 in the votes of the Department of Health for similar special projects in the Northern Territory. In previous years these amounts for education and science and health were, included in the Aboriginal Advancement Trust Account, and it would therefore be appropriate to compare last year's provision in the Trust Account of $14.83m with the total provision this year of $26.5m for the same purposes; but it has been thought more appropriate that provision should be made from now on in the votes of the functional departments. In addition to the total proposed Commonwealth provision of $53.3m for 1972- 73 I anticipate that the States will be providing some $12m from their own resources. There will thus be an overall provision of something like $65m for 1972-73. Taking the $ 14.5m States grants proposed in the present Bill along with this provision by the States themselves of some SI 2m, the States will have available approximately $26.5m for direct expenditure on Aboriginal advancement in 1972- 73. In addition, however, some of the programmes of the Office of Aboriginal Affairs from the $8,045,000 available to it, after making the proposed States grants, will benefit Aborigines in the States. Of this amount, $5m will be for the purchase of properties for Aboriginal communities off reserves and $500,000 for grants in association with capital fund loans, as promised by the Prime Minister **(Mr McMahon)** in his statement of 26th January, and $2,545,000 for grants-in-aid for a variety of purposes. Both of these programmes will benefit Aborigines in the States. I have had prepared as Table No. 2, which I will make available shortly, a summary statement of grants-in-aid during 1971-72, and, for ease of reference, have included with it the summary of such grants-in-aid from 1968-69 to 1970-71 which formed part of my second reading speech last year, so that honourable members can obtain a picture of the impact of this programme. Against that background I come now to the Bill itself. The legislation provided for a 58 per cent increase in the grants to States, the proposed $14.5m for 1972-73 compared with $9.2m for 1971-72 and only $3.65m for 1968-69. Over the 5-year period 1968-69 to 1972-73 a total of $39.76m will have been granted by the Commonwealth to the States. At the recent meeting of the Australian Aboriginal Affairs Council in Darwin, State Ministers expressed their general agreement with the way in which the Commonwealth has been administering its Aboriginal advancement policies. At that meeting State Ministers pressed for increased grants for the present financial year. I believe that the 58 per cent increase in grants this year keeps faith with the expressed feelings of the Council. Table No. 3 which I will make available later demonstrates the increase over the past 5 years by States. As for previous years, the Government proposes to allocate the funds between the States taking account of their percentage of the total Aboriginal population as revealed by the J 966 census and also of their relative needs. On this basis New South Wales will receive $3. 72m, Victoria $670,000, Queensland $4. 79m, South Australia $1.27m, Western Australia S3.96m and Tasmania $90,000. I am hopeful that the results of the 1971 census will be available for use in next year's division. Until that time, we base our estimate of the Aboriginal population of Australia in the region of 140,000. Of the amount of $ 14.5m I propose that the greater proportion - over $8m - be devoted to housing, but that work commenced in other fields also continue at an expanded level. I envisage allocating the $ 14.5m as between the various purposes for which the grants are made to the States on the basis of S8.25m for housing, $1,748,000 for health, $2,377,000 for education, $500,000 for employment and vocational training, $875,000 for special work projects and $750,000 for regional projects. I have set out in Table No. 4, which I will make available later, the division of each State's grant as between these 6 purposes, with figures for 1971-72 shown for comparison. Experience over the past years has shown that as the financial year proceeds States are sometimes obliged to seek variations in the allocations between these purposes although within the overall grant to the State. Any such variation will be relatively minor and designed to enable States to adapt their programmes to meet unexpected contingencies which might arise during the year. In order to assist honourable members to see what these figures mean in reality, a precise statement of the use made by the States of their 1971-72 grants has been prepared as Table No. 5, which again I will make available later, shows. Taken along with similar statements provided in previous years this provides a running account of the Commonwealth's endeavour, together with the States, since the referendum. Funds provided for housing through the Aboriginal Advancement Trust Account over the past 4 years have resulted in the construction or purchase of about 1,500 additional houses, and the funds which I propose for 1972-73 will result in the acquisition of some 825 houses. A fully effective programme should both keep up with the growth rate in family formation, which is roughly estimated to be of the order of 1,200 new families a year, and overcome at the same time the very substantial backlog. I estimate that for the first time the allocation for 1972-73, taken along with what the States are doing with funds from their own resources, should provide enough houses to keep pace with the rate of family formation amongst those families wishing to occupy houses provided by governments. Much remains to be done and the Government is very conscious of the needs in this field. Over the past year we have been assisting with the establishment of Aboriginal housing societies in reserves and other remote communities. One State devoted some small element of its grants for housing for this purpose, and in addition the Office made direct grants from its provision for grants-in-aid. An expansion of these arrangements is proposed for 1972-73; and so far as the Office's direct grants are concerned, I intend to set aside an amount of approximately $400,000 in the Office's allocation under the Trust Account for this purpose. The average cost of houses erected through the housing societies is $8,500. The Aboriginal groups are involved in actual construction as well as in design and material decisions and a panel of the Royal Australian Institute of Architects has been established following a seminar earlier this year to help co-ordinate research and development programmes. An area of special concern among Aboriginal Australians is the need for dwellings for their aged, and some States have devoted and will continue to devote portions of their grants to the provisions of such dwellings. This problem was emphasised in my recent consultation with official State and Territory Advisory Councillors and will be receiving the attention of my advisers. Some States have used and will continue to use portion of their grants for the provision of hostels. The Office also makes direct grants to voluntary organisations for hostels, and this year I envisage setting aside S650.000 for the Office to continue in this work, compared with $596,000 in 1971-72. In the light of experience we are moving increasingly towards smaller family-type hostels as being more attractive to Aboriginal students and workers. Experience this year has shown that these smaller hostels are fulfilling a real need especially in the urban areas. Funds for health work provided through the Trust Account are making possible an improvement of rural health services in areas of Aboriginal population. Hospitals, dental clinics, nursing homes and rural health centres have been established and community health nurses have been placed in many rural and outback areas. Programmes of health education and preventive medicine being developed by professional people should progressively relieve the burden on the curative services provided in hospitals in the major centres. Supplementary food assistance has also been made available for children and expectant mothers on settlement communities throughout the State of Queensland, and New South Wales continues to subsidise, from our grant, voluntary organisations working in the Aboriginal health field. In addition, of course, the Commonwealth Departments of Health and Interior have over the past year expended substantial amounts on health through their own programmes. Clearly much remains to be done in the health field and the health status of Aborigines remains a cause for concern, particularly in respect of infant mortality and malnutrition. It is not merely a matter of providing more finance but also of continuing research into the root causes of some medical problems, and of involving Aboriginal communities, particularly mothers, in improved nutritional and health practices at the grass roots level. Nevertheless I think we can draw some encouragement from the increasing level of expenditure, and our greatly increased knowledge of problems by comparison with 5 years ago. The transfer of all health responsibility in the Northern Territory to the Department of Health will I am sure result in a new approach to these important tasks. Funds have been provided to the States - and in some cases by direct grants also - to meet a variety of educational needs ranging from the construction of, and the provision of equipment for, preschools, primary and secondary schools, to the establishment of residential hostels in the cities and major towns so that students from rural areas may be able to continue their education beyond the primary level. In discussions with the States it was decided that one of the main targets to be aimed at in the educational sphere during this year would be the further development of pre-schools and pre-schooling facilities so that Aboriginal children would be suitably prepared for entrance into the school system. Provision is being made to achieve this aim. In addition to its assistance to the States, the Commonwealth, through the Department of Education and Science administers the secondary and study grants schemes, inaugurated respectively in the 1969 and 1970 academic years. We can feel some satisfaction at the combined effect of these schemes and the increased State efforts. Whereas in 1969 there might have been no more than 2,000 Aborigines in secondary schools throughout Australia, by 1972 there are of the order of 8,000, of whom 4,266 were in training as at June under the secondary grants scheme. Of course, this falls far short of the ideal: On a population percentage basis there should be some 13,000 Aborigines in secondary schooling. But we can be seen to be making progress, and Aboriginal children will soon be emerging from secondary schooling with educational prerequisites for higher levels of employment. Under the study grants scheme there were 552 grantees in training as at June this year at tertiary and postsecondary levels. Of these 29 were studying at universities and 9 undertaking other tertiary education - a small number, it is true, but a distinct improvement in the sit uation at the time of introduction of the scheme when there were only 4 Aboriginal graduates and a further 11 studying at universities. Funds have been granted to the States primarily for training and the development of employment opportunities. A vocational training complex has recently been established at Port Hedland at a cost in excess of Sim to serve the northern areas of Western Australia where it is hoped to develop the potential of the Aboriginal workforce. All such programmes are envisaged as supplementing the Commonwealth's major Aboriginal employment effort through the Department of Labour and National Service, which we believe to be making valuable progress. I should like to pay a tribute to the success of the Department of Labour and National Service in finding employment opportunities in a wide rage of jobs particularly in the urban areas. Employment assistance is also provided under the heading of special work projects. Funds have been granted to local and other authorities to provide employment for Aborigines on socially valuable projects chosen in accordance with criteria specified by my Office and the Department of Labour and National Service. These projects have enabled shire councils in many rural areas to carry out projects of value to their communities while at the same time providing employment and training for Aborigines. I believe this expenditure has fully justified itself and envisage a substantial expansion for 1972-73, particularly in conservation-type projects. In addition to such special work projects financed by the States from their grants the Office makes direct grants for similar projects, and honourable members may have heard my statement of a few days ago about my approval of a grant of $10,000 to Ernabella Mission for the first conservation project. Several other projects financed by direct grants by the Office aim at improving employment opportunities. Thus, the research phase in our crocodile and turtle farming projects has made progress, and **Dr Bustard** has numbers of Torres Strait Islanders and coastal Aborigines engaged in pilot farming projects. Of course, as honourable members will already be aware, the whole direction of the capital fund for Aboriginal Enterprises operated *by the* Office is to assist suitable Aborigines to become self-employed. The final category of expenditure by the States based on Commonwealth grants is regional projects. Research demonstrates the need for a complex set of inter-related programmes if real progress is to be achieved. These programmes will be a local expression of the balanced strategy outlined by the Government in the Prime Minister's statement on 26th January. It will be apparent that, as I said in my second reading speech last year, because of the nature of the programmes to which the finances are devoted, a substantial proportion of the funds are being applied to the advancement of the younger generation of Aboriginal Australians. The housing programmes aim primarily to assist families, whose children will benefit thereby; a great deal of health activity is devoted to improving the health situation of Aboriginal infants and children; the bulk of expenditure in education is, of course, for younger Aborigines; while the employment training scheme and other activities of the Department of Labour and National Service seek in particular to assist schoolleavers. I think it important to bear in mind that the problems facing the Aborigines in major towns and cities and those of the Aborigines living in communities on reserves, on pastoral properties and on the fringes of remote townships differ very greatly. The movement of Aborigines into the major cities has been quite striking over the past decade or two. While at the time of the 1966 Census over 91 per cent of Aboriginal Australians still lived in rural areas, the Aboriginal population of the capital cities had doubled between the censuses of 1961 and 1966. All the evidence suggests that this rate of drift will have continued or increased since then. It is now estimated that at least 30 per cent of Aboriginal Australians are living in urban centres. Consequently, we have placed an increasing emphasis on programmes to assist Aborigines in urban areas. It is, it seems to me, our task in the urban situations primarily to remove those handicaps which prevent the Aboriginal citizens from playing a full part in the urban community. This will involve assisting them with accommodation, providing the means for them to overcome the health handicaps from which many of them suffer, giving assistance with education and employment, and providing legal assistance. If one looks at our major city, Sydney, one can see examples in all these fields: Either with the State or unilaterally we have provided hostels and houses, supported the Aboriginal health service in south Sydney, provided funds for schooling, pre-schooling and adult education facilities, assisted Aborigines to find and hold employment, and supported the Aboriginal Legal Service. During a visit which I paid some months ago, I was personally most impressed at the work being done by the Aboriginal Medical Service in south Sydney, and believe that the Aborigines and non-Aborigines involved are providing a referral or treatment service to numbers of Aborigines in the Sydney metropolitan area who would not at this stage have the necessary confidence to seek treatment in the first instance from the normal community services. Similar pictures could be painted of more or less comparable developments in other major cities. It is our intention to increase the finance available for such services during 1972-73 both through the grants to the States and through direct grants from the Office. We expect that, as our programmes become more and more effective, the urbanised Aborigines will need our assistance less and less. A test of the effectiveness of our urban programmes will be the extent to which the Department of Labour and National Service and the State authorities are at the end of the process able to assist the Aboriginal citizens into stable employment. There seems little doubt that ample employment is available in the cities: What we seek to do is to remove those handicaps inhibiting Aborigines from taking full advantage of this situation. As regards the remote Aborigines, most of those involved are now living in static communities. But if almost all Aborigines have abandoned their semi-nomadic hunting and gathering life, this does not mean that the old tribal structures and beliefs have also disappeared. These persist more or less strongly depending upon the background and history of the community involved. At the same time as their cultural life persists, the economic life of the communities is changing. Their members are finding themselves having to cope with a cash economy, to become accustomed to a radically changed diet and to learn aspects of hygiene not previously relevant in their nomadic existence. I think we should all try to realise that these Aborigines living in remote situations are experiencing a difficult period of rapid change. We must try to give them what support they need, while at the same time respecting their traditions and culture and helping them to preserve and develop these to the extent that they desire. I believe that we must approach the matter as flexibly as possible, knowing that we are seeking to deal with a period of great change for the individuals involved. In relation to housing, for instance, we should not foist standard urban houses onto remote Aboriginal communities until their desires and future are better known. We should help them develop appropriate kinds of dwellings, such as the house developed by the Aborigines at Finke. We should seek to encourage and develop new and different types of employment, such as conservation work, crocodile and turtle farming and community enterprises, preferably those related in some way to the land. We are now able to acquire land off reserves for Aboriginal communities throughout Australia, and are in the process of granting Aboriginal communities on reserves in the Northern Territory gen eral purpose leases covering substantial areas and a wide variety of purposes so that a community itself may decide upon the precise allocation of the land as between those purposes. In addition we have embarked on a far-reaching programme to delineate areas which are of sacred or special significance to Aborigines. It has been variously estimated that there are over 15,000 sites in this category. The Government expects to spend $100,000 this year on the programme. Once these areas are delineated the Government will ensure that they are preserved for all time as inalienable. I hope that we can through the provision of relevant education ensure that members of the remote communities become less and less dependent, while at the same time relating that education more directly to the sorts of employment we will be encouraging the Aborigines there to undertake. Unless we can find additional, different and meaningful employment opportunities for Aborigines living in remote communities, we may expect the drift to the cities about which I spoke earlier to accelerate. I now lay on the table the 5 tables to which I referred earlier, and suggest that, with the concurrence of honourable members, these be incorporated in Hansard at the end of my speech. {: .speaker-JF7} ##### Mr Beazley: -- We agree to the incorporation. {: .speaker-0095J} ##### Mr HOWSON: -- I commend the States Grants (Aboriginal Advancement) Bill 1972 to honourable members. (The documents read as follows) - {: .page-start } page 1454 {:#debate-43} ### TABLE I {: .page-start } page 1463 {:#debate-44} ### TABLE 3 {: .page-start } page 1463 {:#debate-45} ### TABLE 4 {: .page-start } page 1463 {:#debate-46} ### TABLE 5 {: .page-start } page 1463 {:#debate-47} ### COMMONWEALTH GRANT TO THE STATES FOR ABORIGINAL ADVANCEMENT 1971-72 Debate (on motion by **Mr Beazley)** adjourned. {: .page-start } page 1469 {:#debate-48} ### APPROPRIATION BILL (No. 1) 1972-73 In Committee Consideration resumed from 12 September (vide page 1217). Second Schedule. Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet Proposed expenditure, $31,039,000. Department of the Treasury Proposed expenditure, $110,396,000. Advance to the Treasurer Proposed expenditure, $30,000,000. {: #debate-48-s0 .speaker-KIH} ##### The CHAIRMAN (Mr Lucock:
LYNE, NEW SOUTH WALES -- Is there any objection? There being no objection, I will allow that course to be followed. Sitting suspended from 6 to 8 p.m. Department of Civil Aviation Proposed expenditure, $101,588,000. {: #debate-48-s1 .speaker-009DB} ##### Mr MORRISON:
St George -- Tonight we are discussing the proposed expenditure of the Department of Civil Aviation, the operations of which impinge on a major environmental threat - aircraft noise. Aircraft noise has been defined by the United Kingdom Noise Abatement Society which was responsible for the relocation of the United Kingdom's major airport. The Society stated: >Noise destroys all that is good in civilisation. It adversely affects health of mind and body, retards recovery of the sick and reduces the capacity to learn and the quality of the work done. It is in this context that on behalf of the Opposition I move the following amendment: >That the proposed expenditure be reduced by $10. as an instruction to the Government to: > >introduce noise limits on aircraft operations at all Australian airports based on standards laid down by the International Civil Aviation Organisation, > >strictly enforce the curfew for jet aircraft at those airports at which the curfew applies and; > >conduct an inquiry into the measures which the Commonwealth and State Governments should take to avoid noise problems associated with Perth airport. The purpose of this amendment is to draw attention to the growing social menace of noise and to indicate ways of reducing it for the benefit of people living in the vicinity of major Australian airports. Honourable members will recall that the House of Representatives Select Committee on Aircraft Noise recommended that the monitoring of aircraft noise should be introduced into Australia with Sydney Airport as the first priority. May I commend the Government on the action that it has taken on the recommendation of that Committee. That recommendation was sponsored by the Labor Party members of the Committee. Noise monitoring equipment is currently being installed at Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport. This is not enough. The next step is to apply noise limits on the operations of aircraft, such limits to be policed by noise monitoring equipment. Fifteen years ago the United Kingdom authorities introduced into Heathrow Airport a noise monitoring system. The system records violations of the noise limits. In the event of violations the airline operators responsible are called to task. They are notified of any infringements. The ultimate sanction that is used on such occasions is that persistent flouting of the limits results in cancellation of operating rights of the airline responsible. The Labor Party is thinking in those terms and has couched its amendment accordingly. We trust that honourable members opposite will accept our amendment because it represents a very important step towards reducing aircraft noise. Honourable members will know that in Sydney a curfew is applied at the Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport to scheduled flights of jet aircraft between the hours of 1 1 p.m. and 6 a.m. Under the present regulations no restrictions are applied to flights of prop aircraft such as the DC3 and most private aircraft, or to turbo-prop aircraft such as the Fokker Friendship and Lockheed Electra. However, an examination of the recorded flights of jet aircraft within curfew hours shows that the record of this Government is appalling. It has deliberately flouted the recommendations of the Select Committee which in its report recommended: >The criteria authorising jet movements in curfew hours be applied more stringently to ensure the preservation of the original intention of the regulations. But what do we find? In 1971, in response to a question asked in another place by my friend and colleague **Senator Douglas** McClelland this information was obtained: There were 552 jet flights between 1 1 p.m. and 6 a.m. Of that number 108 were approved by the Minister for Civil Aviation, 201 by the regional director, 240 by other Department of Civil Aviation officials, and 3 were not approved at all. This means that although the curfew is supposed to be imposed when the airline operators want to fly, they fly. The Government has shown a callous disregard for the welfare of people living in the vicinity of Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport, which is located in my electorate of St George, and people living in the electorates of my colleagues the honourable member for Barton **(Mr Reynolds),** the honourable member for Kingsford-Smith **(Mr Lionel Bowen),** and the honourable member for Grayndler **(Mr Daly).** The Department seems to agree to every request made by the airline operators. Not only does the Department respond to every request; the Government is adding to the trouble as is shown by these figures: In 1971 22 flights were made by VIP aircraft within curfew hours. On 4 of those flights the VIP aircraft flew out of Sydney completely empty; on 3 occasions the VIP aircraft had only one passenger. What a monstrous abuse of the Government's powers with complete disregard for the people residing in the areas adjacent to Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport. VIP aircraft are not the only culprits. The international jet set is also involved. **Mr Henry** Ford and 7 of his jet set cronies arrived in Australia on 6th February 1971. They flew into Sydney at midnight. Quite clearly this Government is more interested in toadying to the international jet set than it is in looking after the interests of people living in the vicinity of the Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport. Last Christmas we had an exchange with the Minister for Civil Aviation **(Senator Cotton)** on the subject of aircraft noise. It involved particularly the increase in traffic over the Christmas period. In response to my protest I got this answer: >As you are aware it is necessary for me in the overall public interest to approve at certain times of the year including Christmas and New Year a number of additional special flights to cater for the very large numbers of air passengers wishing to travel throughout Australia. An examination of the details of flights on the night of 24th/ 25th December shows that 11 flights by domestic airlines arrived at Sydney during the curfew hours. They carried fewer than 300 passengers. One Ansett aircraft arrived at 1.08 a.m. with no passengers at all. One TAA aircraft arrived at 2.15 a.m. with one passenger. Of the 11 aircraft, only 3 were more than one-third full. These figures certainly do not support the assertion by the Minister for Civil Aviation that large numbers of travellers have to be catered for in that period. The figures show that for the benefit of a total number of 295 passengers a quarter of a million people living in the vicinity of the Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport were subjected to the noise accompanying the arrival of those 11 aircraft between I I p.m. and 2.15 a.m. This callous disregard for the interests and welfare of people living in the St George electorate and surrounding areas has to stop. That is the purpose of the amendment that the Labor Party has moved tonight, lt is a part of the Labor Party's policy and we will carry it out when we are in office. Earlier in my speech I referred to prop and turbo-prop aircraft and pointed out that under the present arrangements no restrictions are imposed on them. A critical point has now been reached. **Sir Reginald** Ansett, who occupies a very privileged position with this Government, has now employed 3 Electra turbo-prop aircraft on night freighter flights. The House of Representatives Select Committee on Aircraft Noise received evidence that on occasions an Electra can make as much noise as a DC9. The proposition that we put forward is that prop and turbo-prop aircraft must not fly over residential areas during curfew hours and must confine their entire operations to movements over the Botany Bay runway. Another point that I want to raise is the lack of interest and lack of progress that has been shown in the fitting of smoke recombustion chambers to aircraft. The areas around the airport are deluged with pollution caused by unburnt particles of kerosene from aircraft. In response to a number of questions that I have put to the Minister for Civil Aviation, it now appears - this is 28 months after the programme was started in June 1970 - that only 55 per cent of the aircraft have been modified. According to the information we have the programme is now to extend through to the middle of 1973. On behalf of the folk in my electorate and on behalf of the folk in the neighbouring electorates, I urge that greater priority be given by the Government to insisting that both TAA and Ansett modify the smoke recombustion chambers of the JT8D engines much more quickly than has been happening in the past. The other points raised in our amendment will be taken up by other Labor Party speakers. I commend the amendment to the Committee. {: #debate-48-s2 .speaker-KCQ} ##### Mr GRAHAM:
North Sydney -- I oppose the amendment that has been moved by the honourable member for St George **(Mr Morrison).** I do so not only because I am a supporter of the Government but also because I am familiar with the reasons why he has moved the amendment. We all are delighted to see the changes that were made earlier this week in air traffic control procedures at the Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport. These changes in traffic control procedures should reduce aircraft noise for residents living in the Cronulla, Caringbah, and Kurnell areas. The changes in preferred noise abatement take-off procedures for aircraft departing south across Botany Bay will come into force with the commissioning of a new airways operations centre at Sydney airport on 16th September. This building will cost $4m to $5m and it is part of a radar complex which will involve altogether an expenditure of $20m. Under the new preferred take-off procedure, aircraft will climb a direct line across Botany Bay to a height of only 500 feet. Using a precise tracking aid the aircraft will turn towards the Kurnell sand hills, cross the coast and continue towards the sea for 8 nautical miles from the airport before turning right to link up with the southerly air routes. The people who live in that area will recognise that this has been a substantial success for the honourable member for Cook **(Mr Dobie)** who, over a long period of time, has taken a very close personal interest in this matter. I do not suggest for one moment that the honourable member for Cook is the only member of this Parliament who has devoted time and effort to this problem. I do suggest, however, that he has a lot to be proud of in the achievements that have been made. Nevertheless, although the honourable member for St George talks about this noise problem as though it was a major political issue, the fact remains that he has yet to tell this Committee about the continual approval by the local government bodies in and around his electorate and neighbouring electorates of valuable projects to be carried out directly under flight paths. If there was one manifestation of a political reaction which would support the warmth and the dramatic intensity of the honourable member for St George it would be that one would see local government bodies refusing to approve the projects that, as the honourable member well knows, have been approved over recent years. {: .speaker-009DB} ##### Mr Morrison: -- The difficulty is that they are Liberal Party councils. {: .speaker-KCQ} ##### Mr GRAHAM: -- The comment from the honourable member for St George is a most interesting one. When I was the member for St George they were anything but Liberal Party councils. This commercial problem has to be faced by local government authorities. In my judgment, they are prone to make their decisions in the interests of their own areas rather than on political grounds. I feel that the overall problem of noise abatement, which has been looked at very seriously by the International Civil Aviation Organisation, is a problem that is being solved gradually, consistent with the economic requirements of the development of a viable civil aviation industry. The Australian representatives on ICAO have been largely instrumental in developing an international outlook on this noise abatement problem. It is fair to say that costs of remedying these matters have to be related to the viability of the industry itself. I doubt very much whether any government in Australia would be likely to take those actions that would render the whole of the civil aviation industry uneconomic. If that were to occur we would simply find ourselves in the position of not being able to sustain a developing civil aviation industry. There are many competing factors to be considered. While I appreciate that noise abatement is a very real problem, the fact remains that even today around the great airports like Tullamarine people still are purchasing houses and property, and they will go on doing so when the Government decides to put its new Sydney airport at Somersby, which, I am confident, is where it will be built. Political problems have resulted from previous recommendations as to the site, but I have no doubt that Somersby will be the position chosen ultimately because the whole of the area from Wollongong to Newcastle by the turn of the century - by 2000 A.D. - will be a highly developed area in which will reside and work *6* million to 7 million people. It is necessary that the civil aviation industry be centred upon the greatest population centres in our country. These are Sydney and Melbourne, and inevitably these will be the areas in which the tremendous expenditures of the future will be made. For that reason, I feel that this proposed expenditure by the Department of Civil Aviation ought not to be reduced by $10. I feel that this Committee ought to oppose strongly the amendment moved by the honourable member for St George and that the Committee ought to reflect upon the exceptionally fine contribution that has been rendered in this field by the honourable member for Cook. {: #debate-48-s3 .speaker-KDV} ##### Mr CHARLES JONES:
Newcastle -- I support the amendment moved by the Opposition. I commend the honourable member for St George **(Mr Morrison)** for having brought it before this Parliament because, realising the fact that airports are a fait accompli, we have to do the best that we can with them until such time as alternative sites can be found, particularly for Sydney. The recommendation contained in the amendment moved by the honourable member for St George is strictly in accord with the recommendations of the House of Representatives Select Committee on Aircraft Noise which tabled its report in this place some 18 months ago. Unfortunately, the Government has not seen fit to act upon and to implement all the recommendations that were made. For the Honourable member for North Sydney **(Mr Graham)** to call on this House to oppose the amendment gives us a clear indication of his attitude, which is: 'I'm all right Jack but to hell with you'. He has no aircraft noise problems in his electorate at North Sydney. As far as he is concerned, the people in the electorates of St George, Barton, Kingsford-Smith and Grayndler can make the best of what they have, lt is time that this attitude was changed. There is hardly a capital city airport in Australia that has not got an aircraft noise problem. Perth has a serious problem, as have Adelaide and Brisbane. It is only because of the new location of Tullamarine Airport that Melbourne has overcome the problem. Practically the same thing could be said about Hobart Airport. I do not want to deal with this matter in detail at this stage. I draw the attention of the Assistant Minister assisting the Minister for Civil Aviation **(Mr McLeay)** to the fact that this is supposed to be a discussion of the estimates for civil aviation which takes in the Department of Civil Aviation, TransAustralia Airlines and Qantas Airways Ltd. Where are the annual reports of those 3 organisations? Surely this House is entitled ito the courtesy of having the Department of Civil Aviation annual report in its possession a reasonable time before this debate comes on. In previous years we have had it put in our boxes on the day on which the estimates were dealt with. It is commo i practice for this Government to withhold as much information as possible from honourable members so that they do not have the facts in front of them to discuss during a debate on the estimates. It is time that the Government did something positive to ensure that these reports are in the hands of honourable members before the debate starts. The same thing can be said in regard to debates on estimates for other departments. The annual report of the 'Department of Health is in the hands of honourable members so that when they deal with the estimates for that .Department they at least know what the Department has to say about its activities during the previous 12 months. The Minister for Civil Aviation **(Senator Cotton)** apparently is afraid to make this information available to honourable members. The point I want to deal with concerns the fare structure of the domestic airline operators in Australia. Today there is a monopoly under the 2-airline policy. whereby TAA and Ansett Transport Industries Ltd are completely protected by this Government to ensure that profits are made. If we look at the profits that these 2 airlines have made over the years we see that it is time that some real competition was introduced into the trade to ensure that the airlines are prepared to make traffic schedules available to people at a fair and reasonable price. When one compares the cost of travel in Australia with the cost of international travel the figure becomes all the more pronounced. For example, a return ticket from Sydney to Perth first class costs $310.20, and to fly second class costs $259.60. Because of the extreme competition in international travel a person can fly from Sydney to London for $420, or on a return flight for $700. Compare those figures under competition with the protected situation that exists today in domestic air travel. Domestic operators are making no attempt whatsoever to provide cheap fares to people. Admittedly they have introduced a number of holiday package tours to places in the Pacific but they have done nothing about the general fare structure. When we compare the load factor in Australia with that which exists overseas it is obvious that there is a need for something to be done about fares. For example, the revenue load factor for domestic flights operated by all members of the International Civil Aviation Organisation averaged 54.8 per cent in 1968, 52.3 per cent in 1969, and in 1970 it was 51.6 per cent. Yet for Ansett Airlines in 1964 - this was Ansett's best year - the load factor was 64.5 per cent; in 1971 it was 62.3 per cent; and in 1970 it was 62.4 per cent TAA has an even better load factor than that. TAA's best percentage for the last 10 years was in 1970 when it was 67.3 per cent. In 1971 it was 65.2 per cent. That was the worst year TAA had over the last 10 years. Load factor governs the fare structure of an airline. When you compare those averages in Australia with the rest of the world's domestic airline operators associated with ICAO - I think there are 127 members - it is pretty clear that there is a case for our domestic airlines to answer. When you compare what has been done by TAA and Ansett with what East- West Airlines is doing to provide a reasonable fare structure it can be seen that the main operators have been arrogant and it is time that this Government or this Parliament told them to get on with the job of reducing fares to attract people and so reduce fares. Let me compare the fare structure of the 2 main operators with that of East- West Airlines. East-West Airlines has for some considerable time been giving a 33 per cent discount to people under 26 years of age. There is only one proviso attached to that discount; if the seating capacity of the aircraft is filled the person claiming the discount loses his entitlement to a seat and must wait until the next flight. This is standard practice throughout the world but it does not apply in our 2 domestic airlines. It is time that they did something about this to attract young people into airline travel. Young people want to travel but the facilities are not available at a reasonable price for them to do so. The East-West Airlines facilities are limited only to a very minute section of Australia whereas the main domestic operators operate throughout the Commonwealth. The domestic operators have an attractive proposition which they give to overseas visitors to Australia, that is, the 'Explore Australia' air fare. It is exclusively for overseas visitors. They may travel anywhere on the East-West network for 21 days for a payment of $63. Some years ago when I was in the United States of America I bought a bus ticket for $99 and I able to travel for 99 days. This sort of thing encourages a person to travel as a tourist and it encourages a person who is in a country to have a look at the place. This is what we should be doing in Australia to attract tourists to this country. East-West Airlines provides another concession which is a 20 per cent reduction on fares for people travelling in the period between Christmas and New Year's Day. No attempt has been made by TAA or ATI to introduce off peak fares. I know that TAA is interested in the 'under 26' concession but unfortunately the private enterprise airline, whose attitude is There is the price, there is the fare, take it or leave it', is not prepared to introduce cheap fares to attract people to travel in the middle of the day instead of at peak periods at the beginning or end of the day. This is the way to encourage people to travel on our aircraft which are flying with about a 25 per cent load factor at non-peak periods. They are overloading the peak periods. If our domestic operators were prepared to offer attractions such as I have mentioned I am certain that it would be in the interests of airline traffic as a whole and that it would encourage people to use airlines when they go on their holidays. This is becoming more evident today. {: #debate-48-s4 .speaker-10000} ##### The CHAIRMAN: -- Order! The honourable member's time has expired. {: #debate-48-s5 .speaker-KSB} ##### Mr McLEAY:
Assistant Minister assisting the Minister for Civil Aviation · Boothby · LP -- First of all I would like to deal with the remarks made by the honourable member for St George **(Mr Morrison),** particularly the one, which I believe was very unfair and which was repeated two or three times, in which he described the Government as having a callous disregard for residents of the electorate of St George. The honourable member went on to refer to 3 or 4 other Labor held electorates. I wonder whether he or honourable members on the other side of this chamber believe that there is any difference between the people who live in the different electorates. Noise is just as uncomfortable for those who live in electorates held by Government supporters. It is completely unfair and untrue to say that the Government is callous or that the Government disregards in any way at all the residents of electorates. This Government has a superb regard for and has shown an awareness towards the problems of noise and the environment. The Government has taken action to reduce the discomfort associated with noisy airports. For the benefit of the honourable member for St George and others who have an interest in this matter I would like just to give some information about the initiative that the Government has taken in regard to aircraft noise. Internationally we were the first Government to take any initiative at all and we introduced this matter at the International Civil Aviation Organisation conference in Buenos Aires in 1968. We followed it up with a strong delegation to a noise abatement meeting in Montreal in 1969. We continue to attend all conferences on noise and other matters connected with civil aviation; so it is not true to say that we have not taken any initiative, even internationally. Within Australia we have taken many steps, some of which I will mention. We use preferential runways. We have established holding areas away from the main centres. We have adopted a steeper approach and take-off path which, I think, was mentioned by the honourable member for St George. {: .speaker-KDV} ##### Mr Charles Jones: -- At the insistence of the honourable member for St George. {: .speaker-KSB} ##### Mr McLEAY: -- As a result of submissions from members all round the House, not from just one side or the other. The cost to the industry is in excess of $2m a year on this one initiative. We have imposed curfew restrictions, about which I shall say more later. We have established airport noise abatement committees. We have recommended to local authorities and State governments the zoning of land around airports. We have provided noise exposure forecasts until 1980, as was recommended by a joint committee which inquired into this matter. These forecasts are available to all local government authorities which have an interest in airports. The Government has established a special branch within the Department of Civil Aviation to deal with aircraft noise abatement committees. We have introduced - I think one honourable member mentioned this - noise monitoring. Honourable members will remember the case of the Concorde flight over Australia and the monitoring equipment which has recently been installed at Sydney Airport. Each aircraft company spends a lot of money on installing engine test cells. I know that the one installed at Tullamarine recently by Trans-Australia Airlines cost over $300,000. {: .speaker-KDV} ##### Mr Charles Jones: -- What has this to do with noise? {: .speaker-KSB} ##### Mr McLEAY: -- This is all to do with noise. Each of the companies is spending a large amount of money on engine modifications - $250,000 in fact - to eliminate smoke trails. The Government is interested in anti-pollution moves. As honourable members will know, in each case the companies have installed or will be installing the more expensive engines in the new Boeing 727 stretched series because they are quieter. This will cost the companies $3m. {: .speaker-KDV} ##### Mr Charles Jones: -- So what? {: .speaker-KSB} ##### Mr McLEAY: -- 1 am glad the honourable gentleman has interjected because this confirms the initiatives that the Government has taken and its recognition of the problems associated with noise abatement. The honourable member for St George dealt at some length with the curfew problems. I think that I should say - it is not readily known here - that one of the conditions of the extension of the 2-airline policy is that operations during the curfew period in Sydney, Brisbane and Adelaide will be kept at an absolute minimum. We all know that there are occasions when airport curfews are broken. I quote from a letter which I wrote to the Town Clerk of the Municipality of Kuringai a few days ago. It will not hurt to repeat here what was mentioned in that letter dealing with this very subject. I wrote: approval . . . That is for breaking of the curfew - is confined to jets that are correctly scheduled but are running late because of mechanical trouble . . . What would a Labor government do in such a situation - send them out to sea? My letter continued: weather problems, industrial disputes, etc. At holiday periods extra flights might be approved to operate within the curfew period to cater for the increased demand for travel facilities at these times. I hope that the honourable member for St George is in this building and will listen to this because I should like to read to the House, to the people who live in the area of St George and their member an editorial from the local provincial newspaper known as the St George and Sutherland Shire 'Leader' of Wednesday 26 July last. It is headed: 'Real Facts in Air Noise' and states: >Protests against aircraft noise in this area have always had more than a tinge of emotionalism. And they have had in this House. The editorial continues: >The Department of Civil Aviation is invariably painted as a hard hearted ogre with no compassion for those unfortunate enough to live beneath approach paths. > >But a publication by the Airport Noise Abatement Committee illustrates clearly what is being done about alleviating air noise. I commend that publication to honourable members. It is freely available from the Bills and Papers Office. It is not a Govern ment publication; it is produced by the Airport Noise Abatement Committee. The editorial continues: >Some amazing facts are outlined by the Committee; amazing in that they are very different from what is rammed down our throats at protest meetings. > >How many people are aware, for instance, that 75 per cent of all takeoffs from the airport . . . The editorial is referring to Sydney Airport - in a 12 month period go out over Botany Bay or that only 8 per cent of all takeoffs, are over Rockdale? Again, only 17 per cent of evening landings are over Rockdale and only 2 per cent late at night. Admittedly, 40 per cent of landings are made over Rockdale during the day, but the figure is not the highest and other areas have to have some relief sometime. The Committee points out that the preferred runway system takeoffs and landings over Botany Bay is in use at the airport. These aircraft movements over Botany Bay must be made at late night hours in suitable weather conditions. With this preferred system some flights are made shortly after the 11 p.m. curfew because of the extra safety time needed between a takeoff and landing on the same runway. I did not have time to mention it, but within the half-hour after the curfew period about 80 per cent or 90 per cent of the flights have been completed. The editorial continued: >In other words, if you want a preferred runway system in and out into Botany Bay you have to be a little realistic about the curfew. You cant have your cake and eat it too. This, I remind honourable members, is an editorial from a local newspaper. It continued: >The Committee says quite bluntly that the noise abatement procedures depend entirely on weather conditions, the amount of traffic and the airport's operational safety standards. More noise abatement in adverse weather - less safety. That would seem to me to be a pretty good slogan. It continued: >The Committee's publication 'Action Against Aircraft Noise' shatters some of the wild emotional misstatements made at protest meetings. I could add to that those statements made in this House. The editorial continued: >By all means let us have a campaign against aircraft noise but let us campaign with facts and the recognition that at least something is being done. That was the editorial from the St George and Sutherland Shire 'Leader' of Wednesday, 26th July. They are not things that I have said. There is no time left at this stage, but a little later in the debate I should like to take up one or two of the points mentioned by the honourable member for Newcastle. {: #debate-48-s6 .speaker-JOU} ##### Mr BENNETT:
Swan -- I support the amendment but in so doing express my wish that it had gone even further and recommended the immediate installation of a curfew at Perth Airport and the immediate commissioning of a committee to find an alternative site for that airport - in particular the immediate resiting of the international airport before public money is further expended at the present site to accommodate what will, in the main, be night flights. Perth will be one of the few remaining airports where night landings will be possible for the near Asian area. It is deplorable that the people of Perth have to suffer increasing noise pollution which is being wilfully imposed upon them by this Parliament which has the power to prevent such action but does not act. In fact, the Parliament is directly responsible. Some people will say that the resiting of the present airport or the establishment of a second airport in Perth would be a waste of resources. This shows a sorry lack of vision and archaic thinking on the part of those concerned. It is by sheer accident of wartime demands that the airport is situated at its present site. The site was later confirmed by the establishment of the then new terminal for the Empire Games held in Perth. This is why it is situated at its current site; it is not due to proper town planning or consideration for the residents of Perth. In fact the recommendation of Professor Stevenson, the town planner, that the site be at Lake Grangara has been completely disregarded by previous State and Federal governments and, I am sorry to say, has not been considered by planning authorities, who in order to aid the extension of the airport at the present site have adopted the recommendations of the Department of Civil Aviation authorities. These recommendations call for building restrictions in the flight paths and immediate noise zone areas. No consideration was given to the overall planning of the metropolitan area; instead, the metropolitan areas, in relation to the placement of flat accommodation, hospitals, schools, community services and road patterns in these areas adjacent to the airport, have planning laws based on the needs of the- airport and not on the needs of the community. This is ludicrous. Airports and airport noise are placed before people. In an effort to explain the true comparisons to people whose thinking is back in the horse and buggy era let me inform honourable members that this is a similar situation to that which existed when planners established Australia's great cities around railway stations. In Perth millions of dollars of public money, and possibly Federal Government money, will have to be expended in order to overcome this lack of foresight and to allow the redevelopment of the city by sinking the railway line. Even the decriers must be able to comprehend that we cannot sink an airport to overcome a similar but worse impasse created by the placing of an airport in the middle of a city. Perhaps at some future date roads to link the various suburbs will be tunnelled under the airport at Federal Government expense. But would it not be far easier and cheaper to find an alternative site where proper planning for the good of the community can be undertaken? Fortunately we have a responsible Labor Government in Western Australia which has introduced legislation to control the noise and nuisance, but it is extremely doubtful whether that legislation will be able to control noise, a Commonwealth area in which complete irresponsibility has already been demonstrated. Because of the lack of a curfew there is a situation where charter flights for Service personnel or national servicemen leave, in the main, not during the day but after midnight. .Because there is no restriction the Federal Government takes advantage of a situation that exists in no other State. So Western Australian Service personnel are not given the choice of reasonable hours of travel. In fact, I suspect that they are treated like the other people who travel west on economy class. They would not be provided with a meal on board, a feature of air travel that is considered' to be the minimum provision in overseas air travel on routes of a similar distance. I am amazed to find that this facility has not been provided for the last 13 years. Perhaps this is because, unlike national servicemen and economy class politicians, administrators travel first class and are reasonably well looked after. This is only one of the many small matters that highlight the attitude of some people to travellers in the west. No wonder some large sections of the Western Australian community react against being dictated to by what they consider to be the eastern bloc. The decisions to impose the discomforts of aircraft noise, airport resumptions and airport sitings on the western State are made at this time outside Western Australia. Departure times from Perth are not based on the convenience of the Western Australian traveller but completely on the objective of giving the eastern States connecting schedules and greater aircraft utilisation. Consequently the departure times are set at unearthly hours. One prominent eastern State leader said very recently: *Who would want to travel to the West'. He was inferring that people would go there only because there was something in it for them. Well, it is about time that Western Australians began asking: What is in it for us? Why cannot the average Western Australian catch a plane to the east first thing in the morning like his eastern counterpart? Why cannot schedules be made so as to ensure connections to all other States with the arrival of all flights? There are numerous flights during the day ±rom other States to almost all States but a very limited number to Western Australia. It is about time that a stand on the issues of service, timetables and aircraft moise was taken. If we in Western Australia are to continue to provide profitable patronage to the airlines - it would not be denied that there is profit as both airlines appear to find sufficient business to arrive and depart together in most instances - then until such time as alternative sitings and noise control measures are found, let them have some respect for the people who provide their business. More importantly, let them show some consideration for the people who must live near the airport and its flight paths. I instance the people who reside in State Housing Commission homes and who are unable to find alternative accommodation. These people have a right to their rest and uninterrupted privacy. It is not unreasonable to ask that this Government give sincere consideration to what is being sought in this amendment insofar as it relates to Western Australia. The amendment seeks an investigation into the measures needed to avoid noise prob lems at Perth Airport and a study of the practicability of instituting a curfew there from 11 p.m. to 6 a.m., a curfew which applies in Brisbane, Sydney and Adelaide. In addition, full enforcement of the curfews is being sought. There can be no harm in inquiring into these matters in full co-operation with the State authority, which will co-operate to the fullest because its transport committee has recommended that a committee of State and Federal experts be appointed to investigate the possible resiting of the airport and other relevant problems. Here is an opportunity to take some action on State and Federal cooperation. It is an opportunity for this Government to express its concern for its Western Australian constituents. Let us take the politics out of this debate and support the amendment. No face can possibly be lost by the Government supporters in their own States reaffirming the need for legislation that this Government has already instituted in respect of noise control measures and additionally carrying out an investigation into whether there is a need to further extend that legislation to another State or to reinforce the legislation already in existence. So far as Government supporters are concerned, this is the most harmless form of amendment that could come from the Opposition, for it only reaffirms the need for existing Government legislation. So I ask that rather than playing party politics and party numbers, honourable members opposite should quietly and seriously look at the full implications of the amendment and accept it and vote for it. No doubt we on this side of the House would be surprised if this did happen, but let us be reasonable about it. This is a matter involving millions of dollars of public capital and concerning the safety and comfort of the people of Perth and its suburbs and, of course, the people in other cities. This is an opportunity for the Government to demonstrate its concern for the people it represents. Let the experts be commissioned in Western Australia to investigate and report fully on the situation. Do not disregard the thousands of signatures on petitions that have been received on this matter. Some will say that there is no other reasonable site left. However, **Mr Harry** Fletcher, a State member of Parliament, has suggested that the Pearce site could be utilised for an international airport and that the Pearce Air Force base could be transferred to Cunderdin, from which the Air Force operated during the war period. I do not venture <to say that this is the final answer. Experts must be commissioned to analyse the overall situation and to arrive at a conclusion acceptable to State and Federal authorities. This was possible for Adelaide so why is it not possible for Perth? My regret is that this amendment does not provide for this action to be taken, but the Government must surely recognise this need and take the appropriate action. I only hope that the situation that would enable an inquiry into the measures which the Commonwealth and State governments should take to avoid these noise problems at Perth airport can be brought about. State and Federal authorities must co-operate for the good of the community, no matter what the political differences are. The State is anxious to assist, but the initiative can come only from the Federal authority. It is not satisfactory for the State Labor Government to be the only government acting in a responsible manner by legislating for noise control for the benefit of adjacent industrial and residential areas, only to find that all its efforts have been shattered by Commonwealth-controlled aircraft flying overhead - a matter in respect of which it has no redress. {: #debate-48-s7 .speaker-KIH} ##### The CHAIRMAN (Mr Lucock: -- Order! The honourable member's time has expired. {: #debate-48-s8 .speaker-KEI} ##### Mr KEOGH:
Bowman -- In the debate on the estimates for the Department of Civil Aviation I rise to support the amendment moved by the honourable member for St George **(Mr Morrison).** I want to refer to certain aspects of the situation currently existing in Brisbane with respect to Eagle Farm airport, particularly to certain aspects of its proposed siting. The way the Government has spoken so often and for so long about a new airport in the Brisbane area has become almost hackneyed now. A new airport at Eagle Farm to replace the existing airport has been discussed for so many years that I am sure the people of Queensland do not believe that it will ever eventuate. This work originally was planned to start in 1965. On 22nd October 1969- it might just be a coincidence, but that was a few days before the last Federal election - the Brisbane 'Telegraph' carried the headline: Plans on new airport "nearly ready" '. The then Minister for Civil Aviation was quoted as saying that multi-million dollar plans for the Brisbane airport were almost ready for submission to the Federal Government for approval. But since then, of course, if we oan accept the word of the Minister, other plans have been put into effect or are about to be put into effect for the redevelopment of the Brisbane airport on the existing site and they will replace the plans that were being considered in 1969. The report by the advisory committee that was appointed from representatives of the Commonwealth and State governments and the Brisbane city local authority to consider all aspects of the development and updating of the requirements of the Brisbane airport was submitted in January of this year. It proposed that the Brisbane airport be resited to the northeast to include an area known as Cribb Island and that the runways be reconstructed in almost an entirely different area to the existing Eagle Farm airport. I would suggest that, while this may overcome certain existing problems, it poses new problems about which I am greatly concerned. In regard to the cross runway and the proposed resiting of the Brisbane airport, which is referred to as proposal Q of the advisory committee's report, on a normal takeoff across the cross runway which, it has been suggested, will be used only as an alternative to the main runway, the aircraft would be in almost a direct line with a densely populated residential area in the Lindum area of my electorate. An aircraft taking off to the south on the cross runway would be at a height of approximately 2,000 feet over another very densely populated area in the Manly section of my electorate. If this development is to proceed I want some definite assurances from the Minister for Civil Aviation **(Senator Cotton)** in respect to these areas of my electorate which, I believe, are seriously threatened by the resiting of the Brisbane airport. I agree that the noise exposure forecast area, which is commonly referred to as 25NEF, does not cross the river in respect to this runway but while it does not cross the river - there is an area of industrial development between the residential area to which I referred and the river on the airport side - it certainly will cause much greater problems to people in the residential areas along the bay side than they experience at present from aircraft landing and taking off from the existing runways at Eagle Farm. Naturally enough, this matter greatly concerns me. I am concerned about problems that may arise not only from the landing of aircraft on the cross runway but also from aircraft that would be turning to land on the main runways and which I have on reasonably good authority be approaching at approximately 1,200 feet over the Thornside area of my electorate. Although this is not a closely developed area today, it is very quickly becoming a closely populated residential area and would suffer significantly from any noise hazard. It may be argued that these problems are hypothetical and in certain cases can be overcome by the adoption of regulations covering landings and takeoffs which would vary the flight paths sufficiently to move the aircraft from the areas that I have mentioned. It may also be readily argued that resiting proposal Q to which I have referred and on which I base my assumptions of problems in my area has been adopted after consideration of various proposals and is the best possible solution to the problem of minimising the noise nuisance to people in the majority of existing suburban developments. To a large extent, I accept that contention and I agree that the proposal is a vast improvement on either further development of the existing site or any of the other alternative proposals considered by the advisory committee. However, I object in the strongest possible terms to the Government providing any solution that at the same time presents a possible threat to any other suburban area of an offensive aircraft noise hazard, more particularly when it is an area that I have the responsibility of representing in this Parliament. I believe that the time to protest and to draw the attention of the responsible authorities to this matter is now. It may well be that the noise hazard has been moved from Hamilton and parts of the suburban areas on the north side of the river but we will not solve the problem by moving the noise hazard to suburbs on the south side of the river. Before the proposal proceeds any further, I want an absolute assurance from the Minister for Civil Aviation that the problem of aircraft noise, which at present is reasonably minimal in the bayside suburban areas of Brisbane, will not be increased in even the slightest degree. I urge the Minister to instruct those officers engaged in preliminary investigation and planning to concentrate their plans and costs estimates on reclaiming an area adjacent to the shores of Nudgee Beach and Cribb Island so that the site can be moved further out into the Moreton Bay area. In so doing, the direction of the cross runway can be moved east from the suburban areas on the south side of the river and aircraft movement could be generally concentrated over Moreton Bay, I urge these things because, as I said a moment ago, I believe that, while I have some complaint about the fact that this new proposal has further delayed the plans of redevelopment of the Brisbane airport, at least it might be timely for the Government now, before planning reaches the stage of consideration by the Joint Parliamentary Committee on Public Works, to give attention to these problems and to other matters that have been raised by Captain Holt, an ex-president of the Australian Federation of Air Pilots. Captain Holt has called for a slight realigning of the main runways. Another matter to which I should like to refer and which could be implemented immediately in respect of the existing Eagle Farm airport is an alteration in the glide slope to the approach over the Hamilton area for aircraft on a visual landing approach. The glide slope could be altered from 2.6 degrees to 3 degrees. I believe that this recently has been put into effect in respect to landings at Mascot with a certain amount of success in minimising the noise problem in the areas affected. I know that, to some extent, the contours of the land in the Hamilton area contribute to the noise problem but this variation in the glide slope for visual approach landings on the eastwest runway would certainly give some relief to the people in this area who have faced a grave noise problem for many years. {: .speaker-KIH} ##### The CHAIRMAN (Mr Lucock: -- Order! The honourable member's time has expired. {: #debate-48-s9 .speaker-9F4} ##### Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP -- I intend to speak for only one or two moments. I am quite certain that the entire city of Brisbane is gratified at the fact that the repositioning of the Brisbane airport is very near to becoming a reality.When I look back at my own campaigning over the last 6 years and at the campaigning of the honourable member for Lilley, the Minister for Housing **(Mr Kevin Cairns),** for this change, it shows that one can achieve things in this place if one is persistent enough. Another point is that the repositioning of the Brisbane airport has been endorsed not only by the Federal Government and the State Government but also by the Brisbane City Council. I suppose that every time a change is made to the advantage of some people there will be concern about the disadvantages being created for others. I refer to what was put forward by the honourable member for Bowman **(Mr Keogh).** The honourable member, who has been a member of this place for *2i* years, referred to the number of landings he has made at Brisbane Airport. He said that nearly every time the landing has been from the Moreton Bay or easterly direction. The concern he expressed over the north-south runway - if I can describe it in loose terms as such - is not really justified. Brisbane Airport has never had a north-south jet runway. It has had only the east-west runway. During windy conditions aircraft have been able to come into Brisbane Airport from the west. There have been occasions on which the electorates of Lilley and Griffith and the people of Norman Park, Hawthorne and Hamilton have been subjected to a great deal of noise. I notice that the Assistant Minister assisting the Minister for Civil Aviation **(Mr McLeay)** is sitting at the table. I would like to plug again for him to convey to the Minister for Civil Aviation **(Senator Cotton)** that as far as we are concerned in Brisbane the sooner the airport is shifted the better it will be for a great number of people. The worry and concern expressed by the honourable member for Bowman are understandable. But if, over the years, aircraft have managed to operate in an east-west and west-east direction, I cannot see why they will frequently have to use a northsouth runway. However, I make the comment that if the Department of Civil Aviation is to do the right thing it will insist that, no matter what the extra cost may be, planes which take off from Brisbane Airport will be required to go as far out into Moreton Bay as possible before they swing back over the city area on the direct flight path to Sydney. I say this because planes which fly over the city at altitudes of 3,000, 4,000 or 5,000 feet are still noisy. While people who work at the drawing board or who are based here in Canberra, where the airport is on the outskirts of the city, may consider that 3,000 or 4,000 feet is reasonably high, I can assure them that the quality of life is not as good as it could be while aircraft pass over a city every few minutes at the height I have just mentioned. {: #debate-48-s10 .speaker-AV4} ##### Mr HURFORD:
Adelaide -- I am rising to support strongly the amendment moved by the honourable member for St George **(Mr Morrison)** on behalf of the Opposition. I can agree with the honourable member for Griffith **(Mr Donald Cameron)** when he pointed out how difficult it is for those who live within flight paths to find any peace and tranquility in their homes. One thing that has been driven home tonight - and this might sound very parish pump to some but indeed it is tremendously important to those who live anywhere near flight paths - is the fact that there has not been sufficient long term planning done in Australia during the 23 years of Liberal government to ensure that we do have airports in positions where the lives of people are not sorely tried. I congratulate the honourable member for St George on the way in which he took up the cudgels for many of the people who live in his electorate and who are badly troubled by aircraft noise. I also congratulate the honourable member for Swan **(Mr Bennett)** who is fighting a hard battle to see that the necessary planning is put into effect in Perth. I also share with the honourable member for Bowman **(Mr Keogh)** his tremendous concern at what would seem to be some plan, about which he has not yet heard, to put Brisbane Airport in his electorate where such a move would make the lives of many people miserable. During the occasions on which I have visited Brisbane Airport recently I have wondered why so much money and resources are being put into the construction of a new TransAustralia Airline terminal there if indeed this change is to take place. But I want to talk about my own part of the world, Adelaide. Although my electorate of Adelaide is not adjacent to the airport it is in a flight path. Fortunately my electorate is not troubled too often by aircraft noise because aircraft are fairly high in the sky when they pass overhead. But by heavens, we know when a Boeing 707 moves in just what problems are created. Members of the Department of Civil Aviation who are with us tonight will perhaps remember the tremendous problems that were created when an airport in Victoria, which was used as a training ground for Qantas staff, was closed and Adelaide Airport was used for refuelling purposes for 707 aircraft involved in training flights in South Australia. I merely mention this to set the background for saying that we in South Australia believe it is high time that a little long term planning was effected in order to make available the necessary land for a second major airport in South Australia and also to reserve land for flight paths around that airport. If the proper long term planning is undertaken we will find that some sort of ceiling will be put on the size of Melbourne and Sydney which are becoming overlarge and indeed whether or not that happens, Adelaide is bound to grow. It is high time that Adelaide had an international airport. Clearly that international airport cannot be located at West Beach where the existing airport is situated. {: .speaker-JOA} ##### Mr Barnes: -- Where would you put it? {: .speaker-AV4} ##### Mr HURFORD: -- I would put the airport a fair distance to the north of Adelaide which would be about the only possible place for it to be located. The airport would need to be well out of the range of existing residents in Adelaide. Unless that land is put aside now, unless areas under flight paths are reserved now and unless there is planning on the part of local, State and Federal governments, we will have the same problems with the new airport that must come to Adelaide in 20 years time as we are having with the existing airports now. I am glad to say that the Labor Government in South Australia is putting its mind, to this planning. Only a year ago I was in the office of the Premier where I helped tostimulate a lot of activity to set up the necessary committee of Federal, State and perhaps by this time local government authorities to do this planning. I have raised, this matter with the honourable member for Boothby **(Mr McLeay)** who is sitting, in this great place of honour tonight. {: .speaker-KSB} ##### Mr McLeay: -- You are not taking the credit for it? {: .speaker-AV4} ##### Mr HURFORD: -- Perhaps the honourable member could tell me, if he rises to his feet again, how this planning is going, because if he is to be worth his salt in the little time that he will be in his present position he will push hard for the sake of South Australia for .this committee to make decisions so that the necessary land will be put aside for a new airport. There are 3 reasons why we need an international airport. We need it because at the moment South Australia is at a disadvantage in regard to international freights. I, among others, have been pushing for some form of freight equalisation to apply until South Australia has an international airport. It is important that South Australia should be able to compete for industries, notwithstanding this unfortunate situation,, with other States. It is important that freight costs of goods transported by air from South Australia, and from Adelaide in particular, should not be greater than they are from rival cities. Freight costs aretaken into consideration by industries when they are deciding whether to come to Adelaide. Therefore it is important for that reason that we have an international airport in Adelaide. Tourism is another factor. We have themagnificent Barossa Valley which is a great tourist resort. Adelaide is the most obvious stepping off place for tourism in the Northern Territory. Adelaide Airport would be used by people to go to the Northern. Territory to visit places such as Ayers Rock, Alice Springs and other areas of interest. This is another reason why Adelaide must have an international airport, probably sooner than later, and why we should plan for it now.. The third one is the convenience of the citizens of South Australia when they are travelling abroad. At the moment they have to pay the extra fares from Adelaide to Sydney or from Adelaide to Perth before they start on their way. The Leader of the Opposition **(Mr Whitlam)** pointed out in -question time today just how irrational those fares can be, when international travellers arriving at Perth on their way to Sydney pay $50 for that extra journey from Perth to Sydney, but when they are going the other way and they arrive in Sydney and want to go over to Perth they pay $150. That is some of the irrationality that exists in the field of civil aviation at the moment. In the few minutes I have left to speak to the estimates for the Department of Civil Aviation I want to refer to the fantastic subsidy that is being paid through the Department of Civil Aviation estimates to Connair Pty Ltd, a private airline in the Northern Territory. Let me cite the figures. In 1969-70 the amount was no less than $447,739. In 1970-71 it climbed to $838,620. I have to pause at the 1971-72 amount because after 2 weeks of ringing the office of the Minister for Civil Aviation to obtain the amount I received the answer today that because the annual report of the Department of Civil Aviation has not yet been brought down these figures are not available to me. That is nothing short of scandalous. By the time the Government brings on this debate in this House we ought to have that report. That point was properly made by the honourable member for Newcastle **(Mr Charles Jones)** the shadow Minister for Shipping and Transport; that also includes civil aviation. Of course we should have the report. I make an inspired guess that this fantastic subsidy has increased this year to over $lm. We see from the estimates that the amount spent under this item of expenditure last year was $1,900,000. For 1972-73 the estimate is $2m. One of the anomalies about this situation is that, as vice-chairman of the Public Accounts Committee I could have pressed for a submission from the Department on the breakdown of the figures for a particular time. But just because I did not do that and waste of time and instead rang the Minister's office I did not receive it. There are a number of reasons why this subsidy is being paid. The main one is, I suggest, because of a tie-up between the Australian Country Party and this airline. I have done by homework on this by travelling quite a lot in the Northern Territory. There is no doubt that Ansett Airlines of Australia, Trans-Australia Airlines or another small airline could combine the work done by Connair and save $500,000 of the taxpayers money, without in any way withdrawing some of the important services to this rural area. Let me cite one example of where money is wasted. In Katherine Connair has a separate office with separate telex facilities. This is very expensive for very few flights in a week. Not even Ansett has telex facilities. Ansett could do it for far less money. The **DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Mr Luchetti)** - Order! The honourable member's time has expired. {: #debate-48-s11 .speaker-K5O} ##### Mr CORBETT:
Maranoa -- I would like to refer to some aspects of civil aviation which have not been referred to very much in the course of this debate. The problem in my electorate is not one of noise; it is one of lack of noise, lack of aircraft and lack of services. {: .speaker-JM9} ##### Mr Armitage: -- Put the airport in your electorate. {: .speaker-K5O} ##### Mr CORBETT: -- It is a very important one but I would not expect the Australian Labor Party to have any interest in airports other than those in the capital cities. {: .speaker-JM9} ##### Mr Armitage: -- I do not know where it is. {: .speaker-K5O} ##### Mr CORBETT: -- If the honourable member does not know where the airport is, his knowledge of geography is lacking quite a deal and is confined to the capital cities. {: .speaker-NH4} ##### Mr Keating: -- You have got it mixed up. {: .speaker-K5O} ##### Mr CORBETT: -- Anything is mixed up as soon as it goes outside the capital cities, apparently. {: .speaker-NH4} ##### Mr Keating: -- We want to give it to you. {: .speaker-K5O} ##### Mr CORBETT: -- You might, and you might not. I would sooner chance getting it from this Government and from the government which will be elected at the next election, which will be the same Government. The value of air services into the country is very real. Air services are an essential part of communications in those areas. We have had a reduction in the size of the aircraft that are operating on some of these airlines. Today we find that TAA is flying a number of Twin Otter aircraft into the western areas of Queensland. They are a very reliable and safe aircraft but they do not carry a great deal of freight or a large number of passengers. I feel that the seating in this type of plane could be improved and made more comfortable. Perhaps a seat or two would have to be sacrificed to do that. At present, especially on a long journey, these aircraft lack the comfort that is expected from air travel today. I hope that that matter will be looked into. In view of the fact that these aircraft do not provide the services that are provided on the major airlines, some consideration should be given to what might be termed economy fares for economy class travel because economy travel in the larger aeroplanes is very much better than travel in a Twin Otter. I realise that one of the problems in this regard is that the airlines have to be economic within reasonable limits. At the same time I think that there should be a division of the needs of these airlines in the way of comfort, without sacrificing too much in the way of income from them. These planes provide a fast service and, naturally, the provision of newspapers from the capital cities to the outback areas is a very important part of their operation. A number of weekend flights from Brisbane carry the newspapers to Quilpie which is the end of the run. But apparently because of the amount of traffic they are handling, maybe to the first port of call - I would imagine that that run would carry the heaviest amount of traffic - -they have not been able even to keep the papers going. That would indicate to me that at least they are handling a fair amount of freight or freight and passengers combined. I have been advised that, for 4 weeks running, the newspapers did not get out to Quilpie. There was no reduction in the air freight charges because they arrived eventually. In one instance the newspapers for the 13th August did not arrive there until the 18th and there was no refund of air freight. While I make these comments I realise that it is necessary also to try to find some ways of overcoming the problem. I would like to see some consultation perhaps between TAA and the newspaper publishers to see whether the newspapers could not be sent by road or by some even earlier departure, to the first port of call for these aeroplanes and then, because some passengers leave the plane and some freight is unloaded, the newspapers could be taken on there. That would be beneficial to the airlines and certainly to the people in western Queensland who, for whatever reason, might want to receive their newspapers. Some of them are interested in racing. They have a branch of the Totalisator Agency Board there and they like to receive their newspapers to look at the form of the horses. Especially when Tails was doing such good work they were particularly pleased to be able to receive the latest information in that regard. It is a way of life there and many people find that this is one of the relaxations they have. In any case, for whatever reason they might want the newspapers, I think they are entitled to receive their weekend newspapers when an air service operates into that area. I think that some way should be found to overcome this problem. So I put it to TAA and to the newspaper publishers to see whether some results cannot be achieved by way of consultation to get a combination of road and air freight. I emphasise the point that, if the airlines cannot carry these newspapers, it looks as though there must be a fair amount of traffic at least to the first port of call. Before concluding my remarks I would like to comment on the Brisbane Airport. Like most Queenslanders, I had a feeling that we were a little behind the cities in the south, and I think it is time that we had an airport and airport facilities which would stand comparison with those to be found in the other capital cities throughout Australia. I realise that work has been done on a new airport for Brisbane, and I understand that a proposition has been accepted. I believe that the area where this airport is to go is a good one. It is situated where the noise problem will be minimal, considering that it will be so close to the city itself. When we look at the map of Australia - our southern friends often forget this - we see that Brisbane is about only half way up the east coast of the continent. I think it is time we had an airport of international standard at Brisbane. I appreciate the work that has been done on this. {: .speaker-1V5} ##### Mr Katter: -- Hear, hear! {: .speaker-K5O} ##### Mr CORBETT: -- I am glad to hear my fellow western Queenslander say, 'Hear, hear'. This indicates that this is not a parochial matter and that it is not just Brisbane people who want an airport of international standard. It is a matter of national development. I believe, and I think that most Queenslanders feel, that we have been left a while without getting facilities to which 1 believe Brisbane is entitled, with its geographical position on the Australian coast and in the very fast developing state of Queensland. Under a government led by the only Country Party Premier in Australia, the progress and development that Queensland is making is such that it really deserves now to have an airport that is in keeping with that progress and development. I will be looking forward to seeing -that airport in the not too distant future. {: #debate-48-s12 .speaker-KXV} ##### Dr PATTERSON:
Dawson -- Most of the discussion tonight has been concerned with legitimate complaints against the increasing problems of aircraft noise, the wrong location of airports and the problems arising from the location of new airports. 1 represent an area in which, probably fortunately, these problems do not arise. The problem in north Queensland is that we have not sufficient airports. We are not worried with noise, and in fact we would not mind a bit more noise up there if it meant getting a few more efficient and more frequent aircraft services. The towns in my area alone, such as Proserpine, Bowen, Ayr, Home Hill and Collinsville, had better services in the days of the Dragon Rapide and the DC3 aircraft than they have today. These are facts. One of the effects of the use of jet airliners is that because of traffic loads and the moving of the greatest number of passengers in the shortest possible time, fewer aircraft are involved. Consequently we have seen a diminution of the quality and quantity of aircraft services between important towns in Queensland. Let me deal first with Mackay, which is the centre of the electorate of Dawson and one of the most important airports in Australia. It is ranked as the fifth busiest airport in Australia outside the capital cities. The standard of buildings at the Mackay Airport is nothing short of a disgrace in terms of modern aircraft terminals. It has only been through the good grace of **Sir Reginald** Ansett in the last 12 months in building what we might describe as a decent air terminal for Ansett Airlines of Australia that people travelling to the Mackay Airport and either terminating there or going through to places to the north or the various island and tourist resorts have been able to secure sufficient shelter in the wet season at peak- times. Until only a few months ago the only buildings there were of poor quality. They were not commensurate with an airport of the standing of the Mackay Airport - the fifth busiest airport of Australia outside the capital cities. Trans-Australia Airlines and Ansett have done something to overcome this problem, but the full blame must rest with the Federal Government and the Department of Civil Aviation. In 1967 the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Public Works went to Mackay to investigate the extension of the runways. Although it was not within its terms of reference to do so, this Committee could not but help comment on the disgraceful conditions of the airport buildings in Mackay. In fact, it made a special recommendation that the Department of Civil Aviation should do something to accelerate the implementation of the plan for new buildings. In its report the Committee stated: >We also noted the advice of the Department of Civil Aviation that there are plans for a new building area to be developed at Mackay Airport perhaps in the early 1970s'. It is 1972 now and nobody has seen any plan yet of the new airport buildings or airport building zone in that area, to the degree that both Ansett and TAA, in desperation, have had to do something to try to alleviate the problems at the Mackay Airport. I am pleased to see that in the last few months both these airlines, particularly Ansett, have spent hundreds of thousands of dollars altogether in at least making passengers comfortable for the time being. But tonight I would like io ask the Assistant Minister assisting the Minister for Civil Aviation **(Mr McLeay)** what are the plans for Mackay Airport with respect to buildings. We have been hearing year in and year out that the Department of Civil Aviation is to do something in that area, but nobody can find out anything despite the number of letters that bodies in that area and I have written. I mentioned in passing earlier the deteriorating aircraft services in central and northern Queensland, particularly the frequency of aircraft visits and the actual closing down, we might say, of airports. This matter has to be looked at properly. If TAA and Ansett cannot solve this problem between them, it is up to the Government to provide feeder aircraft services to these areas. I will not deal with any areas outside my electorate, because other people can do that more efficiently than I can. They are more familiar with the problems in those areas, but I am perfectly familiar with the problems in my own electorate. I want to see better services to places such as Proserpine, Bowen, Collinsville, Home Hill and Ayr. These are areas of vital importance to the development of northern Australia. They are considered in many respects to be some of the greatest tourist potential areas in Australia - the gateway to the Barrier Reef. Certainly where we have airports - and we have airports in these areas - they should at least be used. As I said before, we had better services in the days of the DC3 and the Dragon Rapide aircraft than we have now. For example, if a passenger wants to travel from Mackay to Townsville and back in one day, or in some cases in 2 days, he has to fly from Mackay to Brisbane, Brisbane to Townsville, Townsville back to Brisbane and from Brisbane back to Mackay. This is a disgraceful state of affairs. A lot ba& been said today about international airports. I want to put in a plea for an international airport in north Queensland, because I think there should be one up there. {: .speaker-NF4} ##### Mr Cohen: -- That is where it should be. {: .speaker-KXV} ##### Dr PATTERSON: -- I agree. A very significant number of people travelling to Australia want to go to one specific place - the Barrier Reef, one of the unique tourist attractions of the world and one which is of international fame. Yet if a passenger comes here on a charter aircraft from overseas he must land at Sydney and then foot the bill from Sydney to Mackay or Townsville and return. Is it any wonder that people will not come to Australia to see the Barrier Reef under such condi- tions? If they come by normal Qantas or other international flights they have to do virtually the same thing to travel to north Queensland, Ayers Rock or wherever it may be. They are the 2 attractions that international visitors to Australia want to see most. Surely there is a strong case for the provision of an international airport in northern Queensland, in Mackay or Townsville or wherever it may be. An investigation should be made concerning an international airport in northern Queensland. After all, people flying from the United States of America, flying from Asia virtually, almost bypass northern Queensland when travelling to Sydney and then flying north. I am told that a lot of the international air companies, including even Qantas, are opposed to having an international airport in northern Queensland. {: .speaker-KVR} ##### Sir Reginald Swartz: -- No. {: .speaker-KXV} ##### Dr PATTERSON: -- The ex-Minister for Civil Aviation says they are not. Somebody is opposed to it, therefore it must be the Government. An inquiry ought to be made for the provision of an international airport in northern Queensland, particularly at either Townsville or Mackay because those are the areas to which international visitors wish to come on their way to western Queensland, the Northern Territory or the eastern areas - the islands pf the Great Barrier Reef. A lot of people who come to Australia do not want to come to Sydney or Melbourne. There are plenty of Sydney: or Melbournes. in other parts of the world, but only one Great Barrier Reef. {: .speaker-NF4} ##### Mr Cohen: -- Alice Springs, too. {: .speaker-KXV} ##### Dr PATTERSON: -- Yes. The 2 international tourist areas ranking first class in international priority are the Great Barrier Reef and Ayers Rock. The **DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Mr Luchetti)** - Order! The honourable member's time has expired. {: #debate-48-s13 .speaker-JTW} ##### Mr CALDER:
Northern Territory -- In speaking to the estimates of the Department of Civil Aviation 1 would like to mention the acquisition by Qantas Airways Ltd of 6 Boeing 747 aircraft. Qantas is our flag carrier. It is an overseas airline which is carrying the reputation of Australia. I am glad that it is being financially assisted to obtain these really top line modern aircraft. As Qantas is operating overseas it is essential for this flag carrier to present an undisputed first class service. I would recommend that if there is any way this service can be improved it should be put into effect, because this is the airline which is representing Australia abroad. I urge that every effort be made to see that Qantas is accepted the world over, not only for its engineering, maintenance and technical ability, but also for its cabin service and its approach to the passengers. I feel that possibly some improvement could be made. I refer now to Division 810 sub-section 3 under which $25m has been provided to the Australian National Airlines Commission - that is TAA. I hope that TAA is giving thought to acquiring types of aircraft which can land on airstrips that are not absolutely suitable for jet airliners. I recommend that TAA look at aircraft with low pressure tyre systems so that they can land on some of the strips that DC9s and other aircraft have to overfly because of their high pressure tyre systems. The Minister for Civil Aviation **(Senator Cotton)** said in his statement that the Government was working very hard to reduce the obnoxious parallel scheduling of airlines. The airlines involved, when they are operating out of Sydney in the peak hours, are trying to get all the business for their own aeroplanes. I think that a means of rescheduling should be found. In places further away such as Alice Springs, Mt Isa, Darwin and so on 2 Boeing 727's or 2 DC9's arrive and depart within 5 or 10 minutes of each other. People who live in those areas do not have to go to and from work at the same hours as people in the capital cities. I urge that this matter be looked at very strongly. I commend the Government's attitude of maintaining and encouraging the operation of country air services. I think a case could be built up. Several air services have been mentioned. Some Opposition members have been passing fairly scathing remarks about one air service in my home town. I hope to be able to refer to this matter later. There is a case to be built up for a combined regional air service to be established by people who are prepared to run it with a genuine understanding of people who use air services in the outback. East-West Airlines Ltd, Connair, BPA and other airline companies of the same ilk could probably be welded into a third line air service which would be interested in operating in inland Australia. After all, the 2 major air services whip round backwards and forwards, up and down the coast. At the Fokker Friendship level on the internal runs there is quite a lot of disinterest. I would like to refute some of the rubbish that has been spoken in this chamber by the honourable member for Newcastle **(Mr Charles Jones)** and more recently by the honourable member for Adelaide **(Mr Hurford)** on the subject of outback airlines. I, of course, defend the airline which operates from my home town. It has extensive operations over the Northern Territory out of Darwin and Katherine. {: .speaker-1V5} ##### Mr Katter: -- Connair Pty Ltd. {: .speaker-JTW} ##### Mr CALDER: -- Yes. Other than the Government it is the major employer of personnel in Alice Springs, lt employs over 100 people - technicians, pilots, check captains, engineers, radio experts and so on. All these people help to run the first class airline service in Alice Springs. I am not ashamed of the fact that it operates in Alice Springs. I hear people talking ridiculously about running that same service at the same standard, not for $838,000 but for $500,000 less. Under, regulation 203 they would be operating a charter service. Connair Pty Ltd is running regular public transport services at the same standard of maintaining and checking aircraft as Qantas, TAA and Ansett. . These people saying that someone can run Connair at $500,000 less are talking sheer and utter nonsense. They are criticising Connair which has produced a magnificent service to the country down through the years. It has been running at regular public transport standards at the suggestion of this Government. I am glad to see that this Government is standing behind Connair and is now saying that outback airlines will have some chance of escalating to earn a larger income. If this happened the Government would cut down on the amount of $838,000. I would say without a word of a lie that if TAA or Ansett tried to run those services in the Northern Territory they would run them at twice the subsidy cost of Connair. The nonsense that these people speak - they do not even look into the facts of the situation. I heard the honourable member for Adelaide say that Connair was wrapped up with the Country Party. I heard he had made a similar accusation in this House last year when the Minister for Primary Industry **(Mr Sinclair),** the honourable member for Victoria River in the Northern Territory Legislative Council and myself were in Katherine. He made the slanderous statement that we were there virtually free by courtesy of Connair. If the honourable member had taken the trouble to find out and go on to the strip at Katherine, which is only a mile or so away, he would have seen the aircraft on the strip. But he did not bother to find out. It was not a Connellan Airways aircraft at all. The honourable member rose in this Parliament and made this scandalous statement. He has again displayed the fact that he knows nothing about airline operations and he does not care. {: .speaker-KEC} ##### Mr Kennedy: -- Who are you talking about? {: .speaker-JTW} ##### Mr CALDER: -- I am talking about the honourable member for Adelaide. In criticising the Territory airline the honourable member for Newcastle **(Mr Charles Jones)** talked about its expensive offices in many centres. In Alice Springs the airline uses an old renovated house which is overcrowded. Admittedly in Darwin it has a new and very fine building, half of which has to be let to someone else. In Tennant Creek it has nothing. In Mount Isa it has a rented office and in Katherine it has a prefab building. The airline has been criticised for running a service to Katherine which TAA or Ansett or 'any other small airline' could run more cheaply. But the Katherine service is a positioning service to put aircraft in a position to fly out through the Victoria River Downs district, to Kununurra, over to Western Australia, into the Gulf country, down to Mount Isa, across the Barkly Tableland and down through Tennant Creek. That is why there is an office in Katherine. The airline has an agent in Kununurra but no office. If anyone can say that the airline has its own expensive offices in too many centres, I think he must be talking through his hat. The honourable member for Oxley **(Mr Hayden)** said that the airline is operating the wrong type of aircraft. What type of aircraft does the honourable member suggest it should use? Let him come up with some sort of aircraft which will operate off 120 odd strips in the Northern Territory. The F27 aircraft will operate from about 12 of them, as far as I know. It is a very fine aircraft but it cannot be operated off the dirt. These fellows who get up and talk about these things know nothing about them whatsoever. The **DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Mr Luchetti)** - Order! The honourable member's time has expired. {: #debate-48-s14 .speaker-JM9} ##### Mr ARMITAGE:
Chifley -- The Committee will be aware that I have mentioned in this Parliament before that there is very strong and violent opposition to siting the second international airport for the Sydney region at Richmond. In fact, a committee comprising representatives of 6 municipal and shire councils has employed a publicity consultant to make sure that the case against the siting of the airport at Richmond is fully put to the people and fully explained to all responsible organisations. Since 18th March 1970 when I first revealed in this Parliament the strong possibility of this airport being placed at Richmond, I have met a great amount of secrecy, procrastination and misrepresentation on the part of the Government and its departments. As I shall explain in a few minutes, this situation has reached the extent where the Minister for Civil Aviation **(Senator Cotton)** and other members of the Government have deliberately misled the public. It has got to the stage now that no longer do the people who live out in the region trust a word of the Government or any of its representatives. I will outline to honourable members some examples of the type of thing that has gone on. I have here a copy of the Windsor and Richmond Gazette' which quotes a telegram - I have seen this telegram - which in this instance was sent by the honourable member for Mitchell **(Mr Irwin)** to the councils which had requested interviews with the Minister for Air **(Senator Drake-Brockman)** and the Minister for Civil Aviation. This telegram appeared in the 'Windsor and Richmond Gazette' of 26th August 1970-5 months after I had raised this issue in the Parliament. The telegram which was sent by the honourable member for Mitchell is in these terms: >There is not a chance in the world of civil airport being established in the area. Regret the dis turbance and inconvenience that has been created based on rumour every lying jade and hysteria. That must have been me-- Regards and best wishes. Another telegram I have here was sent on 2nd September by **Mr Dean,** MLA for Hawkesbury. He wired the honourable member for Mitchell in the following terms: Strongly protest at any suggestion of any part of the Hawkesbury Electorate being used as commercial airport. Leave my people alone. The honourable member for Mitchell replied by means of a telegram as follows: >Regret sincerely the upsurge and commotion caused by false statements by Armitage and others. Not a possible chance of an airport being established in and around over and above anywhere in the area. That was in September 1970. On 16th November 1970 - a little more than 2 months later - the Minister admitted to a delegation which represented the 5 municipal and shire councils, which was our number at that stage - I was present at the meeting - that Richmond was amongst approximately 40 sites being considered for the airport. Then one year later the Minister released in the Senate the report of the interdepartmental committee which had taken 3 years to prepare. It apparently had a gestation period of 9 months as it was not released until September although it had been promised for early 1971. The report recommended Richmond as one of the 2 alternative sites. So much for the undertakings we are given by this Government. In spite of that extraordinary situation, now the Minister has broken 2 more promises. In February 1970 he promised the committee of 6 municipal and shire councils when he received a deputation at Windsor that he would let us have the preliminary layout plans and flight paths for the 2 alternative sites in July of this year and that he would make a decision as to where the airport would be sited in January of next year - just after the elections. He has put off making that decision until, he said, some time late last year. In the last fortnight or so he has said: 'I will not keep the promise to give you the preliminary layout plans and flight paths. I cannot do it at this stage.' He has not given any firm date as to when it will be done. In other words, he has procrastinated, he has dodged, he has abdicated his responsibilities as Minister. He has lost the trust of the people. As I said at the battle for Windsor the other night, the Minister should resign. 1 call upon a Minister who has procastinated to this extent to resign his portfolio and give a go to somebody in whom at least the people can have some trust, because they can no longer trust the word of this Government. This is a very important issue. The people are violently opposed to an airport in this region. I know that the Minister is dodging and procastinating in an endeavour to save the political skin of the honourable member for Mitchell. I know that the Government is frightened of losing the electorate of Mitchell, but every time it breaks its promises to the people in the region the only effect is to make the people more determined in their resolve to express their attitude in the months to come. I have also mentioned in the Parliament on other occasions that a proposition is being studied in the United States by the Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration. It has commissioned a 2-phase report on the possibility of establishing an off-shore airport to serve metropolitan New York. The first phase of this 2-phase proposal was to be a preliminary survey to see whether the. proposal was feasible and an economic proposition. I have mentioned this matter in the Parliament previously as well as writing to the Minister and to the Chairman of the CommonwealthState committee. In each instance I was told that they were interested Even though 2 alternative sites had been chosen for the airport, I was told: Yes, we are interested. We will be studying the issue very carefully.' The report on the first phase of this New York proposal indicates that it will be successful. A copy of the report has been sent to me by **Mr Charles** O. Cary, Director of the Office of International Aviation Affairs. The report shows that it is a feasible proposition. If the United States authorities go ahead with the proposal they intend to site the off-shore airport about 3£ miles south of Long Island in the Atlantic Ocean. They have now commissioned phase 2 to go deeper into the economic feasibility of the proposition. 1 telephoned their United States office and I spoke with **Mr Cary** on this issue. They are satisfied at this stage that the proposition is feasible. They say that the proposition would fund itself within a period of 25 years. I do not necessarily say that it would be successful or that it is a suitable proposition for a second airport for Sydney, but I think it should be fully investigated. It is ridiculous to talk about 2 alternative sites when other sites are available and when even this proposition could be fully investigated. I call for a full scale investigation of the feasibility of such a proposition by the Commonwealth-State committee, that is, a full investigation as to whether or not this proposition which is being studied in the United States and which may sound like a Jules Verne dream but is not beyond the bounds of reason in these days of engineering would be feasible for a second airport for Sydney. I have a copy of the report in my hand. If the Minister has not got one I would be only too pleased to let him have one. I hope that when the Assistant Minister replies he will give an undertaking that he will bring this matter before the Minister for Civil Aviation **(Senator Cotton)** who of course is well tucked away in the security of the Senate, away from the various members in this place, and make sure that this matter is discussed. There is very great opposition to the establishment of an airport out in our region. It would mean excessive airport noise and would produce other dangerous features which would affect the whole region, not just within the Richmond area but for many miles around. The people are violently opposed to its location in this area and will continue to oppose it. {: #debate-48-s15 .speaker-KWP} ##### Sir WINTON TURNBULL:
Mallee -- First of all I want to refer to what has been said but I do not want to find fault with anything said by anyone in this place tonight. The proposition which I will put is not put with a view to getting votes as I am not nominating for the next election. Most honourable members who have spoken in this debate - I say this in the best of goodwill - have asked that cer tain things be done which if they are done will benefit their electorate and therefore will be of benefit to them. This is only a natural sequence of events with an election coming on. I do not know any more about aircraft travel and servicing than those honourable members whom I heard speak in this debate; that is a certainty. Every time the Estimates comes up for debate honourable members make practically the same speeches on various subjects. I am fortified by having in my hand a pamphlet written by a **Mr George** Tilley, a journalist who lives in Mildura. He is a man who is always trying to do things for his area and for Australia. He points out in this pamphlet that 'Mildura could be the hub of air travel'. He says straight out in this pamphlet that the large airports at Sydney and Melbourne will become obsolete before very long because as the cities spread out the increased noise which has been complained about by honourable members tonight would seem to indicate that it is not right to have aeroplanes operating at those airports. **Mr Tilley** points out a few things which I want to read. I will read this, because it is a pamphlet. He says: >Mildura as the international airport for Australia in the future ... is something for which a case should be prepared . . . > >Adelaide cannot make an international airport of its main airport at West Beach, because it cannot expand enough. > >Why should Mildura be considered as the site for the next international airport? > >A look at the map on this page will explain. Honourable members cannot see the map and the listeners to this broadcast cannot see it. I point out that the map shows that Mildura is located in the corner of 3 States and that between Perth and Sydney a direct line goes right through Mildura and from Darwin to Melbourne a direct line goes right through Mildura. The pamphlet continues: >Mildura is the most central point for the populated area of Australia. An international port with feeder services could provide fast coverage for 80 per cent of the nation's population. The map is drawn chiefly to show that big jets coming from overseas could go to Mildura and then smaller planes which would not make so much noise could take the people to their destination whether it be Brisbane, Sydney, Adelaide, Canberra, Melbourne or Perth. The pamphlet then continues: >The map shows that aircraft between Sydney and Perth, and between Melbourne and Darwin, fly directly over Mildura. > >Flights between Brisbane and Adelaide, if they ever become a direct route, would be only 50 miles north of Mildura. > >Those from Canberra to the west would fly just south of Mildura. > >So already, Mildura is a vital point on the map for trans-Australia flights. > >No other place could offer a better hub for air travel throughout Australia. > >Mildura has no ground hazards for aircraft landing and talcing off. > >There are no mountains to get in the way. > >Weather conditions for flying are better here than in most places in Australia - as the RAAF knew when it used Mildura as an advanced training base during the war. > >No other city in Australia is located better for road links with the capital cities than is Mildura - if overseas visitors want to use roads to get to the capitals. In using our roads visitors would see the scenery and they would get to know Australia. The pamphlet continues: >If they want to use rail it would need only a new railway to Broken Hill to link Mildura with the nation, via the direct Sydney-Perth railway. Mildura's existing airport would not be used because it is almost fully utilised now, but with 10,000 acres of land available one could be built within a few miles of the existing airport where most of the facilities for a start would be available. This is not just a dream. The pamphlet proceeds: >Australia's aviation controllers know that operation of aircraft on night schedules must come if Australia is to move passengers as they should be moved. > >Night movement is not appreciated over big cities- We heard that from honourable members tonight: but it would cause little concern from an airport eight or nine miles out of Mildura. The establishment of such an airport would be a real decentralisation move. Most of the speeches I have listened to tonight expressed the idea of having an international airport somewhere further out from the cities but the cities are moving towards them all the time. Honourable members may be able to see the cover page of this pamphlet which is titled Think Big for an International Airport at Mildura*. {: .speaker-6V4} ##### Mr Daly: -- You have been holding that up for 10 years. {: .speaker-KWP} ##### Sir WINTON TURNBULL: -- 1 have spoken on this subject only once before. Those people who want to get an airport near their electorates will ridicule what this pamphlet suggests but it is worth looking into. If I cannot get honourable members to take much notice of what I have said then I ask the experts on aviation in Australia to take note, to make inspections and to look at this proposition for it is one that Australia cannot afford to pass by without making investigations and going into the finest points. **Mr Tilley,** who wrote this article, believes that this is what must happen if Australia is to overcome all those difficulties about which honourable members have spoken tonight. If we are to attract from overseas in big jets visitors to Australia they can be landed at Mildura and taken straight away, quick and lively to the capital cities by planes which would not cause any trouble with noise or by flying at night. {: #debate-48-s16 .speaker-NF4} ##### Mr COHEN:
Robertson -- It is always difficult to follow our dear friend, the honourable member for Mallee **(Sir Winton Turnbull).** We shall miss him sorely when he departs at the end of this year. However, I shall do my best. I rise as a member concerned about the question of a second international airport. One of the 2 areas named as a prospective site is in my electorate, and is known as Somersby. The delay over this airport siting is unconscionable, but the Government secrecy that has surrounded this airport siting is more unconscionable. I maintain that the way in which the Government refuses to reveal any of the criteria on which it makes its decision is complete nonsense. The Australian community and, to a great extent, parliamentarians themselves, have grown accustomed to the Government keeping all information to itself and not informing the public about the criteria on which it bases its decision. When the first report was released about 12 months ago we were informed that initially some 40 sites were considered. The number was narrowed down to 16 sites, later to 4 and finally to 2. Let us accept the proposition that the present 2 sites are the only acceptable ones. Some of the information that is now available to the Government should be kept secret but why, for instance, cannot we be told why the other 38 sites were eliminated? We were never told this. We were never told why the Duffy's Forest site was eliminated, only that it was not suitable. The only reason the Government wants secrecy is that if the public knows and has access to the information it can evaluate the decision - perhaps not as expertly as the experts - and the fear that the Government has is that the minute the doors are open and the people know why it is making a decision it will be in all kinds of trouble. That is what it thinks; I think it is wrong. The day will come in Australia when a whole range of decisions will be under public scrutiny. My view is that then we will start to get real democracy. Opposition members cannot make effective criticisms because we do not have access to the information. We do not know, for instance, what is the Government's order of priorities. When the decision is finally announced and the site chosen we will be told that it was the only possible, sensible, sane, responsible decision - whatever it is. Of all those 40 sites it will be the only one that could have been chosen. Anyone who suggests anything else will be stark raving bonkers, particularly if he comes from the Opposition. The people of Robertson, the people of Australia - because this is a decision for Australia; not merely for the people of my area - and I, wish to know the order of priorities. How did the Government regard conservation of the Central Coast in its evaluation? The question of pollution arises. I hear a lot of nonsense about air pollution and the claim that only 1 . per cent of it is airport pollution. Let us accept that proposition in relation to the whole of Australia, but what is the position around airports? Tests in the United States of America have shown that around the airport pollution from aeroplanes runs as high as 40 per cent. Where does pollution come in the Government's order of priorities? What economic factors did it consider - the cost to the community, the cost to the farmers or the cost to the people who have to suffer the noise? How does it evaluate the feelings of the local community and the needs of the local community? I am just appalled at this constant cloak of secrecy that surrounds everything the Government does in every field. This is just another continuation of it. I cannot see why we cannot have public hearings into a lot of matters. Ultimately the Government has to make the decision. I recognise that defence needs arise and there is the possibility of people making unfair profits out of land speculation. That is fair enough and I accept it. But I cannot for the life of me see why grown up, mature Australians cannot be brought into the decision making process by public hearings on all these things. If the Government has discarded these other sites it should tell us why it has discarded them. We are entitled to know. The total cost, including the State Government's provision of transport back to the city, is estimated at between $3 00m and $500m. These are the figures that are being trotted around in the media, and experts I have spoken to assess the cost at around that figure. It is a lot of money and a very big decision. A number of astute judges who are highly placed in the tourist industry, including one whose name I do not wish to mention but I can assure honourable members that he is extremely high up in the industry, are now questioning the massive expense, not to mention the massive dislocation of community life that such an airport will spawn. They are suggesting that, in view of the added expense to international visitors who first fly into Sydney or Melbourne before travelling to the tourist destinations they must desire to see, the enormous public expense would be far better invested in upgrading the facilities at tourist destination airports. My colleague the honourable member for Dawson **(Dr Patterson)** mentioned this earlier and I believe that he is completely on the right track. This is a serious proposition and a lot of very astute judges are considering it. lt should be considered in greater detail by this Government. There is a popular myth that all international visitors are wealthy Americans whereas in fact the majority of them travel on tight budgets in the same way as Australians do. They would find that they have to fly back to the Barrier Reef or to Alice Springs and they have either to bypass Australia or to restrict their visit to one or two places. Honourable members opposite know that I am interested in the tourist industry and I will be speaking on that subject in the debate on the estimates for the Department of Trade and Industry. If the airports of Townsville and Alice Springs were upgraded to take jumbo jets there would be the following benefits: Firstly, a considerable amount of airport traffic would be taken off Sydney and Melbourne; secondly, new travel patterns would emerge thus enabling international visitors to extend their stay and embark on a round trip taking in Tasmania and a direct route to Adelaide. The savings made on the airport would reap far greater benefits to the travel industry, while a major contribution to decentralisation would have been made. Finally, in the few moments left to me, I want to take up the question of the local people who have been so affected by consideration of this matter. At this moment on the airport site there are some hundreds of farmers who simply cannot move because of this decision hanging over their heads. They cannot plant anything, they cannot sell and they cannot buy. I am very critical of the Minister for Civil Aviation **(Senator Cotton)** because he has still not answered my letter of some months ago asking whether compensation will he paid for the dislocation to the businesses of these people. I am not talking now about the taking of land, but if one was in the position where one's business was in a state of suspended animation the chances are that one would lose thousands of dollars. The Government has made a decision that is costing people money. The Minister for Civil Aviation is a likeable chap but I am very annoyed over his failure to answer correspondence. When I led a delegation to see him in Sydney earlier this year he promised information on the flight paths by July. I waited until August and then sent a telegram. I called at his office but still received no reply. I first learned of the delay till next year in the Press. This is gross discourtesy and I am surprised at the Minister doing this because it is not his usual behaviour. My colleague the honourable member for Chifley **(Mr Armitage)** said that the Minister should be replaced. Maybe he should, but the alternatives are too horrible to contemplate. {: #debate-48-s17 .speaker-KJG} ##### Mr IRWIN:
Mitchell -- I was interested to hear what the honourable member for St George **(Mr Morrison)** had to say. Despite his protest, high rise flats are being erected and are occupied, and from inquiries made the people living in them, with a few exceptions, are happy to remain there. Further, land prices continue to soar due to the demand for land for the erection of more high rise home units and flats. The Valuers-General in each State have reported that land values in and around an airport when it is established have risen. The Committee set up by this House in October 1970 to inquire into aircraft noise strongly recommended that the State planning authorities immediately plan for land use adjacent to airports, lt would appear that tocal government authorities are satisfied to permit further development around Mascot Airport. The report of the House of Representatives Select Committee on Aircraft Noise states: >The Committee commends the various State Planning Authorities for the constructive thought given to forward planning. For its particular need the New South Wales State Planning Authority has appointed a specialist town planner experienced in airport neighbourhood planning. In its publication 'Sydney Region Outline Plan 1970 to 2000 A.D'., it proposed the expansion of Sydney Airport to include runways at Towra Point so that most aircraft take-offs and approaches would be either over the sea or over Botany Bay, rather than over residential areas. This proposal was intended to avoid building parallel runways on the inadequate area available at the existing site and to reduce the noise nuisance from the increasing number of jet aircraft movements expected in the future. For cities located on the sea board, the airports of the future will be seadromes, Many eminent engineers have forecast that all airports of the future will be of the seadrome type. The proponents of seadromes claim that they are more economical, do not usurp large tracts of land and the upkeep and maintenance costs are less than land based airports. With the huge capital investment at Mascot, which is about $400m - it would cost double that amount to replace - it would appear that the only logical approach to accommodate the air traffic of the future into Sydney is to extend the runways into Botany Bay towards Towra Point. This would reduce the noise nuisance to a minimum. Further, Sydney must be the most privileged city in the world. It would have the largest airport in the world within 7 miles of the heart of the city. I think that the Government was in error in bringing overseas consultants to Australia to carry out feasibility studies into the establishment of a second airport for Sydney. We have the engineers and the experts in all departments in Australia to advise the Government on all facts and features to provide for the civil aviation needs of Sydney for the next 50 to 70 years. I was interested to hear what the honourable member for Chifley **(Mr Armitage)** had to say, because if ever a man came into this House with pecularities and idiosyncrasies, it was the honourable member for Chifley. I did send those telegrams and I am proud that I sent them because I had the assurance of 2 Ministers for Air and 2 Ministers for Civil Aviation that the second airport would not be at Richmond. I had entree to the best brains in Australia in regard to this matter and I still can say without any equivocation whatsoever that Sydney's second airport will not be at Richmond. I can give honourable members a guarantee of that because the Minister for Civil Aviation **(Senator Cotton)** has stated that a full inquiry will be held. After the Commonwealth and State committees which are now investigating the scheme bring in their report, the Minister has promised that he will hear the experts in Australia in regard to this matter. I have received a letter from the Prime Minister **(Mr McMahon)** and he agreed with me that the second airport must be on the best possible site. Richmond could not be the best possible site because of the intensity of floods and fogs. People with the greatest brains and with more experience than those on the House of Representatives Committee, I have been assured by State ministers, will assist in every way possible. The agricultural college has to be considered, and the nightmare of all pilots is the Great Dividing Range. Over and above those things, people will not spend an additional $200, $300 or $400 to save 3 hours on a flight from England to Australia and then put up with having to travel another 2 or 3 hours to get into Sydney. How foolish can you be? There is no chance of the airport being at Richmond because of its locality and the difficulty of getting to the metropolitan area. The honourable member for Chifley made some scathing remarks about the Minister for Civil Aviation. The honourable member would do much better if he first plucked the mote out of his own eye before criticising others. The Minister has not misled anyone. The State committee came into the scheme of things and the Minister did state that he thought that the plans for the parallel runways would be ready by July. They were ready by July but the State committee wanted to see them, the engineers of the State Government wanted to see them, the State Planning Authority wanted to see them and the other departments involved also wanted to see them. The scathing remarks of the honourable member for Chifley about the Minister were unfair, unjust and unreal. The Minister gave us a promise and he will keep to it. All the top brains in Australia have been co-opted to deal with this matter. The people of Richmond who are opposed to the airport going there may be in the majority, and they may not, because there is a feeling on the part of some people that they would be wise to accept such a proposal. However, for the reasons I have stated - fog, flood, the existence of Hawkesbury agricultural college ind the Great Dividing Range - I can assure the people of Richmond that there is no possible chance of the airport being constructed there. {: .speaker-JM9} ##### Mr Armitage: -- The same thing applies to Somersby. {: .speaker-KJG} ##### Mr IRWIN: -- The honourable member for Chifley should not talk so much. If he kept himself a little cooler and did not come to the meal table with a pipe in his mouth he would be much better respected in and around this place. A Commonwealth-State committee is dealing with this matter and the State people have as much concern and as much power as have the Commonwealth people. Again I assure the people of Richmond and of New South Wales that the second airport will be an extension of the present airport at Mascot into Botany Bay and Towra Point. People with better knowledge and more experience than I have assured me of that. The Minister has given an assurance that he will hear all representations, and the Prime Minister has given an assurance that the site selected must be the best in New South Wales. **Mr ARMITAGE** (Chifley)- **Mr Chairman,** I want to make a personal explanation. {: .speaker-KIH} ##### The CHAIRMAN (Mr Lucock: -- Order! Does the honourable member for Chifley claim to have been misrepresented? {: .speaker-JM9} ##### Mr ARMITAGE: -- I do. The honourable member for Mitchell **(Mr Irwin)** just stated that my criticism of the Minister for Civil Aviation **(Senator Cotton)** was unreal and unwarranted because, he said, the Minister had abided by the promises he gave. He stated that the Minister said that the tentative plans and flight paths would be available in July and that they are available but they cannot be released. The point of order I raise, quite apart from the personal attacks by the honourable member for Mitchell- {: .speaker-10000} ##### The CHAIRMAN: -- Order! If the honourable member claims to have been misrepresented he should point to where he has been misrepresented. {: .speaker-JM9} ##### Mr ARMITAGE: -- I just wanted to say those things to make it quite clear where I was misrepresented. {: .speaker-3V4} ##### Mr Chipp: -- Make your point. {: .speaker-JM9} ##### Mr ARMITAGE: -- I ask the Minister not to get so excited. As I said, and apart from the- {: .speaker-10000} ##### The CHAIRMAN: -- Order! I pointed out to the honourable member for Chifley when he began on that line that he was not allowed to debate the subject matter. The honourable member may explain only where he has been misrepresented. {: .speaker-JM9} ##### Mr ARMITAGE: -- The position is that I made my criticism of the Minister on a sound premise. At Windsor in February of this year the Minister said that he would release to the public and to the 6 municipal and shire councils the tentative plan and flight paths for the 2 alternative sites. The Minister made the same promise at Gosford. He has not abided by his promises. Therefore the honourable member for Mitchell misrepresents me when he says that I wa3 wrong in my criticism of the Minister and that the Minister had kept his promise. It is very obvious that the Minister did not keep his promise. {: .speaker-10000} ##### The CHAIRMAN: -- Order! The honourable member for Chifley will resume his seat. {: .speaker-KJG} ##### Mr Irwin: -- **Mr Chairman-** {: .speaker-KB8} ##### Mr Giles: -- I move: >The question be now put. {: .speaker-10000} ##### The CHAIRMAN: -- The question is that the question be now put. Is a division required? {: .speaker-KDV} ##### Mr Charles Jones: -- Yes. {: .speaker-3V4} ##### Mr Chipp: -- **Mr Chairman,** before a division is called may I point out to the honourable member for Newcastle that we have an unofficial agreement with the Opposition, to which already I have paid tribute in this House for its co-operation, that the debate on the estimates for the Department of Civil Aviation should take 2 hours. The debate has so far taken 2 hours and 22 minutes. The honourable member has a right to demand a division. However, I point out to him that if he did so he would be transgressing an agreement, unofficial though it is and not binding on him, made between the Deputy Leader of the Opposition **(Mr Barnard)** and myself. {: .speaker-10000} ##### The CHAIRMAN: -- Order! I understood that the honourable member for Newcastle indicated that he did not want a division on the motion that the question be now put. Does the honourable member call for a division? {: .speaker-KDV} ##### Mr Charles Jones: -- No. Question put: >That the amendment **(Mr Morrison's)** be agreed to. The Committee divided. (The Chairman- Mr P. E. Lucock) AYES: 43 NOES: 48 Majority . . . . 5 AYES NOES Question so resolved in the negative. Proposed expenditure agreed to. Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet Proposed expenditure, $31,039,000. Department of the Treasury Proposed expenditure, $110,396,000. Advance to the Treasurer Proposed expenditure, $30,000,000. {: #debate-48-s18 .speaker-NH4} ##### Mr KEATING:
Blaxland -- In this debate on the estimates for the Depart ment of the Treasury I would like to deal with the Commonwealth Superannuation Fund, which is administered by the Department. I want to deal with a number of aspects of it. The annual report of the Superannuation Board for 1969-70, dealing with the scope of the superannuation scheme, reads: >The Superannuation Act 1922, as amended, provides for the establishment of two distinct and separate occupational retirement benefit schemes - a pension scheme and the Provident Account-- {: .speaker-KFO} ##### Mr Foster: -- I take a point of order, **Mr Chairman.** It is pretty lousy, when an honourable member is endeavouring to address this House, that there should be this chatter from your Country Party colleagues. {: .speaker-KIH} ##### The CHAIRMAN (Mr Lucock: -- -Order! I suggest to the honourable member for Sturt that he might take into consideration that 2 members of his own Party were standing talking as well. I suggest that he might also take into consideration that he is one of the offenders in this as well. I suggest to the Committee that, even at this late hour, it should come to order so that the honourable member making his speech can be heard. {: .speaker-NH4} ##### Mr KEATING: -- I was quoting from the annual report. It goes on to say: . . for employees of the Commonwealth. Both schemes are financed by employee contributions, tax free income from investment of these contributions and an 'employer' contribution by the Commonwealth when the appropriate benefits fall due. Under section 12 of the Act the Board has power to invest employees' contributions, and interest from investments is additional income for the Fund. Investments that are allowed by the Fund in terms of section 12 of the Act are securities of the Commonwealth, loans to local government bodies in Australia, mortgages on land, and loans prescribed under trustee legislation. The latter are mainly loans to semi-governmental and other statutory authorities and loans guaranteed by the Commonwealth or by any State. I seek the leave of the House to incorporate in Hansard a table headed Summary of Investments held as at 30 June 1970'. The **DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Mr Corbett)** - Is leave granted? There being no objection, leave is granted. (The document read as follows) - {: .speaker-NH4} ##### Mr KEATING: -- The summary of investments shows that most of the moneys invested by the Fund are invested in Commonwealth securities. For 1969-70 they amounted to$83.9m. The rest under trustee legislation were invested mostly in local government and semi-governmental authorities. 1 draw the attention of the House to the fact that only $133,825 of the total investments of the Fund were invested in building societies. The report of the AuditorGeneral for 1972 shows the total investments to be $546,550,076. By comparison with the Commonwealth Fund's investment of $133,825, the New South Wales Superannuation Fund has invested $30,461,638 in building societies. The thought arises that it would be fair that Commonwealth public servants should have access to their own funds invested in building societies and be able to finance the building of their homes out of the money so invested, for the investments by the Board on behalf of the Fund are investments of employee contributions and do not include contributions by the Commonwealth. The honourable member for Kingsford Smith **(Mr Lionel Bowen)** raised this matter in the House in 1971. He asked the Treasurer: >Does section 33 of the Superannuation Act limit the Commonwealth contribution to the pension, and accordingly, does the Commonwealth not make any contribution to the fund for investment? The Treasurer replied: >Yes. In accordance with section 33 of the Superannuation Act 1922-1969 the Commonwealth contributions to pensions are when the pensions are payable and these amounts are accordingly, not available for investment. > >Any amounts paid into the Fund by the Commonwealth under section 18 are available for investment. In simple terms that means that the only payments to the Fund are the employee contributions and the Commonwealth contribution at the point of retirement. The Commonwealth contribution is not paid into the Fund. The honourable member for Kingsford-Smith asked further: >What amounts would have been required to have been paid by the Commonwealth in each of the last 5 years to provide a ratio of 70 (Commonwealth) to 30 (employee contribution). The answer was that in 1964-65 the amount would have been $57,940,000; in 1965-66, $59,097,500; in 1966-67, $65,770,000; in 1967-68, $71,090,000; and in 1968-69, $82,012,500. In other words, had the Commonwealth put the money that it has to fund to retiring employees directly to the Fund and not paid it at the point of retirement, $82m would have gone into the Fund in 1968-69. Instead only $36,177,564 was put into it. The Fund is very limited in its investment potential in that only Commonwealth employee contributions go into it. Therefore, I am suggesting that perhaps the fairest way in which the Commonwealth could help its employees would be to pay this money into it immediately. Also, the interest rate on the investment by the Fund is very low. It was 5.89 per cent for the year ended June 1972. In 1967 it was 5.48 per cent and in 1963 it was 5.47 per cent. So the Fund has a pretty poor rate of return on investment. If the Board members were my investment counsellors I would sack the lot of them. They must be pretty hopeless if they cannot get above 5.5 per cent. The New South Wales State superannuation scheme returns 6.33 per cent. According to page 14 of the 1969-70 report, the Commonwealth invested $21. 89m out of $44m in mortgages on land during that period. One of the matters I raised a couple of months ago indicates that a lot of commercial investment is being made by money supplied from the Commonwealth Superannuation Fund. I would like to see the Board expanded to include more contributor representatives. It is obvious from the investment decisions made by the Board that the contributor representative must be out-voted 2 to 1. If he is not out-voted 2 to 1 he must be the worst representative the contributors could possibly have because the investment decisions, as I said before, are pretty hopeless. It is time that the Commonwealth looked at investing the money in its liable for directly in the Fund and gave the public servants a chance of making a quid for themselves. It should also put more of them on the Board and not just have the 3 people who are on it at the moment. I know that the investments are tax free, but that is no excuse for limiting the investment or earning potential of the Fund. The only way to get over this is to have the Commonwealth change the Act to expand the membership of the Board and pay this money directly to the Fund. Instead of having an income of about $30m a year, which is the same as that of the New South Wales scheme which has about half the number of contributors, the Commonwealth Superannuation Fund ought to have 2 or 3 times that. Last year it had an income $100m and it had an income to be invested of $41 in, which represented the employees' contributions. Even if this money were invested intelligently in real estate and other things by the Board it would be found that the return would be way above 5.5 per cent. Even though the Act says that money must be invested in Commonwealth securities and semi-government securities, it does not designate the percentage of the investment or the percentage of that type "of investment that must' be funded by the 'Fund. In other words, the Board could invest in anything in which it likes to invest. In particular, it ought, to make the money of contributors available for their own building societies and also boost, the, stocks of the Fund by investing in other' things that show a great potential and where it can use the inflationary effect to gel a better income. I suggest to the Government that it is time we expanded the Board to allow more contributor representatives 1 to have their say in the way their money is spent. {: #debate-48-s19 .speaker-AV4} ##### Mr HURFORD:
Adelaide -- I congratulate the honourable member for Blaxland **(Mr Keating)** for his contribution to this debate. I think it is a very worthy point that he brings up. We are, of course, debating the estimates for the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, the Department of the Treasury and the Advance to the Treasurer. I would like to have a little to say on each of these 3 headings. I deal first with the Advance to. the Treasurer. I would like to see in future years the report of the Public Accounts Committee on the Advance to the Treasurer come before this Parliament before we debate the estimates on this section of the Budget. This report will be presented next Thursday. I remind honourable members that one of the 3 main functions of the Public Accounts Committee is to look at the estimating from year to year. That look at the estimates takes into account not only where the estimates are underspent but also whether a call has been made on the Advance to the Treasurer. It is an important function of the Public Accounts Committee. The Committee does that work on behalf of this Parliament. As with so much of the work in this Parliament, it is like an iceberg; two-thirds of it is under the water, and I think we should be reminded in this chamber of the work of that Committee. I move on to the Department of the Treasury and make a few points about the responsibilities of that Department, first of all in relation to taxation. When we were debating the tax Bills I mentioned that the policy of the Australian Labor Party in relation to taxation is a 3-pronged policy. First of all, many moons ago we realised that we needed a Commonwealth inquiry into the whole field of taxation. We also realised that this will be a long term project; that the committee of inquiry which has been appointed by the Government will take a year longer to report than was expected. lt will probably have a history much like that of the Carter Committee in Canada or the royal commission into taxation in New Zealand, setting the course for the next 10 years. It is necessary to have a document such as the report this committee of inquiry will produce. Taxation is not something that can be or should be changed quickly overnight. People have to realise well in advance where the sights are levelled. That is why we have a second and third arm to our taxation policy, the second one being the setting up of an Australian taxation foundation along the lines of the Canadian Taxation Foundation. The third arm - I repeat what I said in the debate on the taxation Bills - is to utilise the tremendous talent that we know exists in the Taxation Office for closing loopholes and having a whole new look at taxation, but because of the political masters the Taxation Office has had for so long a lot of the avenues into which I believe it would like to con duct investigations and for which it has plans in its drawers have been closed to it. I promise the personnel in the Taxation Office that that talent will be unleashed and they will be given an opportunity to use these programmes and these plans when there is a change of government later this year. Coming back to the committee of inquiry which at least we have got, I want to make a couple of points. The first of them I made during question time in a question I put to the Treasurer **(Mr Snedden),** and that is that if the real interests of this country were being served he would have consulted the Opposition in relation to the personnel of that committee of inquiry and also its terms of reference, because there are not many people in this country today who do not believe that there will soon be a change of government. I point out that I believe the present committee will be reporting to a Labor government. It would be so much more sensible if the personnel of the committee reflected the wide range of thoughts and philosophies which exist in our country. I do not know any of the members of the committee personally and I do not reflect on them. But I do not believe that any of them have much of a connection with the reform side of politics in this country. I think that it is important that somebody on the committee should have such a connection and look at things through the eyes of the vast number of people who vote Labor in this country. I am not suggesting that that person should be a member of the Australian Labor Party. But taxation is a matter in which philosophy and an attitude to life are involved. I believe that it is rather unfortunate that the committee is a narrow one. Before I move away from dealing with the personnel of the committee I would like to state that the same remarks apply to the terms of reference. They also should have been drawn up in consultation with our shadow treasurer, the honourable member for Melbourne Ports **(Mr Crean)** so that the work of the committee would be of value to a Labor government and not just to a non-Labor government. The second matter that I want to touch on is in relation to the Department of the Treasury also and relates to the Taxation Branch. It is the matter of publicising the names of those who are in default vis-a-vis the Taxation Act. I believe that it is terribly important that names of people who have been, we can almost say, really criminally involved in avoiding tax should be published. But it is my experience that some people - perhaps only a few - whose names are included in that list are people who have been avoiding tax rather that evading tax. They are people who have, perhaps through their advisers, taken one view of the law but the boards of review or the courts - whether it be a single judge, the Supreme Court or the High Court - have taken another view of the law. I may be wrong and I hope that if I am the Treasurer will correct me. But I have had some correspondence with the Treasurer on this subject. I do not like to see injustices done to individuals in our community. I believe that this matter is worth pursuing further. I hope the Treasurer or those who are representing him here tonight will look further into this matter and give me an explanation. I repeat that if people have been evading tax deliberately and criminally against the law the names of those people should be published along with the other penalties which they incur. But if it is a matter of opinion on the law and this opinion has gone against a person in the court, I think that some discretion should be shown. The next matter to which I wish to refer relates to the Public Service Board and the fact that we have in our midst at the moment until after the federal election **Dr David** Butler of Oxford University. I want to quote from a copy of the 'Canberra Times'. The headline states: >PS 'spoilt' by years of Liberal rule. The article reads: >British political scientist **Dr David** Butler chided the Commonwealth Public Service last night for being 'spoilt by 23 years of non-change', and for failing to give enough thought to the effects on the bureaucracy of a change of government. **Dr Butler** was addressing a meeting of the ACT group of the Royal Institute of Public Administration. The article further states: > **Dr Butler** suggested the British practice whereby duplicate files were prepared for the new minister giving all the fact and arguments, but free from any quotations or observations of his predecessor. > >I hope that the suspicions bred by 23 years of opposition will not lead an incoming Labor gov ernment here to act very differently from the British precedent', **Dr Butler** said. Dealing with the last quotation first, 1 can assure **Dr Butler** that an incoming Labor government will not act differently from its Labour counterpart in the United Kingdom. I believe that we will observe the sort of principles that **Dr Butler** has been laying down. The main purpose of my quoting this article is to draw the attention of the House to it, to the views of **Dr Butler** on the changeover of government and to state that I hope the Public Service Board is looking at this. Indeed, I hope that the Public Service generally is getting ready for a change of government because there is nothing more certain than that we will have a change of government. {: #debate-48-s20 .speaker-KID} ##### Mr LUCHETTI:
Macquarie -- The Treasury has been acknowledged as the fortress of authority in the field of government. This evening J want to plead for the strengthening of the Treasury in the work of compassion, in the recognition of hardship and injustice, and to ask that action be taken by the Government through the Treasury to overcome problems which are hurtful and burdensome to many taxpayers in this country. There is no doubt that the seal of government policy is clearly impressed .011 Treasury decisions. From time to time personalities may try to bend the work of the Treasury. People like **Sir John.** McEwen may have certain ideas. Nevertheless, in the long run the Treasury prevails, I want to plead this evening for those people who have suffered disadvantage because of Treasury policy and decisions of the Government which are hurtful to many people in our country.. We hear a great deal about costs and charges but in seeking the basic cause of costs and charges we would go inevitably to matters related to the Treasury, to dear money, to the problems of costs which have been permitted to develop in this country with the knowledge and understanding of the Government and the Treasury. I have here the reports of hire purchase companies. Without exception these companies year after year are reporting inflated profits, the increased costs and charges being borne by the people of this country. When we think of costs and charges we must think of dear money because a person who borrows money for the purpose of building and owning a home, buying a motor car or furniture and furnishings, for industry or for any other purpose, is tied closely to the question of money. If money is dear and hard to get the burden of charges must inevitably be passed on to the community. I can speak only briefly this evening and I want to refer to other areas of hardship in which the Treasury could do much to help to overcome problems. I refer to. the cases of children of people living in country districts, who are sick and require medical attention. No specialists are available in the country districts or there may be. a lack of a particular type of specialist or hospital, or someone with an understanding of the particular ailment. It is inevitable, that such people go to a capita) city, Closely related to the problem of sickness and the field of administration of the Department of Health is the question of expense that falls upon a parent or husband. These are not tax deductible items. They should be, and action should be taken to ease the burden of people who are distressed by sickness, and who have great mental problems and anguish as a result. I ask that people who are disadvantaged in this way be given consideration. I ask that the advisers who report to the Treasurer, even at this late hour with an election pending within the next month or so, request him to take action to overcome this particular problem. I refer also to the disadvantaged parents of children in isolated areas who are required to take their children when ill to the hospital in the nearest country town. No consideration is given to the costs incurred by parents in making such journeys, say, once a week, or in taking their children to school, bringing them home at the end of the week, or the costs involved in education generally. This is a matter of very great concern in country districts because parents are obliged to travel great distances. They have to bear additional costs. This all adds to the hardship of living in the countryside. It is a blow against the efforts to retain people in country districts. We glibly talk about decentralisation but basically the problem is that we must keep in the country the people who live in the country now. By these actions through the Treasury we are helping to drive people from the country. Tax concessions in this field should be given to people. I briefly refer to the problem of sales tax which bears with equal severity on all people in the community. The aged pensioners and the families all pay the same rate of sales tax as the wealthiest person in the land. Indeed this is another injustice. Tonight I also refer to the people who must travel great distances to obtain work. I think that consideration ought to be given to people who have to travel great distances to earn their living in order to maintain their homes. This- is one of the outstanding injustices at the present time. Taxation consideration should, be given to those who own a car or some kind of motor vehicle and who are required to go to some distant agricultural project, timber industry, mine or something of that kind and to the great mass of: commuters who are compelled to travel from distant centres to the metropolitan areas day by day and week by week for their employment. These people have been . driven from the city because of high costs and charges. They have gone to the country districts to obtain cheaper land on which to build their homes. But immediately they face additional burdens, charges and considerable inconvenience in. that they are called upon to travel to their place' of employment. If they own a motor car. and use it to go to work they receive no consideration at all while the great company executive, the man holding a very high position, has his charges paid by his 'company and is protected in ' this way. I. think ' it is necessary that action should be' taken immediately to overcome this problem. In the Blue Mountains area of my electorate of Macquarie, last year 3,547 commuters were paying for tickets. In addition to this number a great many more people were using motor vehicles and other means to get to work. This situation is most unsatisfactory and immediate action should be taken to remedy this injustice because it is an injustice within the law of this country. We blindly accept this. It is not good enough. The Treasurer should act to see that this is corrected. The other matter to which I shall briefly refer is the problem of local government and the need for the Commonwealth Government, through the Treasury, to see that finance is provided to local government to carry out the numerous duties which have been increasing incessantly for the local authorities who are building this nation. With every migrant there is a new job for local government. There is water, sewerage, housing and all the associated things such as school libraries, play centres, health centres and many of these additional responsibilities which local government is called upon to provide. In the last 25 years the Commonwealth debt has decreased, State debts have increased 4 times, local government debts have increased 9 times and semigovernment debts have increased 12 times. I draw attention to these matters because they need to be corrected. I point out that those who own property - the ratepayers - are paying some 60 per cent odd of the entire receipts of local government, 24 per cent coming from fees and charges and only 14 per cent coming from government grants and assistance in this field. I ask the Minister to have regard to these important matters. Instead of giving platitudinous support to local governments we should act in future to help in these directions. The **DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Mr Corbett)** - Order! The honourable member's time has expired. {: #debate-48-s21 .speaker-KFU} ##### Dr GUN:
Kingston -- I intervene very briefly to refer to a few remarks made in this debate on the Treasury estimates 2 nights ago by the honourable member for Angas **(Mr Giles)** about currency alignment. Far be it from me to speculate about the future alignment of the Australian currency. I think there is nothing surer than that after the next presidential election in the United States there will be a further reshuffle in the international currency situation. Whatever government is in power in Australia at that time, will have to make its decision according to the circumstances of the day. I cannot see how anybody really can speculate as to what the circumstances will be at that time, but I think it can be said that if an Australian Labor Party government is in power it will not allow itself to be stood over by the United States Government in the way that the United States Government stood over the other governments of the Western world one year ago when the Smithsonian agreement was made. I will come back to that in a moment. The honourable member for Angas suggested that a revaluation would achieve greater import competition. I would like to take the honourable member up on that suggestion because I think this is a matter which is open to serious doubt. Let me refresh his memory on what ' happened in 1967 when the pound sterling devalued against the Australian currency. At that time precious little impact was made on import competition in Australia, and this was so for a couple of very good reasons. In the first place - I think the same consideration might apply now - if we were to have a revaluation we might well find that the exporters in countries exporting goods to Australia immediately would put up their prices. That is the sort of thing that happened in 1967 when the United Kingdom devalued. The British exporters put up their prices which meant really that there was no difference. But even if they did drop their prices, it still would depend on whether the Australian merchants reduced their retail margins. They might decide that the Australian market already has borne a certain price of an imported commodity and they have no incentive to reduce it. So if we are to have any reduction in import prices I think it will depend on those 2 things. If there is a relative revaluation of the Australian currency, this situation will depend, firstly, on what the overseas exporters do with their prices and, secondly, what the Australian retailers do with their margins. This is one reason why I think it is so important to remind the House and the people of Australia of the Australian Labor Party's policy to establish a Commonwealth prices tribunal. It is no use having a reduced import price if the end result is simply an increased profit to the Australian retailer. This is something which might have to be watched very closely by the Commonwealth prices tribunal which will be set up by the Labor government, which I think we confidently can anticipate with be coming into office within a very short time. {: .speaker-AV4} ##### Mr Hurford: -- The retailers margin is very high now too. {: .speaker-KFU} ##### Dr GUN: -- Quite so. The other matter I want to raise concerns the currency realignment that took place 12 months ago. This is another matter that the honourable member for Angas raised. He suggested that we have to be good international citizens and toe the line by doing what the other countries do. This might be a valid point if the other countries met their part of the bargain as well. Last year - presumably because we had to be good international citizens - we revalued about 6.2 per cent, I think it was, against the United States dollar. There is no argument about that, I am sure, I would have thought that we would have been able to expect from our great and powerful ally, as a quid pro quo, a reduction in import duties on Australian wool since, as I understand it, America is the only country in the world that does levy import duties on Australian wool. Seeing that our Prime Minister **(Mr McMahon)** went to the United States last year and alleged that he had a special working relationship with President Nixon, I would have thought that the very least he would have been able to get out of it was some deal on Australian wool in return for a revaluation of the Australian currency relative to the United States dollar. But no such thing took place. In that case 1 think that we were completely sold out and, if I might say so, the Australian Country Party completely sold out the Australian wool industry and should be condemned for it. It is a pity that has not happened before. Proposed expenditures agreed to. Progress reported. {: .page-start } page 1502 {:#debate-49} ### ORDINANCES AND REGULATIONS (NOTIFICATION) BILL 1972 Bill returned from the Senate without amendment. Assent reported. {: .page-start } page 1502 {:#debate-50} ### ADJOURNMENT {:#subdebate-50-0} #### Repatriation-Radioactive Waste - Australian Currency - Industrial Relations Motion (by **Mr Garland)** proposed: >That the House do now adjourn. {: #subdebate-50-0-s0 .speaker-8V4} ##### Mr GRASSBY:
Riverina -- I rise tonight on behalf of a group of young Australians who feel cheated by their country because of an incredible piece of discrimination against them. I do this as a sequel to the valiant efforts in the House today by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition **(Mr Barnard)** and the honourable member for Hawker **(Mr Jacobi)** who were both concerned, as I am, about a group of young Australians who volunteered for service in Vietnam and who are discriminated against by the Government which encouraged them to volunteer for that service. It was stated in the House today by the Minister for Repatriation **(Mr Holten)** that volunteers and conscripts alike received the same treatment. I find this extraordinary in view of the fact that the Minister has had correspondence dating back over more than a year in which - at least in one case - it was made obvious that the treatment was in fact different. The case that I thought I would cite tonight as typical of those with which we are all concerned involves a young Australian whose father and grandfather fought in Australia's wars and were eligible for all the benefits of repatriation and resettlement. Only in the case of today's volunteer was equal treatment denied. It was on 23rd June 1971 that **Mr J.** A. Kidd of Tasmania first began a battle on behalf of his grandson who volunteered for military service and spent 2 years and 10 months in Vietnam. He wrote to the Returned Services League and to the Minister for Repatriation. {: .speaker-JO8} ##### Mr Barnard: -- And he wrote to me as well. {: .speaker-8V4} ##### Mr GRASSBY: -- And he wrote to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition as well. As a matter of fact, I am sure that inspired the Deputy Leader of the Opposition today to make his valiant efforts. But the point is that on 30th May 1972 the Minister for Repatriation offered to examine any specific matters. On 7th July the Minister received a further letter drawing his attention to the fact that young Australians who volunteered for service in Vietnam were denied the same benefits as those who had been conscripted. The grandson of **Mr Kidd** volunteered in September 1968. After his training at Townsville he listened to a call for volunteers for Vietnam from a **Major Darlington** and another officer who stressed that on discharge the benefits would be the same as those given to national servicemen. The young man reports that, following those addresses, more than 80 per cent of the men on parade volunteered, and in his opinion the repatriation provisions were a strong incentive. When his company arrived at Vung Tau in Vietnam, the company commander told them the same thing and made the point that they were eligible for these benefits after they had served 18 days in Vietnam. The young man reports that on his return to Australia he received the same address and the same impression as to his equal rights when he was in camp at Enoggera. On his discharge he returned home and his father gave him an opportunity to establish himself on a farm. The Development Bank agreed to find the finance, contingent on the resettlement loan which it applied for on his behalf. The Bank then reported that it could not proceed because he was not eligible for the loan; so he lost his opportunity. His grandfather, who is also the pensions officer of his local RSL branch, took the case to the Minister but without result and without the Minister answering the specific question. The Tasmanian State secretary of the RSL however, did break the news that volunteers and Regular soldiers were not eligible for resettlement loans and that even Citizen Military Forces personnel who volunteered for Vietnam were ineligible if they went to Vietnam and were not taken on strength. This surely represents a shameful betrayal of young men who volunteered under Government inducement and in good faith. I ask that a full statement be made by the Minister as to the reasons for this discrimination. I ask that he consider an immediate extension of the benefits. While I am dealing with young Australians who answered the Government's call to go to Vietnam, I want to draw attention to great bitterness among many men who served there because the Australian Government has failed to seek approval for its servicemen to accept and wear the awards of allies and has not followed this matter to its conclusion. It is incredible that in 1972 the only awards made throughout the Vietnam action that the Australian Government has officially sanctioned are those of a country which has remained neutral and has opposed the action. Under the Government's edicts, individuals and even the widows of dead servicemen are not entitled to wear allied awards. Although they may have citations the Australian Army, apparently still in the grip of colonialism, does not list in official Australian records citations of allies. Whatever our views about the involvement of our country in the bloody and tragic struggle in Vietnam, surely it is a duty of the Government, which chose to enter the conflict and which chose to induce young men to serve in it, to ensure that the promises given to them are honoured and also that no colonial hangover prevents them from having recognition of doing the job their Government asked them to do. It can well be summed up in this way: The diggers' bravery has been awarded everywhere but at home. Vietnam has been a tragedy for mankind, and for these young men of whom I have spoken tonight and who heeded this Government's call to arms it -has brought neither just treatment nor recognition. The Minister for Repatriation, the Minister for the Army **(Mr Katter)** and the Minister for Defence **(Mr Fairbairn)** should move to remedy this situation now. {: .speaker-K9L} ##### Mr Garland: -- **Mr Deputy Speaker-** > **Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Lucock)Order!** If the Minister speaks now he will close the debate, but he may ask for leave to speak without closing the debate. {: .speaker-K9L} ##### Mr Garland: -- I seek leave accordingly. Mi DEPUTY SPEAKER-Is leave granted? There being no objection, leave is granted. {: #subdebate-50-0-s1 .speaker-K9L} ##### Mr GARLAND:
Minister for Supply · Curtin · LP -- **Mr Deputy Speaker,** I thank you and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition **(Mr Barnard)** for finding that formula to enable me to speak now. During question time today the Deputy Leader of the Opposition asked me a question which implied that radioactive wastes from the United Kingdom had been flown to Australia and buried at Maralinga in South Australia. Because of the nature of the allegation implicit in his question, I had urgent inquiries made of the Department of Supply. As a result, I have been informed as follows: There is no known foundation for the allegation. All radioactive waste buried at 3 places in Australia - Monte Bello Islands, Emu and Maralinga - resulted from experiments conducted at those places. Relatively small areas at those places were used exclusively for the disposal of waste from experiments in Australia. The places were never intended for the burial of radioactive waste from Britain. No request by the British to bury in Australia waste from their nuclear establishments has been made and certainly no such permission has ever been given. We have monitored the areas, we know what is there and we have discovered nothing unexpected in our monitoring either in nature or quantity. Of course we have never produced nuclear weapons or bombs in Australia. So it is clear that the original radioactive material required for the range of experiments had to be brought from Britain. It is possible that in some cases it arrived by air in lead lined boxes. But what is buried at Maralinga and the other places is purely the radioactive waste from the experiments conducted with this original material. As I indicated this morning, all the radioactive material buried in the Maralinga area is covered by thick layers of concrete and is well below the surface where the risk from casual entry is insignificant. Two of these sites remain in the new Woomera prohibited areas, as gazetted today, and the third, close to the Maralinga airstrip, is adequately fenced so that it can be properly controlled should Maralinga itself ever be used as a centre of population or as a tourist attraction. These sites are not considered dangerous for short term visits. I gave a copy of these remarks to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition after dinner. 1 take this opportunity to advise the House as the information I have just given was not available by the end of the question time today. It might be of interest to honourable members to know - this information was sought of me quite recently by another honourable member - that there were 2 explosions at Emu Field in 1953, and 7 at Maralinga in 1956 and 1957. I think I indicated at question time today, or implied, that it was earlier than that. One of those explosions occurred on 4th October 1956 and, according to the file, no fewer than 23 members of the Parliament were present, including the Leader of the Opposition **(Mr Whitlam)** and 7 members of his Party. I do not by these remarks wish to provoke the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, though I seem to have been able to do so on more than one occasion quite recently. However, he is at the table now and I would be most interested to hear the basis of the allegations and the circumstances which he sees. {: #subdebate-50-0-s2 .speaker-JO8} ##### Mr BARNARD:
Bass -- I have no desire to engage in any controversy on this issue with the Minister for Supply **(Mr Garland).** What I want to do at this stage is to take the opportunity to thank the Minister for at least a very prompt investigation of this matter. I think I ought to point out that I believe the Minister has misunderstood the basis upon which I asked the question because he has used the term allegations and has suggested that allegations were implied in the question. Anyone who reads in Hansard the question that I asked this morning will, 1 think, see at once that I did nothing more than ask for information. I made no charges against the Australian Government, or the British Government or any State department. I simply asked for information. 1 still think there are one or two aspects -of this matter that may need further investigation. As I have said, I wish to express my appreciation to the Minister for his prompt investigation. On some aspects of it I am now satisfied. My information came from a very high source. Naturally I am hot prepared to divulge the. source of that information and I do not think that the Minister for Supply **(Mr Garland)** would want rae to. do so. In any case I have a very vivid memory of what the Government can do to those who it believes have broken the. law, as exemplified over the last two or three days. But my information came from a. source which so far as I was concerned placed me in a position where 1 believed this matter should have been further investigated. For this reason I asked questions seeking information - nothing more. Therefore, I am disappointed that the Minister has chosen to use the expression that I had made certain allegations. In no circumstances can it be suggested that allegations were implied in my question. I asked for information. 1 think if one reads the questions I asked, which will appear in the Hansard tomorrow, it can be seen at once that at least 2 of the questions certainly contained a substance of truth. The Minister has subsequently admitted that lead lined boxes were used to bring to Australia the materials that were subsequently used in the explosion and that these materials would be radioactive after the explosion had been conducted. They were subsequently buried at Maralinga. Apparently they have been buried in an area that was used during the testing by the British Government. The Minister said this morning - this has been proved to be correct - that the area had been covered with thick layers of concrete. I notice that the Minister did not suggest again tonight that radioactive material would last for period of only 20 years. If I quote the Minister correctly he said: 'The danger period would be about 20 years'. {: .speaker-K9L} ##### Mr Garland: -- The expression I used this morning was: "The half life was about 20 years'. {: .speaker-JO8} ##### Mr BARNARD: -- I accept the Minister's explanation in that respect because this is a matter of controversy upon which there would be difference of opinion by those who are regarded as experts in this field. The material could remain radioactive over a very long period. This material has been buried under very heavy concrete. I suppose if the Minister is satisfied that this meets the normal requirements of safety in this respect one must accept his assurance which, I suppose, he has received from his advisers. But 1 believe that it was a matter, in view of the situation that has developed now in that area, particularly in relation to the future of Maralinga, about which a question should have been asked of the Minister. It has been partly cleared as a result of the Minister's explanation tonight. I am not suggesting that the Minister has not supplied an answer that would satisfy this Parliament and the nation. But I warn the Minister that if there are some aspects remaining which I believe are in conflict with what the Minister has said and what I believe to be the real position, I will direct further questions to him. I repeat that I appreciate the prompt attention the Minister gave to what I regard as a very important issue. {: #subdebate-50-0-s3 .speaker-KB8} ##### Mr GILES:
Angas -- I wish to take a few minutes to complete the speech that I tried to fit into 10 minutes the other day in relation to the estimates for the Treasury. I had got to the point of debating the problem of revaluation and was about to refer to the effect of any revaluation on the local scene. I want to say quite clearly from the outset that if honourable members pause to think - of course, the honourable member for Sturt **(Mr Foster),** who is interjecting, could not do that because he has a hollow where he should have grey matter- {: #subdebate-50-0-s4 .speaker-KIH} ##### Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Lucock: -- Order! The honourable member for Angas made an unfortunate choice of words in his opening remarks. He cannot refer in the adjournment debate to a debate that has previously been before the Committee or the House. I therefore suggest that the honourable member for Angas not refer to any previous debate. {: .speaker-KB8} ##### Mr GILES: -- I will relate my remarks to the comments made by the honourable member for Kingston **(Dr Gun),** who dealt with the same subject. {: .speaker-KFO} ##### Mr Foster: -- You cannot do that. {: .speaker-KB8} ##### Mr GILES: -- I certainly can. The issue is quite clearly- {: #subdebate-50-0-s5 .speaker-10000} ##### Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: -Order! The honourable member for Angas cannot tie his remarks to those of the honourable member for Kingston because the honourable member for Kingston spoke prior to the adjournment debate. I suggest that the honourable member for Angas make his remarks on a subject which he can raise on the adjournment debate. {: .speaker-KB8} ##### Mr GILES: -- Can I follow your profound suggestion, **Mr Deputy Speaker,** by taking up a point which I have heard on some occasions and, I think, read in Press reports. Doubts can be expressed as to whether revaluation would cause the level of imports into this country to rise to the detriment of areas such as that represented by the honourable member for Riverina **(Mr Grassby).** For instance, if there is no alteration in the thinking of the Tariff Board there would obviously be a bigger flow into the country of imported wines and brandies and all those goods which would have a price advantage when sold on the Australian market. I have heard it said that there are doubts about whether this is a legitimate argument. But it is an argument which has been propounded from time to time on various matters such as whether agents' markups and merchants' margins would substantiate the hypothesis I have made. One can accept this as a possible alternative because I am not going to say here that one situation is right or that another is wrong. If I did it would be completely against the arguments that I have tried to raise on other occasions. The point that is of great interest to me is that members of the Labor Party say on the one hand, as they have done on many occasions in this House, that there are doubts whether revaluation would create this situation when it is patently clear that the Leader of the Opposition **(Mr Whitlam)** for one, if I might briefly refer to Press reports, does not agree with that proposition. Let us see precisely what occurred on a recent television programme. He was asked, in relation to inflation, and in reference to the Reserve Bank's statement the other day, whether he would endorse what it had to say about inflation being reduced by revaluing the dollar. The Leader of the Opposition is reputed to have said on television in answer to that question: >Yes. I agree with that entirely. So he is saying, contrary to other remarks I have heard from time to time, that he agrees that inflation could be controlled by the mechanism of revaluation. Goods coming into the Australian market from overseas would be imported in greater volumes. No matter where we have heard these things, whether on television, over the air, in this House or in one debate or another, they have been said repeatedly. In passing, I just say that there is an awful spirit of discord in the minds of Opposition members on this issue. The honourable member for Riverina **(Mr Grassby)** says one thing. The honourable member for Dawson **(Dr Patterson)** says approximately the other thing and their leader completely disagrees with them. {: .speaker-KFO} ##### Mr Foster: -- And the Government does nothing. {: .speaker-KB8} ##### Mr GILES: -- I can say and the honourable member for Sturt can say more or less what we like on this matter because no one is going to take very much notice, particularly of the honourable member for Sturt. However, when leaders of a Party say this, it has some validity with the result that country towns such as Murray Bridge, Renmark, Berri and towns in the Barossa Valley - towns which have been founded on export industries - can be put to the wall by this sort of statement. In some ways, they can be put to the wall even without any action by a national leader of that stature. Very often they can be put to the wall by lack of confidence in some of the trading, exporting and commercial fields of this country. The honourable member for Sturt asked me something about a letter about which I know nothing. But I would like to quote from an editorial which appeared some time ago in a newspaper which is published in my electorate. The article is headed Government Blunder' and it says this: >The unpredictable Dunstan Government has badly misjudged the qualities of the South Australian public. By its blatant disregard of public opinion and wanton waste of taxpayers' money in the recent instance of paying a union official's $7,000 (or will it be $11,000) fine- I think costs might be a better word: the Government has 'brought down the house' on its head. By the volume of public protest- Throughout my electorate- the Government's stupidity may even cost it the next election. At the very least it will certainly lose it plenty of votes. Governments are expected to govern democratically and mete out equal treatment to all sections of the community. Pandering to unions- As it is controlled by them- - as the Dunstan Government 'has done in the case of **Mr Dunford,** is, to say the. least, distasteful and unpalatable to the majority of the community. A deplorable political blunder has been excused and fobbed off as 'being in the public interest'. Surely this feeble explanation is fooling no one. The question many people are asking is . . . Who is running the State, the Government or the Trades Hall? Irresponsible use of public funds is a most serious matter, in fact almost a criminal act and no sane, thinking community will ever condone it. Helping one section of the public (the unions) at. the expense of others is not justified and can never be tolerated. The AWU does not come out of this matter in good light either. Why did it leave its top official (with a gaol term facing him) in jeopardy for so long? Why was no attempt made to levy union members to pay **Mr Dunford's** fine?? The point at issue quite clearly is whether or not governments - in this case, it happens to be a government of the opposite political opinion to mine - should use taxpayers funds and, having done so, whether or not it was subject to pressure in .so doing. The issue is whether governments should not stand apart and inviolate from these actions and not intrude on domestic matters that should be divorced from political activity. I hope I have given the honourable member for Sturt something to chew on in regard to this matter and I will be most interested to hear whether he has any reply to make. I have heard him speak once before with a minimum of effect. I will finish my speech by reading from a piece of paper passed to me a little while ago from a member of the Opposition. I shall not name anyone. The paper reads: When there is nothing more to be said some fool will always say it. {: #subdebate-50-0-s6 .speaker-KFO} ##### Mr FOSTER:
Sturt -- May I quote from a certain left-wing radical newspaper - an agricultural document which is circulated in the country areas of South Australia, particularly in the areas represented by the honourable member for Angas **(Mr Giles)** who has just resumed his seat? The article is written by somebody under the name of The Magpie. Of course, the honourable member knows who The Magpie is. He knows that he served in the Legislative Council of South Australia. If the honourable member for Angas does not remember that, he wil know that the fellow who wrote this article under the name of The Magpie is a close relative of one of his colleagues. I shall now quote from this paper. It states: >Finally did you read the following comment made by **Mr Anthony?** 'Probably the most insulting remark of all made by the Leader of the Opposition in relation to currency appreciation was that tariffs were too high and should be reduced'. > >I wonder how CP candidates are going to explain to the fenner voters why the hero of their party insults so easy? Surely if he was the farmers' friend' he should be agreeing with **Mr Whitlam?** I do not propose to talk about what the honourable member for Angas has spoken of tonight. I will enter into debate with him on the basis of industrial relations because the Minister for Labour and National Service **(Mr Lynch)** is at the table at the moment. During the course of this week the Government attempted to introduce a type of debate, if you could refer to it in that way, under the heading of a Ministerial statement by none other than the Prime Minister **(Mr McMahon)** who is praying to be re-elected. That reminds me of a story, **Mr Deputy Speaker.** On one occasion a member in this House decided to send one of the members of his Party into Victoria to sound out the Catholic vote prior to a by-election. When that chap came back to Canberra he said to him: How did we go?' The reply was: 'Most certainly they are going to pray for you but they are damn well not going to vote for you.' That may well be the case so far as the Prime Minister is concerned. Turning now to the question of a 35-hour working week and industrial relations and, if you really would like a debate in this House, the matter of the dispute on Kangaroo Island, 10 minutes would not suffice to expose the rotten hand of both the Federal and the State oppositions in prolonging that dispute in the lousy political interests of the 2 warring factions within the Liberal Party in South Australia. The honourable member for Angas referred a short time ago to the political complexion of the South Australian Government. He could not refer to the political complexion of the anti-Labor Opposition in South Australia because it represents 2 quite wide differences of opinion, neither of them knowing where they are going. Steele Hall stood up in the State House one day and said that he had decided to resign as Leader of the Opposition over a non-issue. The South Australian Premier decided: 'This isn't bad, is it? We'll give that person who has just resigned an office to himself. We'll give him a couple of female employees and 4 telephones.' All that Steele Hall had to do was sit there and try to grab the 4 telephones in both hands. The split widened and the 4 telephones are still there. So much for the political complexion of the State Opposition in South Australia. Returning again to the question of industrial relations, the dispute to which the honourable member for Angas referred was prolonged. Let me ask the honourable member: Who got the $7,000 or $11,000 or $9,000? People of his political complexion who put the money up for one of the lousiest industrial intrigues that this country has seen since almost the turn of the century got the money. And Woolley, the person concerned, was being pushed to repay the money that came from the hip pockets of the honourable member's colleagues. He knows that well. How much the honourable member put in I do not know; that is his business. Let us have that straight. Why did not the honourable member tell this House how many members from Kangaroo Island seeking political endorsement, either for the Liberal-Country League or the Liberal Movement, had sent representations to Canberra - the Minister will deny this - to talk to their opposite numbers in this place about how far the dispute should be carried? Did not the oil industry dispute have shadows of the same type of confrontation? What about the agreement, **Mr Minister,** in your nice apricot coloured shirt and your white tie? You almost committed white collar crime by the manner in which you carried on prior to last Christmas, did you not? If not you, the officers of your Department or somebody that you had stooged along. Maybe you did a little bit of ballot rigging yourself in your day in order to get into this place. You locked out delegates who cast votes in regard to your preselection for this place. We can all be dirty if we want to, **Mr Deputy Speaker.** {: .speaker-KB8} ##### Mr Giles: -- What are you talking about, Norm? {: .speaker-KFO} ##### Mr FOSTER: -- He knows. Let him get up next week on the adjournment. He knows that he has done it. He knows that his mate, or his previous mate, in Adelaide, Steele Hall, is now saying to the Liberal Party in South Australia: 'Listen, our ballots have been so crook for so long that I insist that we go to the local returning officer for future ballots within the Liberal Party'. I do not know why he did not say that the Liberals ought to have court controlled ballots, that being the phrase which the Minister for Labour and National Service, who is at the table, has so often been parroting. Let me come back to the fact that the Minister or someone on his behalf attempted to sabotage the agreement between the maritime industry and the employers. The Minister knows that this is true. I went to the Minister's office one day at the invitation of an officer of his Department. The Minister can deny that, if he will. I think that the Minister was sitting somewhere in that office and probably heard the conversation that took place. I will not name the officer concerned. However, he attempted to get me to say to certain areas in the maritime industry: 'Look, the Government is going to take you on*. Does the Minister remember this? The Minister sits at the table and will not raise his head. He knows that this is true. The Minister's role in the field of industrial relations has been absolutely and extremely shocking. In the few minutes left to me I would like to comment on the speech that the honourable member for Angas made about inflation. Inflation effects the lower wage earners and the battlers more than it affects anyone else in the community. Inflation in this country is of the Government's own making. The Government is guilty as hell and its supporters know it. The Treasurer **(Mr Snedden)** has admitted this as has the Prime Minister whose admission is now on the record book in a number of places in this country. Yet the honourable member for Angas has come along and talked about devaluation, revaluation - call it what you like. However, someone else will call the tune on this subject as others have called the tune in the past for the Government. This fact was evident even in the television programme 'Frost Over Australia' in which the Deputy Prime Minister **(Mr Anthony)** appeared the other night. The Government has created this situation, it has created a monster. Supporters of the Government have come into this House as absolute hypocrites. **Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Lucock)Order!** I suggest that the honourable member for Sturt moderate some of his comments. {: .speaker-KFO} ##### Mr FOSTER: -- Well, I do not knowperhaps they are not hypocrites. Have they actually conned themselves into believing that they stand for a policy of full employment? I think they have. I thank you for correcting me, **Mr Deputy** Speaker; they are not hypocrites. They believe they are right in this when actually they are so far wrong that it does not matter. The Government has subjected half a million people in this country to living below the poverty line. If the Prime Minister is fair dinkum and has any courage at ali in accepting Professor Henderson as the head of his inquiry into poverty, having read Professor Henderson's book and having noted that the take home pay of a little over $50 constitutes the poverty line, why does not he bring in a measure to lift over half a million people, including 100,000 unemployed persons and their dependants, above the poverty line? The amount of the unemployment benefit is well below the poverty line. The Government has the effrontery to say that the Budget provides for fares to be paid to people who travel to look for work. This is not so. A person receives payment for fares only if he has not been able to find a job, and the fare provided is the amount required for his transport home. This is what is spelt our in the fine print as I see it. You have gone crook on me, **Mr Deputy Speaker,** because I used the word 'hypocrite'. I thank you for correcting me because they are not hypocrites; they are just misguided, misled, foolish men. The Ministers who sit on the front bench should be referred to as the manipulators. They have nothing to learn from the Pentagon across the Pacific in giving out information about what happens in Viet nam. They use the same type of gobbledegook but they will not put it over the electors this time. The people of Australia have made up their minds and the Government is gone for sure. I was glad to see some honourable members opposite trotting into the Opposition Party room tonight to see what it is like. {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: -- Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Question resolved in the affirmative. House adjourned at 11.44 p.m. {: .page-start } page 1510 {:#debate-51} ### ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS UPON NOTICE The following answers to questions upon notice were circulated: {:#subdebate-51-0} #### International Conventions (Question No. 5834) {: #subdebate-51-0-s0 .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr Whitlam: asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice: >Will he bring up to date and consolidate the Information on international conventions which the then Minister and he himself have given on 12th June 1970 (Hansard, page 3595) and 18th August 1971 (Hansard, page 279). {: #subdebate-51-0-s1 .speaker-JRN} ##### Mr N H Bowen:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: >The list of international conventions has been brought up to date but an examination of the amount of work necessary to consolidate the information has indicated that it would involve considerable time and expense which would not be warranted, particularly since the list was consolidated as recently as 1970. > >In relation to Part A of the answer given by my predecessor, on 12th June 1970 and of my answer of 18th August 1971, the following information is provided in relation to international conventions drawn up under the auspices of the General Assembly of the United Nations and of the Specialised Agencies: > >Convention on Liability for Damage caused by Objects Launched into Outer Space. > >This Convention was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on 29th November 1971 and Australia supported it. Australia has not signed the Convention but this question is under consideration. It has not yet entered into force. > >Treaty on the Prohibition of the Emplacement of Nuclear Weapons and other Weapons of Mass Destruction on the Seabed and the Ocean Floor and in the Subsoil thereof. > >This Treaty entered into force on 18th May 1972. > >Convention on the Prohibition of the development, production and stockpiling of bacteriological (biological) and toxic weapons and on their destruction. > >This Convention was drawn up under the auspices of the General Assembly on 16th December 1971. Australia signed the Convention on 10th April 1972 and the question of Australia's becoming a party to it is under consideration. The Convention has not yet entered into force. > >Item Nos 56, 61 and 86. > >The question of Australia's becoming a party to these Conventions is presently under consideration. > >Item No. 84. > >Australia became a party to this Convention on 15th June 1972. > >Item No. 98. > >Australia has ratified this Convention and will be a party as from 12th December 1972. > >Items Nos 104 and 105. > >The Conventions entered into force on 19th January 1972 and 27th May 1972 respectively. > >Minimum Wage Fixing Convention No. 131 1970, adopted at Geneva 22nd June 1970, entered into force on 29th April 1972. > >Hague Convention for the Suppression of the Unlawful Seizure of Aircraft. > >The Convention entered into force on 14th October 1971. > >Protocol of Amendment to Article 50(A) of the Convention on International Civil Aviation (Chicago 1944) 12th March 1971, New York. > >Australia deposited its Instrument of Ratification on 15th December 1971. The Protocol has not yet entered into force. > >Montreal Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the Safety of Civil Aviation. > >This Convention was drawn up under the auspices of the International Civil Aviation Organisation at Montreal on 23rd September 1971 and Australia supported it. Australia has not signed this Convention. The Convention has not yet entered into force. The question of Australia's becoming a party to this Convention is under consideration. > >Protocol of Amendment of Article 56 of the Convention on International Civil Aviation. > >This Protocol was drawn up at Vienna on 7th February 1971 and Australia supported it. Australia has not yet signed the Protocol but this question is under consideration. It has not yet entered into force. > >Convention for the Protection of Producers of Phonograms against Unauthorised Duplication of their Phonograms. > >This Convention was drawn up on 29th October 1971 under the auspices of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation and the World Intellectual Property Organisation. The Convention has not yet entered into force. Australia supported its adoption. The question of Australia's becoming a party to the Convention is under consideration. > >Additional Protocol to the Constitution of the Universal Postal Union and other related Instruments, opened for signature on 14th November 1969. Australia deposited its Instrument of Ratification on 12th November 1971. > >The following Conventions were drawn up under the auspices of the InterGovernmental Maritime Consultative Organisation: > >1971 Amendments to the International Convention on Prevention of Pollution of the Sea by Oil 1954 (as amended 1962). > >These amendments were drawn up at London on 12th and 15th October 1971 and Australia supported them. The Convention as amended has not yet entered into force. The question of Australia's becoming a party to it is under consideration. > >1969 Amendments to the Convention on Facilitation of International Maritime Traffic 1965. > >These Amendments were drawn up at London in 1969 and Australia supported them. The Convention as amended, entered into force on 12th August 1971 and the question of Australia's becoming a party to it is under consideration. > >1971 Amendments to the International Convention on Load Lines 1966. > >These Amendments were drawn up at London on 12th October 1971 and Australia supported them. The Convention as amended has not yet entered into force. The question of Australia's becoming a party to it is under consideration. > >1971 Amendments to the International Convention for Safety of Life at Sea 1960. > >These Amendments were drawn up at London on 12th October 1971. The amended Convention has not yet entered into force. The question of Australia's becoming a party to the amended Convention is under consideration. > >Special Trade Passenger Ships Agreement 1971. > >This Agreement was drawn up at London on 6th October 1971. The Agreement has not yet entered into force. Australia was not represented at the conference at which the Agreement was drawn up. > >Convention relating to Civil Liability in the field of Maritime Carriage of Nuclear Material. > >This Convention was drawn up at Brussels on 17th December 1971. Australia abstained in the vote by which the Convention was adopted. The Convention has not yet entered into force. > >Convention on the Establishment of an International Fund for Compensation for Oil Pollution Damage. > >This Convention was drawn up on 18th December 1971 and Australia supported it. Australia has not signed the Convention and the question of Australia's becoming a party to it is under consideration. The Convention has not yet entered into force. > >In relation to part C of the answer given by my predecessor on 12th June 1970 and of my answer of 18th August 1971 the following information is provided: > >Item No. 2 - to column headed 'Parties' add: India > >Palestine delete: Austria > >Note should read: Denmark and France are not parties to the Additional Protocol and India has denounced the Convention. > >Item No. 4 - to column headed 'Parties' add: Surinam > >Curacao delete: Lebanon > >Malagasy Republic (iii)Item No. 8 - to column headed 'Parties' add: Poland > >Item No. 11 - to column headed 'Parties' add: Yugoslavia delete: Lebanon Malagasy Republic {: type="a" start="v"} 0. Item No. 12 - to column headed 'Parties' add: Northern Ireland Syria delete: Lebanon Malagasy Republic {: type="i" start="vi"} 0. Item No. 17 - column headed 'Parties' delete: Yugoslavia 1. Item No. 18 - date in first column should read: 1925 {: type="i" start="viii"} 0. Item No. 20 - to column headed 'Parties' add: India 1. Item No. 22 - column headed 'Parties' delete: Romania 2. Item No. 23 - Column headed 'Parties' delete: Malagasy Republic Morocco {: type="i" start="xi"} 0. Hague Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Seizure of Aircraft. This Convention was drawn up at the Hague on 16th December 1970. The following countries are parties to the Convention: Brazil, Bulgaria, Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic, Chile, Czechoslovak Socialist Republic, Ecuador, Dahomey, Gabon, Germany, Hungary, Iran, Israel, Japan, Mali, Niger, Panama, Paraguay, Poland, Sweden, Switzerland, Trinidad and Tobago, Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, United Kingdom, United States of America. The Convention entered into force on 14th October 1971. Australia signed the Convention on 15th June 1971 and steps are being taken for Australia to ratify it. Note - Information on transport conventions listed under paragraphs (ix), (x), (xi), (xii) and (xv)(a) to (g) of Part A is also applicable to PartC. In relation to Part D of the answer given by my predecessor on 12th June 1970 and of my answer of 18th August 1971, the following information is provided: {: type="i" start="i"} 0. Protocol extending the Arrangment regarding International Trade in Cotton Textiles. This Protocol was adopted under the auspices of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade at Geneva on 15th June 1970. Australia accepted the Protocol on 21th October 1970. It entered into force on 10th October 1970. 1. Item No. 25 Australia deposited its Instrument of Accession on 2nd May 1972. {: type="i" start="iii"} 0. Asian Oceanic Postal Convention, opened tor signature at Kyoto on 17th November 1969. Australia deposited its Instrument of Ratification on 3rd November 1971. 1. Items Nos 49, 50, 51, 55 Australia deposited its Instruments of Accession to these Conventions on 10th May 1972. The Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works (1886) was further revised in Paris in July 1971. Australia supported the revision, but has neither signed nor adhered to the text. The question of Australia's becoming a party is under consideration. The Convention, as revised, at Paris has not yet entered into force. {: type="a" start="v"} 0. Strasbourg Agreement concerning the International Patent Classification. This Agreement was drawn up under the auspices of the World Intellectual Property Organisation at Strasbourg on 24th March 1971. It has not yet entered into force. Australia supported the drawing up of the Agreement. The question of Australia's becoming a party is under consideration. {: type="i" start="vi"} 0. Convention on the Conservation of Antarctic Seals. This Convention was drawn up under the auspices of the Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research at London on 11th February 1972. The question of Australia's signing the Convention is under consideration. It has not yet entered into force. {: type="i" start="vii"} 0. Agreement Relating to the International Telecommunications Satellite Organisation, Intelsat' and Operating Agreement. These agreements were drawn up under the auspices of the 'Interim Communications Satellite Committee' on 20th August 1971. They have not yet entered into force. Australia supported the drawing up of the agreements and signed them, without reservation as to ratification, on 20th August 1971. {:#subdebate-51-1} #### Non-Aligned Countries Conference at Georgetown (Question No. 6049) {: #subdebate-51-1-s0 .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr Whitlam: asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice: >Which countries attended the 4th conference of non-aligned countries in Georgetown in August 1972 (Hansard, 20th October 1970, page 2528). {: #subdebate-51-1-s1 .speaker-JRN} ##### Mr N H Bowen:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: >The following countries participated in the 4th conference of non-aligned countries in Georgetown in August 1972: Afghanistan, Algeria, Bahrain, Botswana, Burma, Burundi, Cameroun, Central African Republic, Chile, Congo (Brazzaville), Cuba, Cyprus, Egypt (Arab Republic of), Ethiopa, Ghana, Guinea, Guyana, India, Indonesia, Iraq, Jamaica, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Laos, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Libya, Malagasy Republic, Malawi, Malaysia, Mali, Mauritania, Mauritius, Morocco, Nepal, Nigeria, People's Democratic Republic of Yemen, Rwanda, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Somalia, Singapore, Sri Lanka (Ceylon), Sudan, Swaziland, Syria, Tanzania, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Uganda, Yemen Arab Republic, United Arab Emirates, Yugoslavia, Zaire, Zambia. In addition, a delegation representing the Pekingbased government-in-exile of the former Cambodian leader, Prince Sihanouk, and a delegation representing the Provisional Revolutionary Government of South Vietnam, were admitted as members of the conference. The following countries attended as observers: Argentina, Austria, Barbados, Bolivia, Brazil, Colombia, Ecuador, Mexico, Peru, Uruguay, Venezuela. Representatives of the following organisations attended: African National Council (Rhodesia) Afro-Asian People's Solidarity Organisation Arab League Front for the Liberation of Mozambique (FRELIMO) Palestine Liberation Organisation Puerto Rican Socialist Party Pan Africanist Congress of Azania (South Africa) South West African People's Organisation (Namibia) United Nations {:#subdebate-51-2} #### Defence Orders: United States of America (Question No. 6060) {: #subdebate-51-2-s0 .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr Whitlam: asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. What was the (a) value and (b) general nature of the defence orders placed by the United States of America in Australia and processed by his Department in 1971-72. 1. Can he say what was the (a) value and (b) general nature of any defence orders placed direct on industry in Australia by the United States of America in that year. (Hansard, 28 September 1971, page 1599). {: #subdebate-51-2-s1 .speaker-KDT} ##### Mr Fairbairn:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. (a)$0.680m. {: type="a" start="b"} 0. Refined sugar. 1. Complete records are not available of orders placed direct on industry by overseas countries, however, some information on defence contracts placed by United States sources is available and the details are as follows - In addition, several contracts have been placed for civil aircraft components, as the result of offset arrangements resulting from overseas purchases. {:#subdebate-51-3} #### Banana Growing: Pest Control (Question No. 6251.) {: #subdebate-51-3-s0 .speaker-8V4} ##### Mr Grassby: asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice: In view of claims in the New South Wales banana industry that diazinon is not giving effective control of weevil borers, will he call for a further report on the use of the chemical Terracur P to control dieldrin resistant borers in bananas, and of the chemical Nemacur for the control of nematodes with which it has been suggested weevil borer damage in bananas has been associated. {: #subdebate-51-3-s1 .speaker-5E4} ##### Mr Sinclair:
CP -- The answer to the honourable members question is as follows: The product Terracur p is currently being evaluated in the banana growing areas of New South Wales for the control of the banana weevil borer. Likewise, Nemacur p is being evaluated for the control of nematodes which adversely affect bananas. Trials with these chemicals are being conducted by the Department of Agriculture, New South Wales, and by the chemical manufacturer. The manufacturer advises that the preliminary indications for both products are promising but it is yet too early to judge whether either product will adequately control the pests under typical conditions in Northern New South Wales. There appears to be some response following the application of the chemical but control of the weevil borer is less dramatic than that originally obtained with dieldrin. It should be recognised that although Terracur p is marketed in some overseas countries for the control of banana weevil borers, the conditions in these countries are quite unlike those prevailing in New South Wales and it is therefore essential that satisfactory performance is confirmed under local conditions before a recommendation can be made for its use in Australia. At the present time, the manufacturers and the Department of Agriculture consider that Terracur p and Nemacur p require further evaluation under local conditions. Trial work with both products will continue. Terracur p is based on the organophosphorus insecticide fensulfothion which is extremely toxic to man, animals and wildlife. The toxicity of the chemical is so high that the most critical assessment will be required before any recommendation can be made for its safe use. In accordance with established procedures it will be necessary for the products to be approved by the Technical Committee on Agricultural Chemicals and registered by the Department of Agriculture before they are offered for sale. Human health aspects of the products will also need to be considered by the National Health and Medical Research Council. To date, no submission has been made to any of these authorities by the manufacturer. {:#subdebate-51-4} #### Feed Wheat (Question No. 6290) {: #subdebate-51-4-s0 .speaker-KEC} ##### Mr Kennedy: asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice: What was the (a) quantity and (b) value of feed wheat (i) sold within Australia and (ii) exported in each year and in total from 1969-70 to the latest date for which figures are readily available. {: #subdebate-51-4-s1 .speaker-5E4} ##### Mr Sinclair:
CP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The Australian Wheat Board maintains records of wheat sold by it for stockfeed on the domestic market. It is not fully informed on the end uses of wheat sold for export. It understands that some fair average quality wheat purchased by some export markets from time to time has been used for stockfeed but no relevant statistical data are available. On the other hand some off-grade wheat exported may have been used in milling grists although purchases would have been made primarily for stockfeed. The following tabulation has been provided by the Board: {: type="a" start="a"} 0. Domestic sales of wheat for stockfeed: {: type="a" start="b"} 0. Export sales of off-grade wheat: {:#subdebate-51-5} #### Portable Pensions (Question No. 6293) {: #subdebate-51-5-s0 .speaker-RK4} ##### Mr Hayden: asked the Minister for Social Services, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Did he state on 13th April 1972 that Australia does not want the position where a person can come hers for a short time, qualify for an Australian pension and take it home with him without having really contributed to the prosperity and progress of Australia. 1. If so. at what point in terms of time does he consider a migrant has really, contributed to the prosperity and progress of Australia and has qualified for portable pension rights. {: #subdebate-51-5-s1 .speaker-DB6} ##### Mr Wentworth:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. yes. 1. As indicated in my Speech of 13th April 1972, the Social Services Act provides that the residence qualification for portable pension rights is 20 years after reaching the age of 16 years. This is waived where permanent incapacity for work, or widowhood, occurs during permanent residence in Australia. {:#subdebate-51-6} #### Pensioners: Weekly Incomes (Question No. 6301) {: #subdebate-51-6-s0 .speaker-6V4} ##### Mr Daly: asked the Minister for Social Services, upon notice: >How many persons in receipt of (a) age, 01 invalid, and (c) widows' pensions have (i) no other income and (10 additional weekly incomes of (A) $1, (B) $2, (C) $3, (D) $4, (E) $5, (F) $6, (G) $7, (H) $8, (I) $9 and (J) $10 and over. {: #subdebate-51-6-s1 .speaker-DB6} ##### Mr Wentworth:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: >Statistics are not maintained of pensioners according to the rate of their weekly income. However, estimates are available of pensioners in selected ranges of weekly income and are set out in the table hereunder. These estimates are based on a survey of the characteristics of pensioners in New South Wales and Victoria in June 1972 and exclude income which is not taken into account in assessing the amount of pension entitlement. {: .page-start } page 1514 {:#debate-52} ### ESTIMATES OF PENSIONERS BY TYPE OF PENSION BY SELECTED RANGES OF WEEKLY INCOME- AUGUST 1972 {:#subdebate-52-0} #### Unemployment: Registrations (Question No. 6300) {: #subdebate-52-0-s0 .speaker-6V4} ##### Mr Daly: asked the Minister for Labour and National Service, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. How many (a) males and (b) females are registered for employment at (i) Newtown and (ii) Leichhardt, Sydney. 1. What are the ages of those registered in each case. 2. How many (a) males and (b) females were registered at those offices on the same date in 1971. {: #subdebate-52-0-s1 .speaker-KIM} ##### Mr Lynch:
Minister for Labour and National Service · FLINDERS, VICTORIA · LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1), (2) and (3) The numbers of males and females registered as unemployed at the Newtown and Leichhardt District Employment Offices of the Commonwealth Employment Service at endJuly 1972 and end-July 1971 are shown below. Separate statistics by age are not available. However separate statistics for adults and juniors (persons under 21) are compiled and these are shown. It should be noted that job seekers in the metropolitan area do not necessarily seek or obtain employment in the district in which they live, with the result that the numbers registered in any metropolitan district employment office usually include some job seekers who reside beyond the area served by the district office. Furthermore, the areas served by a district office are determined by the operational requirements of the Commonwealth Employment Service and do nol necessarily correspond with electoral or municipal boundaries. Thus the area served by the Newtown district office covers, in addition to the Municipality of Newtown, the Muncipality of Northcote and part of the Municipality of Marrickville; similarly the area served by the Leichhardt district office covers, in addition to the Municipality of Leichhardt, the Municipalities of Ashfield and Drummoyne and part of the Municipality of Marrickville. Care should be taken therefore in interpreting these figures. NUMBER OP UNEMPLOYED PERSONS (a) REGISTERED AT NEWTOWN AND LEICHHARD DISTRICT EMPLOYMENT OFFICES AT END-JULY J972 AND END-JULY 1971 {:#subdebate-52-1} #### Army Personnel: Housing (Question No. 6329) {: #subdebate-52-1-s0 .speaker-KEC} ##### Mr Kennedy: asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. In what way will housing for Army personnel be improved through the $10m, which he stated on 5th April 1972, would be spent on improving this housing. 1. What plans are there to use portion of this sum on Army housing at (a) Puckapunyal, (b) Bendigo and (c) Monegeeta. {: #subdebate-52-1-s1 .speaker-KDT} ##### Mr Fairbairn:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. The first part of his question is answered by my statement on 5tb April 1972 when I announced that the Government had approved significant improvements in the scales and standards of housing for married servicemen. The house size range for a new 3 bedroom brick veneer has increased from 1,050-1,200 square feet to 1,100-1,400 square feet. In addition, improvements to internal features include built-in wardrobes in each bedroom and additional cupboard space in the kitchen arid laundry and for linen and cloaks. Ceiling insulation, a shower recess, sanding and sealing of floors, light fittings and window blinds would also be included. Additional concrete areas would be provided for carports. The S10m to $12m to which I referred was the estimated cost of improvements to existing dwellings and to new houses contemplated for construction over about the next 3 years. I also stated that many of the houses provided for servicemen were obtained through arrangements between the Commonwealth and the respective States between 1956 and 1966 and that these lacked features which were now considered n.cessary. I said it was intended to commence discussions wilh the Stales with a view to bringing the internal fixtures and fittings in those dwellings into line with the new standards so far as this was reasonably practicable. I can now add that the Commonwealth has been negotiating with the States' housing authorities and it is expected that improvements will commence during 1972-73. 1. There are Commonwealth owned houses at Puckapunyal, Bendigo and Monegeeta and State owned houses have been provided at Seymour for the Puckapunyal establishment and at .Bendigo. Any improvements required to the Commonwealth owned houses will be arranged by the Department of the Army through the Department of Works. Improvements to the State owned houses at Seymour and Bendigo are now the subject of Commonwealth/State discussions with a view to the State housing authorities undertaking improvements this financial year. {:#subdebate-52-2} #### Service Bases: Official Guests (Question No. 6128) {: #subdebate-52-2-s0 .speaker-JO8} ##### Mr Barnard: asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. In which of the Services are numbers required to pay for the entertainment of official guests visiting Service bases? 1. Will he consider changing this practice so that these expenses are charged to the Services involved? {: #subdebate-52-2-s1 .speaker-KDT} ##### Mr Fairbairn:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. The provisions for reimbursement of entertainment expenses of official guests visiting Service bases are the same in all 3 Services. In each case, claims may be made for defined official entertainment expenses, through cither a Command Entertainment Fund, or through a Service Me.ss, depending on the nature of the entertainment provided. 1. In view of these common provision, no change to the present practice is considered to be necessary. {:#subdebate-52-3} #### Deserted Wives (Question No. 6172) {: #subdebate-52-3-s0 .speaker-ZE4} ##### Mr Lionel Bowen:
KINGSFORD-SMITH, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP asked the Minister for Social Services, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. How many deserted wives in New South Wales are receiving pensions. 1. What sum was paid in respect of these pensions in 1971-72. 2. At what stage does the Commonwealth accept responsibility for the payment. 3. How many wives of prison inmates in New South Wales are receiving pensions. 4. What sum was paid to these women in 1971-72 by (a) the Commonwealth, (b) the State of New South Wales. {: #subdebate-52-3-s1 .speaker-DB6} ##### Mr Wentworth:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: >A wife who has been deserted by her husband without just cause or whose husband has been imprisoned, may qualify for Commonwealth widow's pension 6 months after the date of her husband's desertion or imprisonment. During the initial period of 6 months such a woman may be assisted by the State Government if she has one or more children and is suffering hardship. Under the States Grants (Deserted Wives) Act, 1968, the Commonwealth reimburses the States half the cost of assistance provided to such mothers or half the amount of widow's pension which would have been payable had they been qualified to receive it, whichever ls the less. In the light of the above, the information sought by the honourable member is as follows: > >The number of deserted wives in New South Wales in receipt of Commonwealth widow's pension at 30th June 1972 was 8,317. Of these, 6,981 were receiving Class A widow's pension and 1,336 Class B widow's pension. The New South Wales Department of Child Welfare and Social Welfare has advised that at the same date State assistance was being paid to 1,257 deserted wives with children. > >Expenditure by the Commonwealth on widows' pensions is not maintained separately for each category of widow. Similarly, separate records are not maintained by the States of the amount of assistance provided for each category of persons assisted. > >Commonwealth widow's pension foi deserted wives commences from the pay-day following the date they become qualified for the pension or from the pay-day following the date they lodge a claim, whichever is the later. > >At 301h June 1972 Commonwealth widow's pension was being paid to 171 wives of prison inmates in New South Wales. Of this number 167 were receiving Class A widow's pension and 4 Class B widow's pension. The New South Wales Department of Child Welfare and Social Welfare has advised that at the same date State assistance was being paid to 197 wives of prison inmates with children. > >See answer to question (2) above. {:#subdebate-52-4} #### Unemployment Benefit (Question No. 6189) {: #subdebate-52-4-s0 .speaker-RK4} ##### Mr Hayden: asked the Minister for Social Services, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Has his attention been drawn to Staff Instruction 693 of 14lh July 1972 emanating from the Social Security Branch of the Brisbane Office of his Department and relating to payment of unemployment benefit to persons residing at the Salvation Army Home, 58 Glenrosa Road, Red Hill. 1. If so, under what authority was the arbitrary decision made to limit residents of the Salvation Army Home to a maximum of 2 weeks unemployment benefit. 2. At what other homes or institutions throughout Australia has this practice or a variant of the practice been applied and on what grounds was the action taken. 3. Why has this repressive discrimination been applied against a low status group who are most unlikely to be able to defend: their position or demand redress. 4. Are there any proposals to apply the same sort of repressive discrimination and arbitrary punitive measures against middle class householders drawing on unemployment benefits; if not, why have the low status people been specially separated. {: #subdebate-52-4-s1 .speaker-DB6} ##### Mr Wentworth:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. to (5) The Salvation Army Home, 58 Glenrosa Road, Red Hill, is similar in nature to a number of establishments throughout Australia which are mainly concerned with persons undergoing rehabilitation. As an essential part of their rehabilitation, persons residing in the home are required to work. Some are employed at domestic and garden duties and others are employed at salvage work for the Salvation Army. While I applaud the value to the community of the work of the Salvation Army in this field, it is not possible under the provisions of the Social Services Act for my Department to grant an unemployment benefit to a person who is employed. However, every effort is being made to co-operate with the Salvation Army and assist in its Rehabilitation programme wherever possible. {:#subdebate-52-5} #### Portable Pensions Rights (Question No. 6294) {: #subdebate-52-5-s0 .speaker-RK4} ##### Mr Hayden: asked the Minister for Social Services, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Did he state on 13th April 1972 (Hansard, page 1659) that some countries allow age pensioners or their equivalents in those countries to bring full pension rights with them to Australia. 1. If so, which countries permit this to be done and do these pensioners receive automatic cover for the portability of age pension in the terms referred to in his speech. {: #subdebate-52-5-s1 .speaker-DB6} ##### Mr Wentworth:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. I said that some countries allow former residents to bring their pensions with them to Australia. 1. Countries which allow their age pensions or equivalent pensions to be paid in Australia include Britain, Cyprus, Greece, Italy and Malta. Other countries continue the pensions of nationals who have gone abroad, provided there is a reciprocal agreement, e.g. Yugoslavia. Again, certain countries continue payment abroad to nationals while aliens abroad qualify if there is a reciprocal agreement between the 2 countries. This is the position with respect to France and the Federal Republic of Germany. The legislation for portability of Australian pensions requires that there be an agreement between Australia and the other country before the provisions of the legislation become effective. *'7*

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 14 September 1972, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1972/19720914_reps_27_hor80/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant