1967-05-03 26 1 1 REPS 1641 0 Mr ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Lucock)took the chair at 2.30 p.m., and read prayers. CIVIL AVIATION Mr WEBB- I address a question to the Minister for Civil Aviation. Is there a curfew on the movement of jet aircraft at Sydney and Melbourne airports because of the noise? Is it difficult to introduce a curfew at Perth airport because international flights through Perth arrive and depart in the early morning? As Perth can expect more jet services in the future, and possibly bigger and noisier jet aircraft, what consideration is being given to reducing the noise nuisance at that airport? Will consideration be given to building a new airport away from built-up areas? Mr SWARTZ-The answer to the latter part of the question is that no consideration will be given to the construction of another airport away from the built-up areas of Perth or of other centres at the moment unless sheer pressure on the facilities causes such a situation to arise. The noise question causes much concern to my Department as well as to people living in the vicinity of airports and action is taken by various means, including the determination of approach paths, to try to avoid it as much as possible. Restrictions are placed on the movement of aircraft at all major airports in Australia at night. This, of course, applies to Perth as well as to other airports. There are circumstances where, in an emergency, it may be necessary for this regulation to be varied, but under normal circumstances traffic is permitted within certain specified times during the hours of darkness. I will look at the situation as it applies to Perth in relation to the international services that are being provided to see whether anything further can be done to avoid this problem, which I know is difficult particularly with the increased number of jet services that are being provided. WATER RESOURCES Mr MUNRO- My question is directed to the Minister for National Development. In view of recent Press statements about remarks he made in connection with the development of our northern river systems, can the Minister inform the House what work is currently being done in the investigation of our northern river systems, by or on behalf of the Australian Water Resources Council, and to what general extent this work has advanced our knowledge of the developmental potential of these water resources beyond what was reported in the 'Review of Australia's Water Resources - 1963* published by his Department in 1965 for the Australian Water Resources Council? Mr FAIRBAIRN- One of the first actions taken by the Australian Water Resources Council was to set up an accelerated ten-year programme in order to increase very considerably the number of gauging stations for measuring surface flow and also to increase the search for underground water in Australia. The honourable member will recall that for the last three years the Commonwealth Government contributed to the States for this accelerated programme $2.75m, and we will very shortly bc increasing this contribution for the next three year programme to $4.5m. This assistance has enabled the States to proceed very much faster than they were able to progress previously in assessing their resources of water throughout Australia, and I understand that in the north something like a 40% increase in gauging stations has been achieved. Naturally, however, as the honourable member would realise, it does take quite a considerable time after a gauging station is set in operation before final figures or adequate figures are available from it, so up to now we have not seen any reason to revise the review of Australian water resources by the Water Resources Council in 1963. EDUCATION Mr NICHOLLS- My question is directed to the Prime Minister. In view of the different forms of Government assistance now being given or offered to non-government schools in the various States and which has ted the New South Wales Methodist Conference to call upon its State Government to set up a committee of inquiry, will the Prime Minister give earnest consideration to the establishment of a national inquiry into ali aspects of education including both State and non-government schools? Mr HAROLDHOLT - I would like to treat the honourable gentleman's question as being on notice. It clearly will require some consultation with my colleague, the Minister for Education and Science. When I have been able to give proper consideration to it I will reply to the honourable member. Mr Whitlam- Before the House rises? Mr HAROLD HOLT - I hope so. EXPO 67 Mr BUCHANAN- My question ls directed to the Prime Minister. In view of the huge sum expended on the Australian pavilion at Expo 67, apparently with no supervision from this Parliament through the Public Works Committee or any other source, and in view of the fact that the cost escalated from the original estimate of $2m to $3. 14m, will the Prime Minister consider sending a delegation of members to examine the fair, assess its value to Australia and report back to this Parliament? Mr HAROLDHOLT- The provision for Expo 67 was undertaken by the Commonwealth Government after a good deal of consideration and after taking into account the very strongly expressed recommendation by our fellow Commonwealth country of Canada that we should participate. It marks, of course, a very notable occasion in the history of that country. I am glad to be able to tell the House that not only is the Australian pavilion attracting considerable interest and attention - the number of visitors over the first days of the exhibition has been more than double the estimated number - but I have heard very good accounts regarding it and the exhibits. It would, of course, be too late in the day for such a body as the Public Works Committee to report to the Parliament on the structure itself. What opportunities will exist for members of Parliament who may be overseas on other official duties to include a visit in their itinerary is not entirely clear to me, and I think that is an aspect which could be examined; but having regard to the provision we are making for delegations from the Parliament to go abroad for other purposes, I would not at this stage see a convincing case for adding to their numbers. SUGAR Dr PATTERSON- I wish to direct a question without notice to the Minister for Primary Industry. As the domestic sugar agreement expires in August this year, will legislation for a renewal of the agreement be introduced during this current sitting of the Parliament or will it be introduced after the Budget has been presented? To what level of Australian sugar production is the current Commonwealth responsibility restricted under the agreement? Because of the steep rise in costs of production in the sugar industry, is it a fact that the Government is giving very serious consideration to a rise in the domestic price of sugar of about 2c per lb? Mr ADERMANN-The Acting Minister for Trade and Industry and I held a conference about a week ago with representatives of the industry at which all aspects of this agreement were discussed. Rather than adopt the approach suggested by the honourable member - that the Commonwealth Government take action with regard to prices or any other aspect - we always take the attitude that these matters should come from the industry first. The industry is now considering its final approach to the Government, and we expect to hear from it in the next few days. EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY Mr NIXON-I refer the Prime Minister to Britain's announced Intention to seek entry to the European Economic Community. Can the right honourable gentleman give the House details of any undertakings by the British Government to protect the interests of Australian industries? Further, can he assure the House that the Australian Government will place forcefully before the British Government the problems of Australian industries that have been developed to meet British requirements? Mr HAROLDHOLT - This is a most important decision announced by the United Kingdom Government. Only this morning I received the full text of Mr Harold Wilson's statement, in the concluding sentence of which he said: for all of us realise that this is a historic decision which could well determine the future of Britain, of Europe and, indeed, of the world for decades to come. From this it is clear that the matter should receive the close and urgent consideration of the Commonwealth Government, which it is now receiving. Ever since this proposal was first mooted we have given a great deal of attention to the implications of the entry of the United Kingdom to the European Economic Community. I do not propose to make a detailed statement at this stage, because the relevant departments have been applying their attention to the matter; however, I hope to be able to make a statement to the House after question time tomorrow. SCREENING OF FILM Mr JAMES- My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Customs and Excise. Is it a fact that a film, The War Game'; has been imported by the Australian Broadcasting Commission but has not been shown? Is it also a fact that this film is considered to be one of the most important films ever made but is unlikely ever to be shown in Australia because of official unwillingness to risk embarrassing the Government? Will the Minister make arrangements for the film to be shown at Parliament House by the ABC? Mr HOWSON- I shall convey this question to the responsible Minister in another place and obtain a reply for the honourable gentleman. DROUGHT IN TASMANIA Mr PEARSALL-Is the Minister for Primary industry aware that Tasmania is experiencing the worst drought conditions in the State's recorded history? Has he been informed that lambs are being killed at birth to save the ewes? Has an approach yet been made by Tasmanian departmental officers seeking Commonwealth aid in the purchase of emergency stock feed on a dollar for dollar basis? Should such an approach be made will the Minister bear in mind the desperate nature of the situation and discuss it with the Treasurer and Cabinet as a matter of urgency? Mr ADERMANN- I have been made aware of the drought conditions in Tasmania by the honourable member for Franklin who, I think, has done creditable work in investigating through the Australian Wheat Board the position in regard to wheat supplies and other matters that might be of assistance to the Tasmanian producers. I commend him for his energy. I am not aware of any approach having been made to the Government for finance in addition to that already given by the Commonwealth and the Tasmanian Governments for bushfire relief. I do not know to what degree that might involve the area mentioned. I have already mentioned this matter to the Treasurer. But I would indicate to the honourable member that if extra requests are involved, then in the first instance it is the function of the State Government to make an investigation and to give a report thereon. POSTAL SERVICES Mr CURTIN-Is the Postmaster-General aware that the vast majority of Australians now work a five-day week? Is he also aware that power, light, police, railway and transport facilities etc., and other services provided by the Postmaster-General's Department, are staffed for seven days a week by employees who are engaged on a five-day week roster basis? If so, will he give favourable consideration to operating post offices upon a similar five-day week roster basis, particularly as they are open for only six days a week? Mr HULME-The question as to whether or not post offices should open for five days a week or five and a half days a week has received the consideration of the Government on a number of occasions. Generally there is a reduction of staff on Saturday mornings, but staff numbers are maintained at a level sufficient to meet the requirements of the public. In order to meet public requirements we are unable to have a very substantial reduction in staff on Saturday mornings. The Government's decision is that post offices should remain open for five and a half days a week. This is a public utility, and this service is required by the public. BUTTER MARKET Mr WENTWORTH-I address a question to the Acting Minister for Trade and. Industry about the entry of Australian butter into the United Kingdom. Is it true that our present arrangements, negotiated under the 1956 trade agreement, are terminable by the United Kingdom on six months notice? Would the terms of the Treaty of Rome involve the termination of these arrangements should Britain enter the European Common Market without special reservations? Has New Zealand some special arrangement for the entry of butter into the United Kingdom market up till September 1972? Has the Minister any information as to how the United Kingdom proposes to reconcile her arrangements for New Zealand butter with the terms of the Treaty of Rome in the event of Britain's entry into the Common Market? Mr SINCLAIR- Australia's butter exports to the United Kingdom, as the honourable member explained, were initially specified under the Ottawa Agreement, which provided for unlimited entry of Australian and New Zealand butter into the United Kingdom market. In 1961 the treaty was varied to the extent that quotas were introduced. In 1963 the surcharge of 15s sterling per cent was removed. This was a preference given to Australian and New Zealand butter. In 1966 the United Kingdom-New Zealand Trade Agreement came into operation. At this point of time, specified rights of access were granted up till 1972. The 15s preference was renewed,but it was waived on the condition that New Zealand continued to retain free access for certain quotas. Australia also retains quotas, which are determined on an annual basis and are subject to review, I understand, about 1st April each year. As the honourable member has explained, the quotas introduced in 1962 have operated subject to cancellation by either party on six months notice. To date Britain has not chosen to exercise this prerogative, either during the earlier application to join the European Economic Community in 1962 or during the Kennedy Round of negotiations which have continued since 1963. At this stage I see no reasonable likelihood of Britain choosing to exercise this option. However, as to the possible effect of Britain's entry into the European Economic Community and the comparable position of New Zealand, at this stage it is too early to ascertain the situation. I can assure the honourable member and other honourable members that the position at this stage at least is that there is no likelihood of Britain exercising that option. DEFENCE EXPENDITURE Mr BARNARD-I ask the Treasurer a question. Does he know what annual payments Australia is likely to incur in each of the next five years for defence purchases already arranged overseas? In view of the critical importance which overseas defence spending now has for our balance of payments position, will the Treasurer give details of all credit arrangements so far made, particularly those relating to the DDG destroyers and the Fill aircraft? Mr McMAHON- I cannot give the figures for a succession of years, but this year we will be paying about $103m for defence purchases in the United States of America. At the beginning of the year and in the Budget Papers I gave the figure of $1 14m but that figure has been reduced by Slim. As to the other information sought by the honourable member, I can give him the details but I would rather check my memory as to figures and particulars of payments than attempt an answer now. If the honourable member does not mind, I will check the figures and, according to his wish, announce, them in the House or provide him with the information by letter.' IMMIGRATION Mr WHITTORN-I ask the Minister for Immigration a question. Has he any information to confirm that racial discrimination is building up in Great Britain? If this is the case, has the strain been brought about because lower standards are accepted by some migrants to the United Kingdom or are more important forces at work there? Is there a lesson for Australia to learn from the problems confronting the United Kingdom? Mr SNEDDEN- I have read of difficulties in the United Kingdom of the nature referred to by the honourable member. I am aware that it was necessary for the Government of the United Kingdom to pass special legislation in connection with this matter. Every country must have the right to make a determination as to which people may come to that country and make their homes there. Each country makes its own decision and must accept the consequences that flow from that decision. We in Australia are very fortunate in that no other country is more free of intolerance and discrimination than is Australia. Mr Bryant- What about politicial intolerance? Mr SNEDDEN-I am speaking of racial discrimination. My view, which I am sure is shared by all honourable members, is that we want to retain in Australia our present freedom from intolerance and discrimination. I am sure that we want to build a prosperous and large society which retains our characteristic Australian identity and which will be free of intolerance and discrimination. This is not to say, of course, that people of diverse origins will not be welcomed in Australia as residents in reasonable numbers, having regard to their capacity to integrate into the type of community and society which I have described as our aspiration. Fill AIRCRAFT Mr COPE- Has the Minister for Air seen statements in this mornings' newspapers by Mr Kuss, the United States Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defence? Has he noted Mr Kuss's estimate that the cost of the Fill bombers being purchased by Australia will exceed $200m, even without armament? What was the last cost estimate announced by the Minister? If Mr Kuss's increased estimate is correct, why has the Minister not announced to the House the increase in costs? Mr HOWSON- The cost that I have announced to the House is $US216m. As I have stated on more than one occasion, a provisioning team is in the United States at the moment investigating the requirements and costs of spares and associated ground equipment. When that team returns I shall announce its findings to the House. At the moment we have no information other than what I have already given to the House. I promise the House that when I do have further information I shall lose no opportunity of informing the House. No further information has yet been given to us by Mr Kuss and his mission. The teams were discussing this subject this morning, but, I repeat, no further information has become available. If it had I would certainly have informed the House. TOBACCO Mr HOLTEN-Is the Minister for Primary Industry aware that tobacco growers at Mareeba are dissatisfied with the prices paid for their leaf at the series of sales recently concluded? Is it a fact that lack of competition among buyers has been responsible for the low prices? Is it a fact also that a great deal of the tobacco was sold at minimum reserve prices after examination by the arbitrator? Finally, is the Minister aware that growers believe there is a plan to eliminate north Queensland tobacco growers from the tobacco industry? Mr ADERMANN- I have received some representations from those who attended the tobacco sales. I do not think the representations are yet complete, because the sales, with which I have been keeping in touch, are continuing day by day. This is, in effect, the second series of the present sales being held in Mareeba. There is some dissatisfaction, which I think stems mainly from the lack of competition or of buying in the line, as it is called, at auction. The figures available to me so far show that overall - that is, over the two series of sales - the proportion purchased in the line would represent about 69.5%. This does not mean that every day 69.5% is purchased in the line. On some days the proportion has dropped to just over 50%, and this has certainly loaded up the work of the arbitrator because of his having to assess large quantities. Therein lies the dissatisfaction. Of course any grower who submits tobacco for sale will, within the quota, obtain the reserve price that is laid down for that tobacco. The Commonwealth has given a guarantee of this up to a total of 26m lb. No-one could expect the Commonwealth or anybody else to guarantee a price in excess of the grade of tobacco as determined by the arbitrator. Actually the growers are getting a slightly better price than the reserve; I think they are getting 3c to 4c more per lb, on an average, than the average reserve price for the sale. So the overall picture is not so bad, because only 2% has remained unsold so far, or up to yesterday's sales - that is, in the line, plus the sales as determined by the arbitrator. The overall picture is not unsatisfactory. The unsatisfactory aspect is the lack of purchasing of sufficient quantities in the line, which puts a heavy load on the arbitrator. I do not think there is anything in the honourable member's final question about an attempt to eliminate Queensland growers from the scheme, because this is a four-year scheme and there is a quota for Queensland. The quota is 14m lb for that State, and I am sure that Mareeba is still selling good quality tobacco. Fill AIRCRAFT Mr CHARLESJONES - I direct a question to the Minister for Defence. Why was it left to Mr Kuss, an important American official, to come to Australia and make public important details about Australia's financial commitments in respect of Fill aircraft? Was he invited by the Australian Government? If not, in what circumstances is the gentleman in Australia today? Mr MCMAHON-The United States Government has been extremely generous to the Australian Government in the terms and conditions of repayment of loans for defence purposes. We should express our gratitude to it for what it has done. When the Americans made their agreement with us that part of the loan was to be financed at an interest rate of 4%, we felt that it was proper that a representative of their Government and not ours should make this statement. Mr CharlesJones - Was the Government afraid to make this statement? Mr McMAHON-Nonsense. If one is generously treated, does the honourable member not think that the generous giver should be the one to make the first statement? I say no more than this: the Americans had the right to make the first statement, and they have made it. I repeat that this was a generous offer made by the United States authorities, and the Australian Government is grateful that the offer and agreement were made. MUSCULAR DYSTROPHY Mr CLEAVER- My question is addressed to the Acting Minister for Health. Will the Minister say what information regarding recognition and intensive research is available in respect of muscular dystrophy, which has been referred to as the least known and perhaps the cruelest of all killer diseases? Will the Minister extend encouragement to an association recently formed in Perth to provide practical assistance to those children who are sufferers? Mr SWARTZ-I assure the honourable member that the action of a group of citizens in Perth is much appreciated; it has formed an association to sponsor a public appeal to assist research into this serious disease of muscular dystrophy. It is pleasing to know that some members of the medical profession in Western Australia have taken the initiative in this regard, and I hope that the association that has been formed there will extend to other States of Australia. A grant has already been made by the National Health and Medical Research Council to the principal research officer of this association, and an application for a further grant is being considered by the Council. Fill AIRCRAFT Mr GRAY- I direct a question to the Minister for Air. Is the figure of $5.3 1 m given by the Minister as the cost of the FI 1 1 bomber merely a basic aircraft configuration? Will any change in the basic design or the provision of extra equipment substantially increase the basic cost? In other words, is the aircraft being provided, at a cost of $5. 31m, little more than a souped up Cessna? Mr HOWSON-The figure I have given to the House is $US5.95m, together with the increased cost for extra wingtips and strengthened undercarriage, which I have already announced to the House. That is still the most likely figure at which the Americans will sell the aircraft to us; lt is also the figure at which the British Government has been buying equivalent aircraft. Dr J.F. Cairns- What is that figure? Mr HOWSON-It is $US5.95m. The other matters still to be negotiated, as I have explained to the House on more than one occasion, are the cost of the ground handling equipment and the spares for the aircraft, but until the provisioning team comes back from the United States of America with full details on these matters, I cannot give the House any further figures. EXPORT INCENTIVES Mr IRWIN- My question is directed to the Acting Minister for Trade and Industry. Is he aware the motor industry complains that little encouragement is given to secondary industry to seek export markets? Is this correct? What is the extent of government assistance in this regard? Mr SINCLAIR-The honourable gentleman will recall that the Prime Minister, in his policy speech, referred to the fact that the export incentive scheme would be reconsidered during the life of this Parliament. This review is under way at the moment. The honourable member will also be aware that a great deal has been achieved in the operation of the pay-roll concession scheme which operates to encourage exporters. I am sure the honourable gentleman's reference to one particular industry can be viewed in the light of the stimulus that this export incentive scheme offers. In addition, the Export Payments Insurance Corporation provides further financial encouragement to exporters. The Government endeavours in every way to encourage exporters to expand their base of operation. As it does in all fields, the Government believes that exports are in the interests not only of the Government and the country, but also of the manufacturer himself. The purpose of encouraging exports is to broaden the manufacturer's base of operation, thereby giving him a greater financial opportunity to expand and help more people, and in this way to assist the development of this great country. Fill AIRCRAFT Mr HAYDEN-Has the Minister for Air seen the statement by the United States Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defence, Mr Henry Kuss, that the Fill bomber will require maintenance spending equal to one-half of its original cost every five years? Are these figures correct? If so, does it mean that the total cost of the bombers will exceed $300m during the first five years of use? Have we any guarantee that an end of this staggering cost spiral is in sight? Mr HOWSON- I have already answered two questions on the cost of this aircraft. I have nothing to add. CIVIL AVIATION Mr TURNBULL- My question is addressed to the Minister for Civil Aviation. I refer to a case in which a provincial city cannot secure a daily air service because it has no night landing facilities and lacks finance to install them. What are the conditions or circumstances under which the Government, through the Department of Civil Aviation, provides night landing facilities at aerodromes operated by municipalities under the local ownership plan? Mr SWARTZ-Under the local ownership scheme the Commonwealth normally provides up to the full standard the facilities that are required for the services which are in operation at the time of handover to the local authority. The facilities are handed over entirely without cost to the local authority. From then on, the maintenance costs are shared equally by the Commonwealth and the local authority concerned. A problem sometimes arises after an airport is taken over under the local ownership plan if traffic increases and more capital is needed to provide additional facilities. Normally this cost must be borne by the local authority; but in special circumstances, such as an unusual development in the flow of traffic, the Commonwealth considers sharing that cost. I suggest that if the honourable member has a particular case in mind, he should let me have the details so that we can look at the case to see what can be done. DEFENCE PURCHASES Mr CONNOR- My question is addressed to the Treasurer. Is the interest rate of 4% on Australian defence purchases, as announced by the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Defence in the United States, identical with that being charged to prime borrowers by the reserve banking system in the United States at present? Does the Minister contend that this rate of interest evidences extreme generosity on the part of the United States to the Australian Government? Mr McMAHON-If the honourable gentleman had wanted an answer to this question, he should have been more specific. If he is speaking about prime borrowings does he mean short term borrowings and the duration of the loan or is he speaking about long term loans? If he is speaking about long term loans, the rate of 4% is generous, because rates of 6£% and 7% to even good borrowers are quite frequent in the United States. ROYAL AUSTRALIAN AIR FORCE Dr GIBBS- I wish to direct my question to the Minister for Air. Did the Australian Labor Party make an election promise to order, if elected, the British TSR2 aircraft for Australian defence purposes? Did this aircraft get off the drawing board? Would our defences have suffered a serious hiatus if the TSR2 had been ordered? Has the British Labor Government itself scrapped Britain's own TSR2 in favour of the Fill aircraft? Mr HOWSON-i think the honourable member for Bowman has provided the House with some valuable information and it should be kept in mind at this time. I should like to add only the remarks of the Minister for Defence in the House of Commons who yesterday described the Fill aircraft, which is being purchased also by the United Kingdom, as an aircraft that will be eminently satisfactory for the defence services of that country in all the respects for which it is being purchased. He also said that Britain can be extremely proud to have bought this aircraft. All I can say is that, from the Australian point of view, I agree entirely. Mr BEATON- I ask the Minister for Air a question that involves a matter of simple arithmetic. Does 24 go into 216 nine times? ls h true that we have ordered twenty-four FI IIA aircraft? Is it also true that the Minister has said that the total cost of these aircraft will be $2 16m? If this is so will the aircraft cost $9m each, and why does he continue to say that they will cost a little more than $5m each? Mr HOWSON- I will not again go into the detail of matters that 1 have already explained to the House on a number of occasions. The fly away cost of the aircraft is $5. 95m plus, as I have explained, the costs of the extra modifications that we have requested for our own purposes. These relate to the wing tips and heavier undercarriage. We have in addition the costs of the special reconnaissance version. Six aircraft are being specially modified to have both the strike capability and the reconnaissance capability. In addition there are the costs of the ground handling equipment that is needed to operate the aircraft, of testing equipment for all the electronic devices in the aircraft and of the spares needed for the aircraft within the first year of its operations. All these costs are included in the $21 6m. The $5.95m is the initial cost of the aircraft. The other costs in the $21 6m are all required to enable the aircraft to operate effectively in the role for which it will be needed in Australia. I have said that in arriving at the total cost we have had to make an estimate of the cost of the spares and the ground handling equipment. Until the mission returns from the United States with details of these costs the figures I have given to the House will still be the estimate. When I have more detailed figures I will give them to the House, as 1 explained earlier today to the honourable member for Watson. MIGRANT HOSTELS Mr BUCHANAN-My question is directed to the Minister for Labour and National Service. Now that the Government has accepted the concept of self-contained flats as transitory accommodation for migrants, will the Minister confer with the Minister for Works and try to have the plans of the Randwick and Springvale hostels readjusted so that the family units there, which are to be provided with a toilet and washbasin only, may also be made self-contained by providing a shower in each unit instead of the communal bathing arrangements that are now contemplated? Mr BURY- The proposals for these particular hostels have already been examined by the Public Works Committee which has submitted a report on them to this Parliament. Any further tinkering would undoubtedly delay their construction. It is the Government's desire to replace some of our existing hostels as soon as we can with rather more satisfactory accommodation. Should we build any further hostels the question raised by the honourable member will be included in the consideration of the subject. However, this in itself is not directly connected with the provision of self-contained flats: this will be done on an entirely different basis. There will be no question of catering or of providing food and other facilities that we provide in our hostels. The flats will be a rather more expensive alternative for such families who desire to go into them. SELF-GOVERNMENT FOR THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY Ministerial Statement Mr ANTHONY(Richmond- Minister for the Interior) - by leaves - I should like to inform the Parliament about the progress of certain investigations which I have made into the government and administration of the Australian Capital Territory. In view of the current interest of the people of the Australian Capital Territory in the question of self-government, I considered it timely that I should give them some advice on the progress of the investigations. On the other hand, the ultimate responsibility for the seat of government and the national capital rests with this Parliament, and I consider it my duty to inform the House before releasing the information. Honourable members will be aware <hat the Minister for the Interior is responsible for the administration of the Australian Capital Territory. This function is performed in the main through the Department of the Interior, with the Department of Health and the Attorney-General's Department also playing important parts. Many other Commonwealth departments and instrumentalities are also involved. From time to time the people of the Australian Capital Territory, or at least some of them, have pressed for changes in the present system, under which their only elected representatives are a member in this House and eight members on the Australian Capital Territory Advisory Council. I have given serious study to the present administrative arrangements, particularly in the light of the views expressed by the elected members on the Advisory Council that self-government is an immediate need and that the present arrangements are unsatisfactory. On the other hand, many residents of the Territory have indicated that they would prefer the present system, with all its faults, to a system which they did not know. Having referred to the Australian Capital Territory Advisory Council, I feel I should tell the House that the Council has a very real role in the current arrangements for the government and administration of the Territory. The elected members of the Council are there as the representatives of the people of this community, and both the members, and their electors, make full use of their rights to interest themselves in all matters which affect them. My Department and I spend a great deal of time in considering the proposals put forward by the Advisory Council, and in supplying answers to questions. Honourable members will get some indication of the activities of the Council when I tell them that the present Council, which took office just two and a half years ago, has submitted well over a hundred resolutions to me. This figure relates only to what I term principle issues, many of which have In fact resulted in Council resubmitting various aspects of an issue to me two or three times by way oi further resolutions. In addition, the Council has asked some 1,200 parliamentary-type questions on notice. The four nominated representatives on the Council have also replied to a host of questions without notice. As well as those motions which are passed as resolutions, there are vast numbers of motions which are not seconded or which are defeated after consideration. Although these do not reach me in the form of motions, they appear on the Council's agenda and thus involve a vast amount of work by officers in my Department in study and consideration prior to Council meetings. During the life of the present Advisory Council some 650 such motions have so far been listed on the notice paper and have received the appropriate consideration due to those matters which are raised by the elected representatives of the people. As residents in almost any other part of Australia could testify, the existence of a system of State or municipal government does not, of itself, solve any problems of government and administration; nor does it mean that all persons living under such a system find themselves without grievances or cause for complaint. This being the case, it is important for those who would press for changes in the present system in the Australian Capital Territory to ask themselves whether they are concerned about their lack of representative institutions per se, or whether they honestly believe that greater local control would result in a better system of administration, recognising that such a concept will mean different things to different people. If the desire of the Australian Capital Territory residents is for a more democratic system, based on traditional electoral responsibility, then it must be remembered that there is a wider democracy and a wider electoral responsibility which must also be accommodated. While the Government recognises that the Australian Capital Territory is the home of over 100,000 Australians, it is also an area of territory acquired by the Commonwealth in accordance with the Constitution in order to fulfil a purpose which was specified in that Constitution. Underlying Canberra's constitutional role as the seat of government: - a place where the central organs of the national government are located - is its less legalistic but nonetheless important role as the National Capital, a city whose design and construction must be carried out to such standards as will reflect credit on the nation. It is these two concepts of. the seat of government and the National Capital which have for so long delayed the transition to responsible self-government for the residents of this Territory and which must continue, for many years to come, to influence the decisions of the government and parliament of the day on this important question. Having said this, however, I must also tell the House that, since becoming Minister for the Interior, I have been concerned about this matter and I resolved to contribute to a solution if I could. Given the tradition of self-government at the State and municipal level throughout the rest of Australia, it has not been easy for me to accept with equanimity the situation in which this rapidly growing community is denied all representation, except for its Federal member who, for the first time, has full voting rights in this House, and a Council which may only advise the Minister for the Interior. I therefore initiated a study of the issues underlying the question of self-government for the Australian Capital Territory. Because of constant inquiries about the Department's study, and because of the interest which it may arouse, I have decided to publish a brief outline of the preliminary findings. Copies will be distributed to all honourable senators and members. This interim information has not yet been considered by the Government. Thus, 1 emphasise that it does not have the imprimatur of the Government, and in fact' it makes no recommendations which require approval at this stage. It reports progress of exploratory studies, and its main purpose is to highlight those issues which will need to be considered before any firm decisions are taken. It does point up some of the real complexities of the problem and that a solution can be provided neither by any simple scheme nor quickly. As will be seen, quite a deal of study has been already undertaken, and while various possibilities are lightly touched upon these will need to be developed substantially as a next exercise in order to select the scheme or schemes which should be analysed in more detail to -enable us to assess how they may look in practice. In addition, a vast amount of material in relation to the activities of the seventeen Commonwealth departments and authorities that specifically affect the people of the Territory will need to be collected, collated and assessed. It would therefore be imprudent for me to suggest what will ultimately appear as the best action in this problem. I have always felt, myself, that the Commonwealth would probably retain control of the centra] part of Canberra to a greater or lesser degree, and would tend to retain, or hand over at a later stage some of the State-type functions. I also believe, however that some municipal functions might be performed by the people, in particular in the new cities of Woden and Belconnen, as they develop to maturity. I emphasise that these are but first thoughts, not necessarily based on any concrete evidence. Conversely, they are also not ruled out, as yet, by the present studies. In any event, as first thoughts they could well be modified by the information and views revealed in the continuing studies. Even assuming that we might eventually be able to separate national and local interests and pass over to the people of the Australian Capital Territory appropriate political and administrative responsibility, the assigning of appropriate financial responsibility, without which any other responsibility would be meaningless, will pose special problems of its own. In short, we will have to see whether the community of the Australian Capital Territory can assume that financial responsibility without which political responsibility and self-government would not be possible. I emphasise that I have not yet come to any firm conclusions about which of the many alternatives I should see as the most appropriate. Nevertheless, I am conscious of Canberra's principal roles as the national capital and the seat of government, and I should not recommend any proposals which might place these roles in any jeopardy or derogate from the standards that we have managed to achieve. It is my hope that this progress report will stimulate further interest in the question of self-government for the people of Canberra and the Australian Capital Territory and that public discussion of the substance of the report will contribute towards finding the best solution to a most complex problem. I present the following papers: Self-government for the Australian Capital Territory - Ministerial Statement, 3 May 1967. Preliminary Assessment: May 1967 (Progress Report by the Minister for the Interior)- and move: That the House take note of the papers. Mr 1R Fraser - Mr Acting Speaker, should I seek leave to make a statement on this matter or am I required to move a motion? Mr ACTINGSPEAKER-I suggest that the honourable member speak to the motion moved by the Minister for the Interior that the House take note of the papers. He is entitled to speak to the motion in the normal way. Mr S.R. FRASER (Australian Capital Territory) [3.38] - I commend the Minister for having brought this report, which is perhaps more correctly described as a study, before this Parliament, which at the present time must stand for the people of the Australian Capital Territory not only as the National Parliament but also in the role of a State government and a local council. This Parliament is the government of the Australian Capital Territory, whose laws it makes. Largely, of course, those laws are made by a process of passive acquiescence or by default, as the ordinances and regulations of the Territory are tabled in both Houses of this Parliament and become law unless a member of either House successfully moves for their complete or partial disallowance. The Minister has put before us a very valuable study of the problems of govenment in the Australian Capital Territory which, I think, suggests lines of thought or research that might well lead to a decision and action by the Government to grant a form of self-government in the Territory.. During the sixteen years I have been in this place I have contended for the establishment of a form of self-government in the Australian Capital Territory. The people of the Territory should no longer be denied the right to govern themselves and should no longer be allowed to escape the responsibility of governing themselves. I have said that before, as the Minister for the Interior well knows. But there are people in this community - I suggest they are mostly those who have lived here for many years - who find that things as they are are 'Pretty nice, thank you'. Those people have no desire to see a change in the machinery of government within the Territory. I believe that with the import of people from other States, notably from Victoria and the city of Melbourne, there is a growing feeling within the community that we should have a form of self-government and should no longer shirk that responsibility. The present population of the Territory, as the Minister pointed out, is about 100,000. It is confidently expected that within thirteen years that figure will rise to 250,000. A population of that size, which largely will be encompassed within the city itself - our population outside the city area is about 2,500 - should not be without a form of self-government. The problem, as the Minister said, is how to divide the fields of responsibility. Canberra has been created. This is not a city which has grown in the ordinary sense of a city growing outwards from a main street. This city was created as the seat of national government. It was created as the National Capital of Australia. Because Canberra is the National Capital it is the responsibility of the people of Australia as a whole. Quite properly the people of Australia, through the National Government, must be prepared to accept expenditures on this place. The Minister was not quite definite in his statement about whether Canberra is now paying its way. If we take into account the sum for which land originally was purchased in the Territory, and the figure at which land is at present being disposed of by way of lease, and if we have regard to the charges and fees paid by residents, I would be inclined to agree with the opinion of Professor Arndt that Canberra is paying its way. If a statement of accounts showing the actual expenditure on the city and the receipts from people in this city were presented to this House, and if we took into account by contrast the amounts that are released by the National Government to State governments by way of tax reimbursements and subventions for the provision of roads and facilities within the States, as well as grants to the States for the creation of advantageous conditions in certain fields of primary industry, then I suggest to the Minister that he and the Parliament would find that Canberra is not a debt hanging around the necks of the people of Australia but that it is paying its way. The people of Canberra pay income tax at the same rate as do people throughout the length and breadth of the Commonwealth. But because of the secure nature of the bulk of employment here, the absence of any heavy degree of unemployment, and the overall youthfulness of the population, the return per head from taxation in Canberra is greater than in any other part of the Commonwealth. So we are paying our way and are no longer a financial burden on the people of Australia. Before determining, whether we should have self government, we must deal with the problem of establishing two fields of responsibility. Canberra is the National Capital. As such it is the responsibility of the National Government and of the people of Australia. But it is also the home town of 100,000 people. Shortly it will be the home town of at least twice as many people. These two aspects of the matter must be considered separately. While this city continues to develop as the National Capital and while it is maintained as such there will be aspects of expenditure which will remain the responsibility of the National Government and of the people. Canberra is a planned city. Many of the services that are provided here are much more costly than those for a more compact city of comparable population. Canberra is a city which sprawls along a valley from north to south for about eight or nine miles. Now it is spreading to the west. But it has been decided that Canberra is to be the seat of government. It has been decided that the government triangle will be in a certain place and that suburban areas will be in certain places. It has been decided that certain aspects of government will be located in certain areas of the city. Because of all these things the provision of water and sewerage services, telephones, electricity, roads, kerbing, guttering and footpaths - all the services that a modern city must have - is much more costly than for a city of comparable population which has grown compactly out of a main street and which does not have the large dead centre which Canberra has. Therefore a proportion of the maintenance of those services is properly a charge against the National Government and the people of Australia. This is the National Capital; it was so planned and it has so developed. There seems to me to be no reason why the people of Canberra should not be required and should not be eager to accept the responsibility of governing themselves in their day by day affairs. I suppose that in some respects Canberra is the most un-Australian city in the continent. Here we do not have a form of government which follows the general pattern throughout the length and breadth of Australia. The people of Canberra, which as I have said is the very seat of national government and is the centre from which we govern the whole of Australia, are not entrusted with the responsibility of governing themselves. Figures were quoted yesterday which showed that of Canberra's population of about 100,000 approximately 23,000 are employed by the Government. Many are employed in the very business of government. In the higher echelons of the Public Service they advise governments; in fact they formulate policy for the government of Australia. But these talented and experienced people are not entrusted with the task of governing themselves. It is obvious that they are fully capable of doing so. The Minister has said that it is not easy to find an early answer to these questions. As he would know, many inquiries have been conducted. He referred to them in the publication he has put before us. The first of the recent inquiries was conducted in 1949 - eighteen years ago. Successive Ministers for the Interior have chosen not to give importance to this matter, which has been raised frequently by some of the people of Canberra. 1 give full credit to the present Minister for the Interior. He has set in motion initial studies which are designed to get at the facts and to place before the Ministry and the Parliament the problems that must be faced in order to come to a solution and to grant self-government. I do not doubt that the booklet which the Minister has placed before the Parliament will be most valuable to those in the community who have taken an interest in this step and who see that the time is coming when some form of self government should be established here. With the establishment of some form of self-government here - it might be self-government at the municipal level, which has often been described as the best form of democracy - it may well be that the people of Canberra will have to impose upon themselves rates somewhat higher than they pay now. I cannot see any argument against this because we have in this city a level of municipal services vastly superior to that provided in most provincial cities and even in some State capitals. There is no real reason why the people of this city should have those services at bargain prices. I do not suggest, and it would be fatal, perhaps, to suggest, that the people of Canberra should be called upon to pay increased rates but there is no really valid argument to maintain that in this city we should have a really excellent standard of municipal services at rates much lower than are being paid in cities of comparable size or with comparable population, or even in small towns just across the border from the Capital Territory. In saying that I do not disregard the fact that those who pay rates in this city also pay land rent, and, as the Minister knows, this is a somewhat burning question at the moment. So when we are considering the revenues that should be available to any form of self-government established here, it may well be that we should take into account some diversion or some division of the sums received from land rent. Admittedly, portion of the sums paid in land rent should continue to go to the national government for its national expenditure in this National Capital, but if we do entrust a local body with the task of governing this city we should see that it has adequate finances and that it receives an adequate portion of the moneys paid as land rent or as premiums on the sale of leases in this place. Such a body should receive registration and licence fees and similar payments. Of course, it would have to levy rates within the city area. But the Commonwealth, I suggest, would continue to subvent the cost of provision and maintenance of many of the city or municipal services. The Commonwealth may indeed have to increase its subvention towards the cost of maintaining omnibus services, because these are costs inseparable from the planned nature of this city and it would be wrong to call on this or any other generation of ratepayers to pay for all the cost of providing services which are costly only because this is the National Capital. I think the Minister would have in mind that if we were to establish here a form of local self-government at the municipal or city level we would have congregated within our city area the greatest number of Commonwealth buildings which in other areas would be free of the payment of rates. Many municipal services are provided free to these Commonwealth establishments and to the various Service establishments of the Navy, the Army and the Air Force. This is not a usual city. It is in many respects a most unusual city. But it is a growing city. It is a city which has developed vastly in the last twenty years or so. It is a city which in those years has shown, despite the opinions of eminent people from overseas, that it does have a soul and a community spirit which once it lacked. I believe that community spirit is sufficient to cause the people of this city to accept a form of self-government. I believe the people of this city should be given a say in what form of self-government they should have - whether it should be by legislative council, which to my way of thinking is not the ideal answer. I feel that what we need here is government of ourselves at the day by day level. My thoughts run towards a territory council which would handle all the aspects of government normally covered by the activities of a city or municipal council. So I am indeed pleased that this step has been taken; that the Minister has been able to bring before the Parliament not a document which puts forward any hard and fast ideas, not a document which says this or that should be done, but a document which honestly surveys the problems and honestly poses the questions which have yet to be answered. I do not think these questions are unanswerable. I would have thought - 1 say this with the greatest respect to the Minister's predecessors that some action such as the Minister has now taken could well have been taken in past years by any one of several of his predecessors. It is to the present Minister's credit that he has acted in this field just as he acted to ensure that the people of the Capital Territory were represented in the Parliament by a member with full voting rights, however much he might dislike the fact that I retained my position in those circumstances. I give the Minister credit for his action. I hope that the means will be found. I think it could be reasonably said that although there are problems - there must be division of financial responsibility and division of legislative responsibility - there must be retained to the National Parliament its right to the absolute say in the development of the National Capital; but there must equally be reserved to the people the right to say how they shall be governed in their home town. These are the two aspects which are perhaps hard to divide, but I do not think the task should have taken the time that it has taken. I believe that a government which had the will to grant self-government would find the means to grant it. I hope that the Minister will persuade this Government during its lifetime, which is ticking away far too slowly, to act in this field and to see that the people of the Capital Territory are given self-government. Question resolved in the affirmative. AUSTRALIAN NATIONAL UNIVERSITY Motion (by Mr Anthony) - by leave - agreed to: That, in accordance with the provisions of the Australian National University Act 1946-1966, this House elects the honourable member for Fremantle (Mr Beazley) and the honourable member for Denison (Mr Gibson) to be members of the Council of the Australian National University for a period of three years from this day. BEEF ROADS IN THE NORTHERN TERRITORY Report of Public Works Committee - Public Works Committee Act Mr CHANEY(Perth)- I present the report of the Public Works Committee on the following proposed new work: Construction of beef roads, western Barkly Tableland, Northern Territory. Ordered that the report be printed. LEAVE OF ABSENCE Motton (by Dr Patterson) agreed to: That leave of absence for one month be given to the honourable member for Leichhardt (Mr Fulton) on the ground of ill health. AGED PERSONS HOMES BILL 1967 Bill returned from the Senate with an amendment. AUSTRALIAN TOURIST COMMISSION BILL 1967 Second Reading Debate resumed from 2 May (vide page 1633), on motion by Mr Chipp. That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr FOX(Henty) [3.50]- The Bill which we are debating today is the result of a survey - not a superficial survey but, in the words of the Chairman of the Australian National Travel Association, probably the most detailed of its kind to be carried out in any country. The survey took members of the survey team over 25,000 unduplicated miles in all States of the Commonwealth and in the mainland Territories. They interviewed probably every person of authority who had any first hand knowledge of tourism in Australia and of its problems. Again in the words of the Chairman of the Australian National Travel Association, the people interviewed included Premiers and ministers of tourism and also many Commonwealth, State and local government officials. The members of the survey team saw transport and accommodation executives. They interviewed restauranteurs, travel agents and tour operators both in Australia and overseas. They interviewed regional tourist promotors, statisticians, bankers, sharebrokers, directors of museums and of Aboriginal studies and a host of other persons in various fields of activity bearing on the terms of reference with which the Committee was constituted. So we have no reason to believe that' this was not a comprehensive survey. From the survey came a report which has been called the HFK report, and from the report came the Bill that we are new debating. At the present time tourism is ninth on the list of our foreign exchange earners. Last year tourism earned this country $59m. I believe that within the not very distant future it could well be second only to wool as an earner of foreign exchange. According to the International Union of Official Travel Organisations, which has a membership of 93 nations, international tourism is the largest single item in world trade. In 1964, 66.7 million tourists spent $US10.23 billion. The advent of jet aircraft, of course, has given a terrific impetus to travel. The HKF report envisages an increase in Australia's earnings from tourism of 142% over the next six years and 360% over the next eleven years. But this will not just happen. As with everything else which is worthwhile, we have to put in the work if we expect to collect the dividends. We - and I mean the Government and private enterprise - must create the right climate, and I do not mean weatherwise Under the terms of this Bill the Government will be contributing a greatly increased amount to assist with promotion. Private enterprise must make its contribution. It must work to provide tourists with the kind of services and facilities they expect and which in fact they can receive today in many countries. We in Australia must set out not only to equal but actually to surpass the efforts of those other countries. First we must attract more tourists. We must advertise and we must sell Australia to potential tourists - and we have plenty to sell. Having attracted the tourists we must deliver the goods, because the best advertisement one can have for any product is a satisfied customer, and the reward for delivering the goods will be a very rich one. You may well ask what I mean by delivering the goods. Nature will not let us down. We are blessed with natural attractions which are not found in other parts of the world. We are blessed with a good climate. I believe that Australians generally are blessed with good health and, again generally speaking, with happy dispositions. All these things are helpful when we are trying to attract tourists. We must provide the facilities. The accommodation we offer to tourists must be at least equal to the best available in other countries. Our restaurants, our theatres, our travel facilities, whether rail, road or air, our stores - we must strive to bring all of these to a standard at least as high as that prevailing in other countries. A table which is included in the HKF report shows visitor arrivals for selected Pacific area countries during the period from 1958 to 1964. That table tells us that the number of overseas visitors to Australia increased in the period by 147%. This is a better percentage increase than that achieved by Japan or New Zealand, but it is inferior to those of Fiji and Hawaii, and a long way below that shown by Hong Kong. The last is understandable, because for one thing Hong Kong is a duty free port, and this undoubtedly is a very big attraction to the big spenders among the tourists. But with all due respect to Hawaii, what has that place got that Australia cannot match? Certainly not climate and certainly not surf beaches. Practically everything which attracts the overseas visitor to Hawaii is available in Australia in greater quantity and for less money. Our cost of living is lower than that of Hawaii. We know it, but international travellers do not, and it is time we set about telling them. During 1964 more than two million Americans travelled overseas. Hawaii received 405,000 of those tourists and Australia received 20,000. Why? According to the team responsible for the HKF report: The American and Canadian public do not yet know of the travel attractions and opportunities in Australia, and most wholesale and retail travel agents are not sufficiently interested in Australia at this time. It is only a few years ago that 1 happened to meet in Melbourne an American school teacher. I think she had probably just retired, which would mean that she was most likely in her sixties. She had just arrived in Melbourne from Canberra and she asked me the population of Melbourne. When I told her that it was more than two million she was astounded, because she had been led to believe that apart from Sydney the centres of population in Australia consisted of a number of bush towns, and she had quite confidently expected to see kangaroos, emus, koalas and Aborigines wandering the streets of all the cities other than Sydney. As I have said, she was a school teacher, a person quite well educated. The HKF report also stated: Travel. Tourism suffers in Australia from insufficient understanding of its importance to the economy and the wellbeing of the country and from failure to accord it the status of a major national industry. I believe we ought to value tourism at least as highly as we value our export industries. While we frequently have to sell our exports on credit, with the possible risk of incurring some bad debts - and I am quite sure we do incur some despite the Export Payments Insurance Corporation - visitors pay cash for the goods and services they receive and in most cases they pay for what they see and leave behind in Australia, whereas when we export minerals, for instance, we are exporting something which cannot be replaced. But we are novices in the field of promotion. We must do more, a great deal more, and what we do should not be spasmodic but continuous. After all, we are playing for big stakes. The report suggests that we should adopt an aggressive marketing policy. This in my judgment means that we should not sell ourselves short. The tourist offices of Mexico, Bermuda, Great Britain, Spain, the Netherlands, Italy, France, India and Jamaica spend from twice as much to eight times as much on advertising in the United Kingdom as Australia spends. If we do not spend we cannot expect to gain the profits. In the words of the men who used to haunt the local shows, if you do not speculate you cannot accumulate. It is not enough simply to spend money, we must spend it wisely; we must spend it in the right places and in the right ways. Our national expenditure on publicity and tourism is very low by comparison with that of many other countries. The investigating team suggested that we should be spending on promotion an amount equal to at least 2% of our earnings from tourism, and we do not spend this amount. For the year ended 30th June 1966 we actually spent $1.136m. I believe that Government expenditure on promotion can be likened to casting bread on the waters - it will come back many times over, not only in material terms in the form of taxation but also in goodwill and development. Tourism creates employment, for the visitors have to be fed, housed and transported. As a result, the worker benefits from increased employment opportunities; private enterprise also benefits from increased business and profits; finally, the Government benefits from increased taxation income - from income tax, sales tax, petrol tax and payroll tax. The man in the street benefits from increased turnover, which lowers operating costs and in turn lowers prices. Mr Cope- And the overseas balances. Mr FOX- Yes, I am coming to that. That is the chief benefit, for any money coming to the country in this way assists in our balance of payments problem. While speaking of payroll tax I might mention that the Government already provides incentives to exporters by setting them an export target, based on a base year, and allowing a rebate on the amount of payroll tax they pay, in direct proportion to the amount by which their exports exceed the exports settled upon for the base year. Therefore, the more they increase their exports, the greater the rebates they obtain. It might be worth offering this concession of payroll tax rebates to the wholesale tourist business. If a target is set for this industry, any new business brought into Australia - not created within Australia - could be taken into account, and the proportion by which the increase exceeded the figures for the base year would lead to a reduction in the amount of payroll tax. This scheme should be worthy of investigation. Apart from the obvious advantages relating to foreign exchange that can be earned by tourism, this type of activity stimulates potential investment in Australian industry, which in turn stimulates employment. Further, the goods that are produced then assist in the balance of payments problem, by replacing imports or by adding to exports. I am thinking of the motor vehicle industry, which came to Australia from overseas. In less tangible terms, tourism stimulates our immigration programme. The people who visit here might like what they see and will either come back here themselves or influence their friends and relatives to migrate to Australia. Tourism helps to spread goodwill for Australia throughout the world, and unrestricted travel, such as is available within Australia, could be the biggest factor in international understanding and world peace. I should like to make what I believe are one or two constructive suggestions. People visit Australia for many reasons, one of which is to see our Aboriginals. This could be turned to the advantage of the Aboriginals. I do not believe that visitors should be ted to think that they are simply going to see Aboriginals as they would go to view animals in a zoo. Our Aboriginals should be accorded the dignity that is their right, and this cannot be done without their complete co-operation; indeed, it could be a challenge to them. We should make it clear to the Aboriginals that we do not wish to exploit them but, in a highly developed tourist programme, we see opportunities for them to advance themselves and their cause. A few years ago I visited the Toronto Exposition, at which the Department of Trade and Industry had a stand containing a number of exhibits from Australia. There were manufactured goods, such as carpets and lawnmowers, from manufacturers in this country. Canned fruits also were exhibited together with a wide variety of other Australian goods. However, honourable members might be surprised to hear that the section of the stand that created by far the greatest interest from visitors was the exhibition of opals. The promotion of our opals could be another means of increasing our foreign exchange payments, both from the export of these gems and from attracting people here to see them mined. I believe that at Lightning Ridge they have begun to develop a tourist potential. Accommodation is available, although it is not so good as it is likely to be in the future. The more people go there the more can be spent on development of facilities and accommodation. I pass that on as a helpful suggestion. My final suggestion refers to the treatment I received as a visitor in San Francisco, Los Angeles and Germany. In the two American cities I was contacted by local citizens who, working through their local government department, welcomed me to the city and asked me what they could do to make my stay there a pleasant one. They ascertained my interests and set out to see that I had the opportunity to indulge them. I came away with a very favourable impression of the friendliness and warmth of the people in both cities. I had the same experience in the cities I visited in Germany, through the Inter-nations Department. I do not suggest that this sort of thing can be done with every visitor to Australia, but I regard myself as an ordinary type of individual, who was visiting these cities not as the Prime Minister of Australia or even as a Cabinet Minister. However, these people still welcomed me in this way. I am unaware of any organisation of private citizens in any city in Australia which goes out of its way to ascertain from hotels, motels and guest houses whether overseas visitors staying there would appreciate a visit from Australians. From my own personal experience I believe that such an idea could catch on and would do much to attract goodwill for Australia. I hope that some of the local bodies will read these remarks in 'Hansard' and will consider them worthy of consideration. I believe this is a good Bill, and I congratulate the Minister and the Government upon introducing it. I have much pleasure in giving it my unqualified support. Mr WEBB(Stirling) [4.8]- I am pleased to support this measure which aims at encouraging tourists to come to Australia. The more tourists we can attract the more we shall help our local industries, including airlines, road transport, rail transport, taxis and hotels. I am thinking, also, of the dining places where people can get casual meals, enjoying not only the food provided but also such things as the wine that comes from our Australian vineyards. In this way our wine industry will derive some benefit. It is obvious that the more tourists we have in this country the more employment will be provided for our people. That is why I am pleased to see that this measure has been brought forward to promote the tourist industry in Australia. The aim will be to promote tourism overseas and then, when the tourists arrive here, to show them our tourist attractions, expecting them to return to their homelands and to talk about Australia and to interest others in coming here. It is not much good encouraging people to come here unless we have the facilities to satisfy them. I pose this question: is suitable accommodation available for the people we propose to attract? Our hotel accommodation is recognised as being very poor. I suppose one should refer to his own State in this regard. Only last week in Western Australia it was decided to adopt international standards and gradings in hotels, and the licensing court there has published a schedule of grading requirements, containing five categories in accordance with international standards, which range from five star to one star. Each of the 461 hotels in Western Australia will be graded by licensing inspectors. Unfortunately at the moment not one hotel in the State would qualify for the five star grading, although one is now being built and should be completed by 1969. This is not very good from the viewpoint of attracting tourists. There are a few metropolitan hotels that would get a four-star grading, but not many. Some country hotels would be lucky to get a star of any sort. I am not suggesting that all hotels should have a high rating. We must cater for all pockets, not only those of well to do people but also those of tourists who have saved for perhaps the only tour they will have in their lifetime and who for many years have to watch every cent of expenditure. Hotel standards must be raised, and to do this finance is necessary. The honourable member for Macquarie (Mr Luchetti) yesterday suggested long term loans for hotel improvements. This is worthy of consideration. I noticed in this morning's Press that the Australian Hotels Association intends to make a new approach to the Commonwealth Government this year for preferential interest loans to renovate and build hotels. This was decided at the Association's national conference in Perth yesterday. I have given an idea of some of the difficulties that are facing us. I think the suggestion of providing finance, perhaps by long term loans, for hotel improvements is well worth consideration. The Minister in Charge of Tourist Activities (Mr Chipp) said that in 1965-66 earnings from oversea visitors to Australia totalled at least $65m, and he pointed out that tourism was Australia's ninth most important earner of foreign exchange in that year. A firm of consultants has estimated that expenditure by visitors will be $120m by 1970, and $208m by 1975. This was subject to certain conditions which the firm outlined and which were mentioned in the Minister's second reading speech. They are as follows: Firstly, Australia's travel plant will be further developed and substantially improved; secondly, transportation costs to Australia will be reduced; thirdly, coordination of Australia's 'travel industry will be accomplished with the Commonwealth and State governments, as well as the travel industry, assuming their proper roles; and fourthly, an intensive and aggressive promotion programme will be carried on in conjunction with carriers and other interests to penetrate the major market areas. Those conditions are very important, but it is just as important to make certain that we are ready to receive the influx of visitors expected in 1970, and the greater influx expected in 1975. The Government must dp more internally to prepare the way for this expected stream of visitors; otherwise we could easily fail in the job we are setting out to do. This Government has failed in many respects in regard to tourism. For years I have been pushing In this Parliament for the sealing of the Eyre Highway, but the Government has given little consideration to this important matter. The Governments of South Australia and Western Australia have prepared a joint case for Commonwealth support to complete the sealing of this highway. The South Australian Government has asked the Commonwealth to finance the sealing of the 266-mile stretch between Penong in South Australia and the Western Australian border. Very little development has taken place on this section of the road. The South Australian Government is prepared to do the work provided finance is made available. If this Government agrees to provide the finance, this trans-continental highway could be completed by the early 1970s. This is of the utmost importance to tourists. If this part of the road remains unsealed, many potential tourists who do not wish to go overland by rail will be deterred from travelling in this area. Some of these people will be overseas tourists who do not want to travel by plane or train. There is no doubt that some people prefer to travel by road, driving themselves wherever they want to go. Consequently, important benefits to our economy will be lost if this work is not completed by the time the expected influx of tourists comes to this country. The programme of the Western Australian Government provides for construction and sealing of about sixty miles of the Eyre Highway each year. Since 1961 258 miles of the highway east of Northam have been sealed at a cost of $5,176,000. If this rate of progress can be continued, it is estimated that the 1 80-mile stretch to the South Australian border will be completed by December 1969 - that is, by the time this great influx of overseas tourists arrives. The Western Australian plan involves the sealing of 452 miles of road at an estimated cost of $9,734,000. The South Australian Government expects to have the highway sealed to Ceduna on its side of the border by 1968 at a cost of $5,260,000. I understand the South Australian Government is prepared to continue the bitumen to Penong provided the Commonwealth provides financial assistance to seal the section between Penong and the Western Australian border, the estimated cost of which is $6,300,000. I point out again that the sealing of the Eyre Highway will be of tremendous benefit to tourists in this country. The work, when completed, will form a vital part of a national roads system that is urgently needed for the development of Australia and the expansion of the national economy. The tourist industry will receive a great stimulus when tourists are able to use a sealed road in this region. A sealed highway will give an impetus to the motel and service station trade along that highway. This Government will also benefit by increased collections of fuel tax when many more motor vehicles use the highway. This work, when done, could encourage more Australians to travel extensively in Australia instead of going overseas. This would strengthen our balance of payments. I have pointed out to the House that other countries have found that a trans-continental highway reduces the demand for foreign exchange from their own people and attracts foreign exchange from overseas tourists. In effect, it encourages people to see their own land first, provided they can get there fairly easily. Completion of the Eyre Highway will be of great assistance in this regard. The honourable member for Reid (Mr Uren) said yesterday that in 1965, $58m came into this country in the form of earnings from overseas visitors and that Australians travelling overseas took over $122m with them. In other words, we were S64m out of pocket. The balance is against us at the present time. There is no doubt that this is a good Bill. We must make our scenic spots attractive to tourists if they are to come here and are to urge other people to come here later. I urge the Government to give a high priority to the sealing of the Eyre Highway from Penong to the Western Australian border by the early 1970s to coincide with the completion of the Western Australian section and the South Australian section. The work, when done, will greatly assist the tourist industry. I should like to mention a matter that I referred to the Minister for Shipping and Transport (Mr Freeth) recently - namely, the proposal to terminate the standard gauge railway at Midland Junction in Western Australia. I did not get a satisfactory reply from the Minister. The present proposal, if implemented, could adversely affect tourist traffic. The original proposal was for a standard gauge line across the continent from Brisbane to Perth, a distance of about 3,000 miles. But this Government - not the Government of Western Australia - is now quibbling about the last ten miles of this great project. Instead of having the line terminate at the new interstate passenger terminal in Perth, the Commonwealth wants to terminate it at Midland Junction. If this proposal is proceeded with, the break of gauge problem will be transferred from Kalgoorlie to Midland. The absurdity of this should be apparent. A final decision has not yet been made, but when it is, let us hope that it comes down on the side of common sense. It is about time that this matter was settled. The Commonwealth should not be arguing about financing it. If additional funds are required, they should be made available, not only in the interests of tourism but in the interests of common sense. We must remember that the terminal is not being built merely for Midland, which is in my electorate, but for Perth, Fremantle and indeed Australia. It will have international as well as national significance. To my mind, it is ridiculous to consider placing a passenger terminal of such national importance twenty-two miles inland from the shipping terminal at Fremantle, which is the western gateway to Australia. An item in the 'West Australian* of 30th March of this year stated: No decision yet on railway terminal. No decision had been made on whether to build the standard railway passenger terminal at East Perth or Midland, Premier Brand said yesterday. However, it was a fact that the proposal to build the terminal at East Perth was in jeopardy because of the cost. The Commonwealth Government's advisers on the project had reported that it would be cheaper to build the terminal at Midland than at East Perth. Mr Brandsaid he would prefer to have the terminal at East Perth. This seemed to him to be as far from the centre of Perth as it could conveniently be placed. Surely that is a reasonable statement for the Premier of Western Australia to make. I urge the Minister for Shipping and Transport and the Government to ensure that the terminal is placed where it will be of advantage not only to Western Australia but to Australia as a whole. This will help our tourist traffic. The Minister in Charge of Tourist Activities said that by 1970 we could have 320,000 visiters from overseas and that by 1975 the number could be 607,000. This is very good, but let us be sure that those who come here will be good ambassadors for Australia after they have left the country. Silly things like a break of gauge at Midland will not help. Imagine a tourist getting off a ship at Fremantle to travel overland by train. He would travel to Perth by train on a 3 feet 6 inch gauge, change trains at Perth, possibly, because the trains do not always go through to Midland, and then travel on another train using the 3 feet 6 inch gauge. Then at Midland he would commence his journey proper overland. No tourist would be impressed by this service. Nor again would a tourist be impressed if he decided to go overland by the Eyre Highway and found that he had to travel about 300 miles over an unsealed road from Eucla to Penong because the Commonwealth would not provide the funds for the sealing of the road. Another field that calls for our attention in the development of the tourist industry is the use of supersonic aircraft. According to reports, they will be in the air by 1971. But before then the Jumbo jets will be in use, and they will carry 490 passengers. Air travel will be revolutionised in the next ten to twenty years. Four nations - Britain, France, Russia and the United States - are now in the supersonic race. The first aircraft off the drawing board is expected to be the Concorde, which is a joint venture of the British and French Governments. These will be bigger and faster than any aircraft in use today. They are expected to fly at 1,450 miles an hour. Already world airlines are jumping on to the supersonic band wagon, fifty-two advance orders having been placed already for the Concorde. These new aircraft, because of the payload they carry, are expected to reduce fares. Although they wm be more expensive to operate, their larger payloads will mean that passengers will be able to fly at cheaper rates. Of course, this will mean more people travelling round the world and more people coming to Australia. The Jumbo jets will take three times the payload of the aircraft operating today. Instead of five seats across the economy section there will be nine, and the aircraft will be capable of carrying 490 passengers. A major task will be redesigning air terminals to meet the challenge of the new aircraft. Where are the airports that they will use? What planning are we doing for the supersonic aircraft that will follow the Jumbo jets? Today's giant aircraft carry more than 100 passengers. The giant aircraft of tomorrow wm carry four or five times that number. When we talk about tourism we must think about the aircraft that will be used in future years. New methods must be devised to get passengers to and from the airports more speedily. The airline passenger today carries his luggage to a counter, has it weighed and checked in, pays an excess rate if his luggage is overweight and then walks to a holding room. After about half an hour he is shepherded on to the tarmac and aboard the aircraft. At the end of the trip he waits for about fifteen minutes for his luggage and catches a bus or a car for a drive of thirty or forty minutes into the city office. He often spends as much time - or even more time - travelling to and from the airport as he does in the air. This is bad enough with the aircraft being used today, with, say, a Viscount carrying fifty passengers. But imagine what the position will be when we have the Boeing 747 Jumbo jets carrying 490 passengers, and after them the supersonic aircraft. Travelling procedures must be simplified. This is being looked at now in European countries. Authorities in these countries are considering how to speed up the methods of getting passengers to and from the airports, how to speed up the handling of luggage and how to reduce the waiting time. If we intend to enter the tourist trade extensively we must look at these problems seriously. As an honourable member said earlier in the debate, we must simplify our customs procedures. I agree with the honourable member for Wills (Mr Bryant) that we are out of step with the rest of the world. He pointed out that in 1963 Canada abolished the entry visa for nationals of certain countries. We should consider doing this if we intend seriously to encourage the tourist trade. One good feature about the procedures for entry into Australia is that, as far as I am aware, we do not have an airport tax. Honourable members who have travelled overseas know that most countries charge an airport tax. I think it is about 15s. The arrangement in Australia is good and I hope it is never altered. I raised the matter of the bush fly menace with the previous Prime Minister. This problem was mentioned in the House yesterday. The previous Prime Minister advised me that the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation had been trying to find a solution to the problem. This pest will do much to stop people from returning here and from encouraging others to come here, and we must do something about it. People who come here for the first time may not know about our bush fly menace, but it does not take them long to learn about it. We see visitors who have just landed here being interviewed for television programmes, and they seem to be brushing flies away. I will never forget a review I saw of the Empire Games, which were held in Perth. People were waving their hands across their faces, brushing the flies away. The gesture was known in Perth at the time as 'giving the sign'. I hope the CSIRO will continue with its efforts to conquer this pest. Australia has some wonderful tourist attractions and we can be justly proud of them. The honourable member for Henty (Mr Fox) mentioned quite a few of them only a short time ago. The Aboriginals are one such attraction. I would suggest that many features in the western part of the continent would assist the tourist industry. The Kimberleys and the north west were mentioned in the report. This area is novel for tourists. It is the most interesting part of this great country of ours, in my view. Australia has some of the best beaches in the world, and Western Australia has some of the best in Australia. Our beaches combined with our wonderful climate should be one of the best attractions to tourists. I have pleasure in supporting the Bill. Mr IRWIN(Mitchell) [4.30]- The Government's intention to establish the Australian Tourist Commission is to be commended and the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade and Industry (Mr McEwen) also is to be commended for the part he has played in bringing about this Bill. The earnings from the spending of visitors to Australia will be considerable. It was estimated that in 1965-66 the amount exceeded $60m and that the sum earned by Qantas Empire Airways Ltd in that year was $6m. Tourist traffic does improve our overseas balance of payments. With increased co-ordination of advertising by the States the figures I have given will increase considerably. Tourism will provide more foreign exchange and will supersede most other earners of foreign exchange other than the wool and wheat industries. It will assist our employment situation and will foster employment in many fields. Over and above the material gains by way of overseas exchange and monetary benefits we must not overlook the goodwill and friendship that the tourist trade will engender between people from other nations and ourselves. As Australians we may lack veneer but we have national characteristics that endear themselves to most people - our friendliness and our down-to-earth attitude to most things. These characteristics will appeal to visitors from overseas. This year the Government has assisted the Australian National Travel Association financially to the extent of $862,000. This authority, which was established in 1927, deserves our gratitude for the wonderful work it has done over the years, especially in the early stages of its existence when, because of the slowness of travel, it was difficult to attract tourists to Australia. They had to be people of leisure with not very light or strict schedules as to movement if they were to be enticed to Australia. The Association did a wonderful job in that respect. It recognised and comprehended the vastness of our tourist potential and initiated the move to appoint the Commission. It is difficult for people who have had an association with and been in control of a function to relegate themselves out of office. That members of the Association have done so proves their sincerity and genuineness. Australia, and the Government, must become vitally and actively associated with all phases of tourism. Another gratifying aspect is that State governments, which have for some years had tourist bureaux overseas advertising the attractions of their own States, are desirous of co-operating with the Commonwealth Government in an endeavour to attract more tourists to Australia. The honourable member for Stirling (Mr Webb) spoke about bush flies. Of course, they are a definite hazard, but I see that through this Bill there is the possibility that more consideration will be given to eliminating this menace than has been given in the past. I am informed that this menace costs the wool industry at least $20m a year. It also raises the old and burning question that has never been fully answered: where do flies go in the winter time? We may be able to direct our tourists to places where flies are not present in great numbers. I stress that first impressions are often the best and the most lasting. We must do something about our customs procedures. I have been at the wharves when people have arrived from overseas, and conditions of entry to Australia could not be described other than as chaotic. With better organisation and administration present difficulties in getting customs clearances could be obviated. I stress this point. It does not matter much what we do about advertising overseas: first impressions are important and our present customs defects are noted. Of course, we who live in Sydney have the Sydney Harbour and so have the edge on people who live in other States. Mr Curtin- What about the Yarra? Mr IRWIN- I did not want to mention that. I am sure that the improvement of customs clearances to enable people to get away from our wharves as quickly as possible is not an insuperable problem and it should engage the Commission's attention at the outset Furthermore, it is desirable that the facilities at Mascot and Tullamarine airports be completed in order to give people who fly into Australia a better first impression than they get at present. I hope that what I have said about customs procedures will be noted by the Minister because I believe it is one of the most important factors affecting tourists to Australia. Mr COLLARD(Kalgoorlie) [4.40]- Mr Deputy Speaker, the Bill now before the House proposes to introduce for the first time an Act to establish an Australian Tourist Commission, the purpose and objects of which are to encourage more people to come to Australia and travel in Australia. The Minister in Charge of Tourist Activities (Mr Chipp) has informed us that the task of the Commission is 10 attract the tourists and that the States and Australian industry together must share the task and also the cost, apparently, of looking after them and providing facilities and amenities. Therefore, the success or otherwise of the Commission's efforts will depend very largely on what the States and private industry are prepared to do or can see their way dear to do in the way of developing these facilities and amenities which must go together with the tourist attractions. So it would seem that the Government is of the opinion that once having brought people to Australia it has done all it can be expected to do. Of course, this is a completely wrong attitude to adopt, because it is not sufficient to leave the rest to State governments and private industry. There must be a co-ordinated effort between the 'Commonwealth, the States and industry; they must all work together under a proper plan so as to ensure that all those things necessary to achieve the final purpose of the Commission are properly carried out, not only overseas in the way of publicity but also in Australia itself. The extent to which that co-ordination exists will mean the difference between an easy task for the Commission and a very difficult one. The Commonwealth must increase its financial assistance rather substantially if we are to enjoy any great increase in the tourist trade over a long period of time, and it is the long term which is most important. Late in 1965 the Managing Director of the Australian National Travel Association said that he agreed with the Director-General of the Irish Tourist Board that Australia was grossly underspending on the promotion of tourism. He went on to say that Australia was outlaying less than 2% of the return we received from overseas tourism alone. This niggardly attitude must not be allowed to continue. However, the Minister in this debate has not given us any encouragement at all with reference to finance for this Commission. In fact, he was almost noncommittal. The Commission's main and practically only job is one of publicising our tourist attractions, and in that regard it is not likely to run out of material, because Australia has plenty to offer, particularly in the way of natural attractions; but there is a great deal more to be done both at home and overseas if we hope to reap the full benefit from what nature has been good enough to provide us with, and certainly publicity by way of pamphlets and magazines will not be sum.cent if other things such as accommodation and general conditions are to be neglected. Now there are several good reasons - and one in particular, of course - why we should be doing a great deal more to capture additional overseas tourist trade, and certainly we have a very wide area in which to cast our net. However, we should not overlook the fact that there are also very good reasons why we should be doing much more to encourage or persuade our own people to travel more widely and to see more of Australia. Unfortunately, it does not appear as though the Commission is expected to go very far into that area, and if that is so it is a great pity. In a country such as this, which has so much to offer in the way of tourist attractions and holiday resorts in so many different ways sufficient to satisfy all tastes, it should not be difficult to capture a great deal more of the local tourist trade. There are a number of avenues and methods which could be followed or employed towards encouraging people to see Australia first, and we should be pursuing the local trade with the same vigour and at the same time as we are pursuing the overseas trade. It may be suggested that international trade is more important or has more value than domestic trade, but in my book we require both; but even if we are looking at tourism only from the angle of international trade, there is still considerable value in encouraging our own people to see Australia first. The value I refer to in that respect would come from the personal observations and the knowledge of the Australian attractions which people would have when they went overseas and which they would quite naturally, even if unknowingly, put to good purpose in the way of advertising Australia amongst those people they met and mixed with overseas. However, the purpose of this Bill is to encourage people from overseas not only to visit Australia but also to travel in Australia, the idea being, of course, that they should be encouraged to visit our many tourist attractions. While the purpose of the Bill will meet with general approval, the Bill cannot properly achieve its purpose merely as a result of implementing the provisions which the proposed Act will contain, because they will fall far short of what is required in the overall situation if we hope to attract large numbers of tourists over the long term. If we are really going to set out in earnest to attract and encourage people to travel in and around Australia, I would have thought it would be necessary to commence proceedings in Australia itself by ensuring that what we have to offer is readily available and properly presented, and that inspection and consumption are guaranteed to take place in some degree of comfort. But in this case it appears that we are to adopt just the opposite tactics and that the Commission is to pursue a course of building up the number of visitors without first making certain of the other points. If this is allowed to happen there Ls a strong possibility, as I see it, that it could have a detrimental effect upon our efforts in the long run. I say this because the reports of returning tourists regarding conditions and so on will carry much more weight than all the pamphlets and magazines we care to publish and distribute. We must not forget that this publicity campaign will have the backing of the Commonwealth of Australia and will not simply be a case of private industry looking for an easy dollar. Therefore, it becomes even more important that we ensure that good accommodation and conditions are part of the programme. Apparently it is not even certain that the Commission will undertake any investigation of tourist attractions in Australia before it goes overseas or before it commences its publicity campaign. I was surprised to hear the Minister suggest that this could happen when he said: In the process it may be that the Commission will also study the Australian facilities and amenities which exist; it will need to do this to inform its own mind on what it is setting out to promote. It was pleasing to hear that the Minister himself was of the opinion that the Commission should do this, but it seems strange that he should consider it necessary in raising the subject to use the words 'it may be', for surely this must also mean 'it may not be'. It would indeed be ridiculous for the Commission members to go overseas or draw up and publish advertising material without having first visited the several places of tourist attractions in each State to make themselves aware of what is actually offering, or perhaps more importantly to find out what is lacking, for it could be on the latter point where the efforts of the Commission could succeed or fail, depending on what is done or is not done to correct any lack of proper facilities. Because of this, 1 would not have expected to hear any doubt expressed, particularly by the Minister, on whether the Commission would carry out an inspection of our tourist attractions as one of its first moves towards encouraging people to come to this country. The Minister has informed us that the Government's decision to establish an Australian Tourist Commission resulted from a proposal put forward by the Australian National Travel Association, and in turn, of course* that proposal was put forward as the result of a report brought down by Harris, Kerr, Forster and Co., one of the two firms commissioned by the Australian National Travel Association to make a study of the tourist situation and of Australia's potential to attract a greater number of tourists in the future, and not just in the near future, either. The report followed the biggest and most comprehensive survey and study that has ever been carried out on Australia's tourist possibilities, and I understand that it cost about $40,000. Therefore, it should be worthy of some respect and consideration. One of the recommendations out of several it made was that the Commonwealth should set up an authority or commission under the jurisdiction of the Commonwealth. While this Bill will be the means whereby a Commission will be established, it does very little else. It hardly touches the important recommendations made by the Harris, Kerr, Forster report, except with regard to the adoption of a promotion programme; and that particular recommendation of the report is placed towards the bottom of its list of main points, so apparently it was considered to be of much less importance and perhaps meant that it should not be undertaken until several of the other recommendations were put into force. I would be inclined to agree with that view when we look at the report on a long term basis. While the report places promotion programmes and advertising as the eleventh of what it calls the twelve more important needs to encourage tourists, by this Bill the Government places it second among the powers of the Commission. I suggest that this gives a fairly clear indication of how unimportant the powers of the Commission will be when measured against the several recommendations of the report upon which this Bill is supposed to be designed. It also suggests that the Government is not treating this matter over-seriously One of the powers of the Commission - apparently the main power - is: To engage in, or arrange for, publicity campaigns or other publicity, by any appropriate means of communication, in relation to Australia, with particular reference to its tourist attractions and facilities; Yet, despite the fact that the Commission is expected, with regard to publicity, to apply particular reference to tourist attractions and facilities in Australia, the Minister is not certain that it will actually make a study of these things, even though one provision gives the Minister the right to issue directions as to the actions of the Commission. The Minister's uncertainty is particularly surprising, as the Government apparently places more importance upon publicity than upon some other aspects of tourism. This legislation will give the Commission power to do very little more than draw up, publish and distribute magazines, pamphlets and other advertising material and to pass on information to travel agencies and transport operators overseas. This is only a very minor part of what is required if Australia's tourist potential is to be properly exploited. It appears that the powers of the Commission could be wide enough to cover many of the requirements, because clause 16(1) provides that the Commission will have the power to do all things conducive to or necessary for the carrying out of the purposes for which the Commission is established. One visualises the Commission doing a number of things that should be done if it is to be successful in its efforts to encourage people from other countries to come to and travel in Australia. But the Minister has made it clear that the Commission is not expected to exercise its powers to the extent this clause suggests, for in his second reading speech he said: The range of activities which will make up the Commission's main undertaking can be seen from the paragraphs of clause 16 sub-clause (2.) of the Bill. He then went on to refer to publicity and advertising campaigns etc., which are all that those paragraphs give the Commission power to engage in. Apparently the Commission is not expected to interest itself very much beyond carrying out publicity, and this is where we may suffer in the future if our early publicity does not coincide with, or is not subsequent to, any necessary improvements in conditions. After completing their field research members of the HKF Committee used the word 'poor' to describe some of the available accommodation, and they were also critical of facilities, or the lack of facilities. They then recommended that, where private industry could not or would not supply the necessary requirements, the Government should provide them and have them managed or leased by some qualified organisation. This is one of the avenues in which the Commission should be used in the first place. It should travel throughout Australia and note what may be lacking in accommodation etc. Where it found that lack of facilities was such as to offset to some degree the value of the attractions, it should have power to recommend to the Government what should be done and to indicate what is required to bring these places to a proper standard. Apart from this, it should also be safe in the knowledge that any reasonable recommendation it .made would be carried out. Further, it should be empowered to inquire into transport and accommodation charges and be able to report on whether in the different circumstances they are fair and reasonable. The Commission should look at many other things and be satisfied upon them before making any move to go overseas, but this can happen only through a coordinated effort between the parties to which I have referred previously. Apparently the Government has done very little in this regard. The HKF report warns against the inclination to rush in and promote a rapid growth of tourism before we have established a planned and co-ordinated development programme on a long term basis. The report suggests that there is a danger in trying to cash in too quickly on the immediate situation rather than pursuing the certain success of a long term plan. I think this is clear from the following paragraphs of the report: Australia stands on the threshold of great opportunity in the field of international tourism. Concurrently, it faces challenges in providing for an expanding travel movement of Australians at home and for the travel needs of a greatly increased flow of overseas visitors. It is now at a critical point where, to meet these challenges, it should make decisions, establish policies, and plan for the development of its travel industry, destination areas and travel facilities. Australia at this time should review the progress it has made, give consideration to ils present position and adopt plans for the future. In a comparatively few years Australia has become one of the world's great emergent countries with an almost unlimited future. Travel and tourism are a fundamental part of this future and can contribute significantly to the realisation of ft. It is the opinion of the Survey Team that it would be unsound to allow growth in tourism to take place as a result of pressures of Immediate needs without co-ordinating the efforts of government and industry or without harnessing effectively the existing enthusiasm and desire to take advantage of Australia's opportunities in international travel. Australia should now adopt and implement a planned, co-ordinated and strong -tourist development programme. This should be based on a long range plan despite any fluctuating balance of payments considerations and without interruption due to uncertain conditions and tensions which have developed, or may develop, in some parts of the world. Travel movements are a great natural force and, under the impetus of extraordinary improvements in transportation, continuously advance despite all but very major dislocations in world economic conditions. So. as the report points out, there will be an automatic or natural increase in our tourist trade even without our publicity campaign being stepped up. What we have to guard against is any possibility of dissatisfaction with, or criticism of, our accommodation, travel and other facilities, charges etc. by those tourists when they return. If we leave ourselves open to those criticisms, they will definitely tell against us in the long term. Therefore, as the report rightly points out, we should ensure that we have a development plan and proper progress throughout Australia before we settle down to any high pressure publicity. While quite naturally tourists will be interested in visiting and exploring our capital cities, it must be remembered that the great majority will be much more interested in visiting the outback and far flung areas of this country to see what they have to offer. I am referring to most of the country away from the capital cities. I am sure that they will be .more interested in looking at our flora and fauna and colourful views than in visiting night clubs. They should be encouraged to go to the outback - not to travel through it in a hurry but to remain for a while in attractive spots to gain the full value from what nature has been good enough to provide. To encourage them to do this it will be necessary to ensure that good comfortable accommodation and amenities are readily available. Unfortunately these things are not now available in some places, and the people on the spot are not able financially to improve conditions to the desired standard. I notice that the Tourist Ministers Council has expressed concern about the standard of accommodation and is now pursuing a plan of uniformity to offset complaints regarding the misuse of the word motel' for- what has been found to be rather inferior accommodation, but I fail to see how it will get very far unless finance is made available. This possible misuse of terms relating to conditions and accommodation is one of the dangers the Commission will need to guard against when it is arranging publicity and drawing up pamphlets. It will have to be sure that what is advertised is correct and cannot be misunderstood. This again points to the necessity for the Commission to visit outback areas as one of its first duties. The HKF report, in dealing with accommodation, estimates that 46,600 more rooms will be required within the next ten years - that was from the date the report was presented - to satisfy the tourist demands. Many of these will be required at the actual site of tourist attractions, or at least very close to them. It is in those places, in the country areas rather than the capital cities, where the main difficulties in relation to finance will arise. Where these difficulties do arise the Government will have to do something about them; otherwise we will find gaps in our overall tourist schemes which will considerably reduce their full value. Big improvements in accommodation have been made in a number of places. This is encouraging. The people who have been making these improvements are to be complimented. Even so there may still be quite a big difference between what may be termed a motel in the outback and something of that nature in overseas countries. This matter must be considered in our advertising. Another thing we must guard against is the possibility of allowing our natural attractions to be swamped or ruined by man made attractions. This danger will always exist; it is one we will have to guard against. Undoubtedly there is a great future for Australia in the tourist trade. The greatest attractions we have are those which have been provided by nature. It would take several hours to refer to all of them - even briefly to describe their more interesting features. We have them, in every State, and in each State they are different. I could talk about the many attractions in my own State of Western Australia, particularly those in my own electorate. Western Australia is noted for its tourist attractions. They are located in every part of the State, and there is no need for me to dwell upon them to any extent. Nature has been very generous to Australia and has provided us with magnificent views equal to those anywhere else in the world. In most cases they are quite different to what one would see elsewhere. Nature has provided us with many varieties of fauna and flora - again different to what one would see in other countries. It is those things which, if properly preserved and not allowed to be excluded for man made glitter and glamour, will prove to be our greatest asset in the tourist trade. If we can provide good accommodation and comfortable means of travel, both at reasonable cost, we are not likely to experience any difficulty in encouraging people to our outback areas - providing, of course, we do not allow that which has been given to us by nature to be destroyed by man made efforts carried out on the basis of a quick quid and to hell with the future. Some tourists will want to rough it to some degree in the wide open spaces. They can be accommodated without trouble at all. But others will want to see our natural attractions, such as birds, animals and flowers, in more comfortable conditions. To meet their demands it will be necessary to set up additional and extensive national parks where the animals, etc., can be preserved and encouraged to multiply. Reasonably good accommodation and other facilities will have to be provided to encourage tourists to stop over for at least a short time to enjoy those attractions fully. Here again we find a need for finance. Here again is the need to spend if we expect to gather. The only source of finance for such projects will be the Government. Although the HKF report drew attention to the need for these types of attractions, if we want to succeed to any extend in tourism then the Government must move in those directions. But there is no suggestion that the Government intends to do so. There is also the need for new roads and improved roads to permit better travel conditions. It is of little use to advertise tourist attractions if it is not possible to reach them or if the condition of the roads is such as to discourage people from using them. Here again we should be able to expect some Federal responsibility. As I said earlier, there is one particularly good reason why we should encourage many, more people to come to Australia. It is not the one referred to by the Minister - that is, our reputation for friendliness and easy going hospitality. The main reason is the one which causes other countries to try to increase the number of visitors they have - that is, the additional amount of money which can be gathered from tourist spend ing. But we should not be satisfied simply with what an increase in tourists will mean to tourist spending when considered against our existing facilities; we must concern ourselves with providing better conditions and better opportunities and, more particularly, with extending the fields in which tourists can be encouraged to spend. Whilst I support the proposal to give more publicity to what we have to offer, I believe that before pushing it too hard it would be better to spend a little time and quite some money in providing better facilities at those places where tourist attractions now exist and also in establishing additional attractions such as large animal, bird and flower reserves, and things of that nature, in the outback. I am sure that such reserves, where tourists could observe our animals and birds in their natural surroundings and where the animals and birds would be tame enough to come reasonably close to be photographed, would prove to be a tremendous attraction. The cost of establishing them would soon be recovered. It must be remembered that increased tourist spending would benefit not only those who were directly involved. There would be many indirect benefits. The Taxation Branch would benefit largely, both from direct and indirect taxation. It would be a short-sighted policy to refuse financial assistance to improve features within Australia which would attract and hold tourists and, in turn, increase our returns. Yet we have heard nothing from the Government of any intention to make grants or loans to the States for the specific purpose of improving our tourist attractions. It is quite obvious that, if the Australian Tourist Commission is to achieve its purpose to any worthwhile extent, it will be necessary for the States to carry out a number of improvements to roads, water supply, accommodation, fares and other matters. To do these things State governments are certain to require financial assistance, but apparently they will have to beg for it from this Government Although I support the Bill because of the additional publicity that it is supposed will come from it, I think it would have been better to develop and improve many things in Australia before pursuing the publicity angle. Mr WENTWORTH(Mackellar) [5.71- Like other honourable members, I support this Bill and I commend the Government for introducing it. It has been heartening to see the amount of interest shown in it. Because of that it seems to me that the Parliament should have two non-voting and unpaid members on the proposed Australian Tourist Commission - perhaps one from this House and one from the Senate. At the Committee stage I propose to move an amendment on those lines. I hope it will commend itself to the Government and the House. Honourable members from both sides of the House have put forward a number of constructive ideas. I think honourable members can take some pride in this debate. As the honourable member for Kalgoorlie (Mr Collard) said during his speech, there are two angles to tourism, or two duties before the Commission. One is publicity and the other is the improvement of facilities in Australia. I do not want to under-estimate the importance of improving our publicity both at home and abroad, but I do not wish to speak about it today. I would prefer to concentrate on the improvement of facilities in Australia. It has been said by other honourable members that tourism is big business. It enters into our balance of payments - our crucial fight for overseas funds - in two ways. In the first place, tourists coming here from abroad bring money. They are, as it were, an export; the money they bring to Australia is similar to the money that is brought into Australia by the sale of wool, metals or anything else that we send overseas. In the second place, we send abroad a large number of tourists from Australia. We have what is known as an unfavourable balance in regard to tourism. So if we can improve our facilities in Australia we can get more Australians to take advantage of them. This would be equivalent to import replacement, because it. would mean that funds would not go overseas. Even more than this, if we are to have m Australia a healthy tourist industry which will attract people from overseas, it must be built on the foundations of a healthy local tourist industry. So it would seem to me very definitely that we should be improving our local tourism as a means of import replacement and as a means of attracting overseas money. I do not want to speak at the moment of the Australian tourist angle; I want to speak specifically of the overseas angle. We have to look at this matter practically, as a businessman would, and ask: what do overseas tourists want in Australia? Firstly, there is the prestige of going somewhere that is distant. This is a real thing which, certainly in the wealthier society of America, carries a great deal of weight. There is the prestige of getting away from things. Being far from other countries makes us, funnily enough, a tourist attraction. Secondly, there is the matter of novelty. When tourists come here they want to see something different from what is available to them in their own country. They do nol come to Australia just to have a repetition of London, Birmingham, New York or Chicago. They come here for novelty. Thirdly, tourists need comfort. They will not come here if we cannot offer to them the amenities to which they are accustomed. Now, there is some conflict between the novelty angle and 'the comfort angle. This is a conflict which we must face and resolve. There is one other factor. We are south of the Equator and therefore our seasons are the opposite of those in the countries from which the bulk of our tourist trade can come. In particular, we have summer while the northern hemisphere has winter. This is one of the things which may be very important to us. After all, where in the southern hemisphere can one go? One could go to Africa, but many people would find Africa today uncongenial. One could go to South America. There is definitely a tourist potential in South America, but there is also a tourist potential in Australia and the islands of the Pacific. It is up to us to exploit these angles - the prestige of distance, the novelty, the giving of comfort and amenities, and the fact that our seasons are the opposite of those of Europe and America. The angle of opposite seasons enables us to exploit Australian sunshine, Australian surfing and Australian fishing. Perhaps I may be pardoned for a moment if I say that my electorate, which contains the northern beaches of Sydney from Manly to Palm Beach, helps very much the Australian image. The fact that world surfboard champions come from my electorate is not to be entirely ignored. Indeed, the fact that Australian sportsmen have given such a good account of themselves in so many fields overseas is something which helps to attract tourists to this country. I want now to talk about the novelty angle. It is of no use our trying to be a poor copy of what is in Europe and America. We have in Australia things which are unique. I think particularly of the Great Barrier Reef, the greatest coral structure in the world. Are we exploiting this? I know that we have some outposts on the Barrier Reef but are they sufficiently accessible and sufficiently commodious and do they have the necessary facilities? Let me emphasise that what we need in many of these cases is novelty value. It may be that the bulk of tourists - the people who will spend the most money in total - are not able to appreciate or even to afford these novelty items, but the fact that there is a small glamour fringe of tourists which individually spend a tremendous amount but in total, because their numbers are few, may not spend as much as the bulk of tourists, brings in the other tourists. I should like to see, for example, in association with our Barrier Reef such things as hovercraft, because this tropical wonderland, which is unique in the world, has a great potential for that kind of thing. Perhaps the small submarines which are used for tourists in the Mediterranean - there are such things - should be available here. We have in this House perhaps the most famous skin diver in Australia, so perhaps we should have facilities on a greater scale for skin diving. This kind of thing, which may not appeal to the bulk of people practically, will appeal nevertheless to their imaginations and bring in the bulk of the tourists who would like to see these things even if they will not use them or cannot afford them. What are we doing to exploit our unique fauna and flora? I deplore the slaughter of the kangaroo which has been going on over too much of Australia. It is time we had a more reasoned look at the way in which some of our great native assets, which are worth money in tourist terms, are being despoiled and destroyed. What are we doing to exploit the attraction of our open spaces? It may be said that we are doing something in this regard, but where are our dude ranches, so-called? We do not want improved hotels in country towns. No tourist is interested in this kind of thing. What we want rather are proper facilities to enable tourists to go on to a station or cattle property, to see sheep and cattle being worked, to go to the Northern Territory and see the buffaloes, to see the wild birds in the Northern Territory, perhaps to visit the pelican rookeries and things of that kind. These are the things we should be offering tourists, but we are not. Can a tourist hire in the outback a caravan and four wheel drive vehicle? One will find it hard to do so. What about our aerial taxis? We have a very good aerial taxi service in Australia, but is it sufficiently known? Do we publicise its work? I would say that we do not. We have potentially some of the greatest mines in the world. People would be interested in seeing these in the outback. Incidentally, one of our wrecked industries is the pearling industry. More than half the luggers in Australia are laid up with no work to do. Perhaps tourists blessed with a little imagination might find interest in this kind of thing. The question of comfort comes in. First, I believe that in our big cities we should have first class hotels of international standard. We are getting some now. We have not, perhaps, got enough of them, but certainly the improvement that has taken place in the last six or seven years has been phenomenal. Mr Arthur- We have them in Sydney. Mr WENTWORTH-Yes, we have them in Sydney, and I think we have them in Melbourne too. Let us be generous to Melbourne in this respect. Mr DonaldCameron - They should be everywhere. Mr WENTWORTH- My friend from Brisbane says that they should be everywhere. I have already suggested that we should have them in all capitals. Although we do not want to spend large amounts of money on hotels in all our country towns there are certainly some country towns in which we should have good motel accommodation, and this is another field in which a tremendous amount of improvement has been shown over the last six or seven years. We should also, as other honourable members have suggested, act as hosts to international conventions. We should perhaps have convention centres in various places. We should certainly have them in Sydney and Melbourne, and perhaps my friend from Brisbane might like to see such a centre in his city also. But most of all we have to sell our image, and our image is one of sunshine and space. I believe we have to sell Sydney as the capital of the South Pacific. We do not want to exclude the possibility of having Sydney thought of as the main centre for the Pacific Islands. It was once, you know, but it is not to the same extent today as it was in earlier times. But with our modern aircraft and ships we can perhaps revive this idea of Sydney as the main city of the South Pacific. In this connection I would not rule out the possibility of a further liaison with New Zealand. New Zealand is different from Australia. It has different kinds of scenery and different attractions. The two countries might well complement one another, so that people coming here might automatically think of going on to New Zealand, and people who go to New Zealand might naturally think of proceeding to Australia. In this way the two countries might help one another, or lean on one another. Of course there is also New Guinea, which is perhaps one of the most spectacular places in the world. May I also add a suggestion that may seem a little outlandish. It is not meant for the general tourist but for the small fringe of luxury tourists whose activities will help to build up the picture of Australia, although these tourists are few in number and the total of their expenditure is small. I am one of the few members of this Parliament who have had the good fortune to visit the Antarctic continent. It is a difficult place to get to at present, because there are no normal travel facilities, but it would be quite easy to provide facilities to enable people to get there. As a spectacle the Antarctic continent is, I believe, without rival in the world. A visit to Antarctica is something which the average run of tourists would not be at all interested in, because it would be fabulously expensive, but I believe there is an opening for the development here of a little bit of tourist glamour, and I put this forward as something which is meant, perhaps, rather for advertising effect than to have any solid substance. These are just desultory ideas that I have tried to throw into the ring. In doing so I want to build up the interest of this House, which has already been shown so markedly, and I want to ask the House to support the amendment which I shall move, that we should have on the Commission one member of the House of Representatives and one member of the Senate, non-voting and unpaid, merely to maintain contact between the very valuable work of the Tourist Commission and this Parliament which, after all, is more than the Government of Australia, and to which the Government of Australia is ultimately responsible. It is consonant with the dignity of this House that its members individually should have some part in the administration of government. I do not for one moment suggest that they should go into politically sensitive areas1- we all know that policy cannot be entirely bi-partisan - but I think the debate on this Bill has shown that on the question of the promotion of Australian tourism there is no difference between the two sides. It does not seem to me, therefore, that there would be any political difficulty in having a member of this House and a member of the Senate on the proposed Commission. I do not think they should have voting powers. I do not think they would have the competence to exercise an independent vote on technical matters, but they would have the competence to present the views of this House to the Commission, and the views of the Commission to this House. To give an analogy, we have members of this Parliament on the Library Committee, and this is right and proper. I see no reason, therefore, why members of the Parliament should not be members of the proposed Commission, and I shall move an amendment in the Committee stage with a view to having two members of the Parliament on the Australian Tourist Commission. Finally let me express a view at variance with views expressed by certain other honourable members. It has been said in this debate that our Aborigines represent one of our great tourist attractions. With this I agree, but I believe our Aborigines are too important to be considered as a tourist attraction. I do not say that they should be barred from tourists, but I do say that their privacy should be respected and that any initiative with regard to their contact with tourists should come from them. Let them decide for themselves the extent of contact that they want with tourists. Let us not exploit these people as we are entitled to exploit our natural scenery, our flowers, our animals and our climate. I make this plea both for the Aboriginal people of Australia and for the people of New Guinea. Whatever tourist potential they have - and it is a great potential indeed - we should refrain from exploiting that tourist potential and from exploiting them. We should consider first their rights as people. Mr PETERS(Scullin) [5.28].- It would be tedious repetition, Mr Acting Speaker, for me to take part in this discussion if I were in favour of exactly the same kind of tourism as those who have already spoken or if I were in favour of tourism for exactly the same reasons as those who have already spoken. With the probable exception of the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Wentworth), honourable members who have spoken have made it clear that what they want to make of Australia is a kind of playground for playboy millionaires. They want to establish in this country a number of Las Vegases, Monacos or Miamis, to be visited by the very wealthy. They consider that a commission for tourism should be an organisation to provide all the exotic requirements of that kind of person coming to this country. They believe that these people should come here so that we Australians may be able to exploit them and so alleviate our balance of payments difficulties. I do not believe in that approach. My views on the subject are more along the lines expressed late in his speech by the honourable member for Mackellar, that is to say, the people we should attract to this country as tourists are the more or less ordinary types of travellers - people who cannot afford to live in luxury hotels but are coming here maybe to visit relatives who have migrated from England or some other country. The people I am thinking about could have a cousin, a husband or a son who has migrated here from Italy, Germany or some other country. I am thinking, also, of the small shopkeeper or the professional man - even the working man - who had saved up some money in the south of Asia and was able to come on a trip to Australia. These are the people that the Commission should cater for, by devising methods whereby they can travel cheaply in this country and really get to know Australia. The Commission should ensure that these people do not travel throughout Australia, packed like sardines in tourist coaches which move from one hotel lobby to the other, with the passengers mingling only with the people in their own particular tour group. This idea is not novel, but has been expressed by experts who have made statements on the subject in other parts of the world. Indeed, I have here a document entitled 'Luxury Forced on the Tourist' which states: Millions of us,' said the American visitor to New Zealand, 'have never lived in homes that are luxurious and de luxe, so why do we have to travel that Way? These people do not like living in luxury hotels and going on conducted tours that are reserved exclusively for people travelling on the same ship or from the same country - going from place to place and seeing the same prescribed features. This article describes how six experts entered into a discussion in New Zealand, and states: How can we get these American tourists out of the hotels? The question was the start of a long discussion of the tourist industry in New Zealand and Australia by three American couples, all of them travelling in a somewhat unusual style, and all six indignant about touring 'Down Under'. . . . All six have travelled extensively in the United States and are critical of the high cost of touring for the average family there. All agree that the unfortunate American tourist, obliged to buy a managed tour and live in hotels abroad, when not cramped for time, should be rescued from that insulated existence and placed in the main stream of people-to-people foreign travel. . . . But you must hand it to these Kiwi and Aussie families who know how to beat high touring costs,' Mrs Quibell said. Mrs Quibellwas one of the six people who took part in this discussion. She continued by saying: They throw blankets, linen, an electric fry pan, a teapot, cutlery and dishes into their cars along with the kids and take off on a holiday they can afford. It would be wonderful if people without a trailer could do the same in our country.' They suggest that tourism should be promoted along those lines so that they can travel cheaply to the places they want to see and not be forced to live in luxury hotels and motels with the other members of a group from their own country. They go on to point out in this article: And our American tourists sit cheek by jowl all day on bus or plane or train. They eat together in the same hotels, trudge obediently side by side after tourist couriers to see the same tourist sights, and then at night loll in the lobbies with the very same people.' Of course, they object to that - and I also would object to it along with, I believe, the majority of tourists. The discussion of this measure leads one to believe that honourable members seek to establish a Commission that will take the tourists and prescribe for them exactly what they are going to do, in surroundings of the greatest luxury; indeed, Surfers Paradise will be a relatively cheap place compared with the exotic surroundings that will be created for the tourist trade. If that is done, the Commission will be providing for only the comparative few. The article I have been referring to continued in this way: Maybe we sound like malcontents. Maybe we're even subversive,' said Dr Quibell. 'But I'm serious about the Down Under Government agencies ignoring the millions of us in the United States who would come down here if they could be assured of reasonable touring costs.' Dr Inglesadded: 'Not to forget our own millions who are not wealthy and who would appreciate such facilities along the tourist trails back home.' These people would appreciate those facilities in Australia, and I believe that this is what the Tourist Commission should aim at, rather than starting out with the wrong concept of providing the most exotic facilities for the more or less millionaire tourists from other countries, exploiting them, and merely using them as a weapon to reduce our overseas obligations. Mr Lynch- That is not the Government's intention. Mr PETERS- The way Government members have spoken during this debate has conveyed the impression that we have to reduce or retrieve the deficit of $634m that has come about in tourist trade balances in the past fifteen years. I admit that it would be a good thing if we could break even, but tourists should not be exploited. A better purpose for the promotion of tourism in a country like this would be, instead of getting a few dollars out of the people who come here, to promote a real understanding between our people and the peoples of other countries. If the relatives of migrants to this country see exactly what Australia is like they will become ambassadors for us when they go back home, either inducing others to migrate here or becoming migrants themselves. I admit that we have beautiful beaches and mountain resorts, and I realise that most electorates have their tourist attractions. Australia has sporting events that would appeal to people from all over the world. The potential football premiers, the Carlton team in my electorate, provide such attractive entertainment that tens of thousands of people flock every week to see them play. I am sure that people visiting this country from overseas enjoy this team's play. Other honourable members naturally have different ideas on where our visitors should go. I heard someone say that they should stand in awe, admiration and bewilderment before an opera house somewhere in Sydney. I believe that in future they will stand in bewilderment and amazement before the Sydney Opera House, feeling somewhat like the traveller who gazes upon the sphinx. Looking at the vast pyramids, he might ask how anybody could have built such gigantic edifices for the purpose for which they were used in days gone by when there was so much greater need for other edifices and buildings. Mr Turnbull- What about the Leaning Tower of Pisa? Mr PETERS-The Leaning Tower is leaning only by accident, but the building in New South Wales to which I have referred is being deliberately put up at the expense not of one hospital but of dozens of hospitals. High schools, a university, hospitals and homes for aged persons could have been built with the resources that are going into the building of one place that so far has been called an opera house, though I believe some people suggest that ultimately it will not be an opera house. However, that is enough of that matter. It might be an attraction for people, and probably it will be; but there are other attractions. One of them is Ayers Rock in the centre of Australia. Vast areas in the north west and the north of Australia will appeal to people of adventurous spirit who come to this country to see part of the world in which they live. Mr Nixon- There is Gippsland. Mr PETERS- Of course. Gippsland is magnificent, with huge gums covering vast areas down near the place where the honourable member for Gippsland (Mr Nixon) has a magnificent farm that takes up too much of the land in that region. I stress the absolute necessity of improving our tourist facilities. I intend to make the Minister a present of the document I have in my hand which describes luxury tours to New Zealand and other places. Why do tourists have to travel that way? Why do they have to go to hotels like the Wentworth Hotel, which I have heard lauded in this House? I would rather have hotels of reasonable standard stretched throughout the length and breadth of the country than one gigantic edifice rivalling the great hotels of the centres of civilisation in other parts of the world. I suggest through you, Mr Deputy Speaker, to the Minister in charge of this Bill, of whose energy I have not the slightest doubt and for whose capacity I have a little admiration, that he take into consideration the provision of amenities for tourists of the ordinary, average kind. Mr TURNER(Bradfield) [5.44]- I agree in some respects with the contentions of the honourable member for Scullin (Mr Peters). I join with him in his tribute to the Minister in Charge of Tourist Activities (Mr Chipp) who, I believe, is capable of carrying this new project to fruition. The honourable member for Scullin spoke of tourists who preferred simpler and plainer fare. If we are to be businesslike we must take into account all tourists, all customers. This is a business matter, and all customers should be considered. I would not be as exclusive as the honourable member. Some tourists prefer luxury tours and others are satisfied with the kind of facilities to which the honourable member referred. Both groups are tourists, potential customers, and both have to be considered. The Minister proposes, under this Bill, to set up a commission to replace, in effect, the Australian National Travel Association. Perhaps that is not an accurate way of putting it. The new Australian Tourist Commission is to be, as it were, the head and front; but the Association will still have an important part to play. The number of members of the Commission will be small, but all of them will be experts. Provision is made for the appointment of people with considerable knowledge and expertise in this field. The honourable member for McKellar (Mr Wentworth), with whose general contribution I agree, foreshadowed an amendment; but, although I agree with some of his reasons for it, I shall not support the amendment. It is important that the Commission should remain small and expert, and for this reason I do not think it desirable to increase its membership. No matter what the reasons are, it is of no use increasing membership of an expert committee by including parliamentarians. The reason for setting up this Tourist Commission is that the Government at last means business in this field. It recognises that tourism is an important earner or saver of foreign exchange. The Minister has pointed out that last year the tourist industry brought in about $65m. This can be compared with $94m earned by the dairy industry. The big difference, however, is that the cost to the Government of the tourist industry was a mere $826,000 - less than half a million pounds - whereas the cost to the Government of the dairy industry, through direct subsidy, was $27m and the cost to the butter consumer $33m, or a total of $60m to produce that return of $94m. Looking at the tourist industry in this context, one can see its great importance. There is no doubt that more should be spent on it to derive more revenue from it. The Minister referred to a number of highly desirable targets. The Harris, Kerr, Forster report anticipates that by 1970 there will be 320,000 visitors to Australia, and by 1975, five years later, 607,000 visitors. This will increase the income of all people associated with the tourist industry in Australia. Targets are splendid things. They are easy to put up, but we all know that they are much harder to hit. This arithmetical game is good fun, but we are concerned with hitting the target rather than playing with visionary figures and thinking how splendid it all is. There are two or three relevant and sobering reflections. As a result of increased affluence, there have been more tourists not only in Australia but also in north America, Europe and other advanced areas of the world. This affluence means that more people can afford to travel than hitherto. We must remember that not only do more people travel to Australia, but also that more Australians now travel abroad. Therefore, we are concerned with more than a tremendous increase in earnings from oversea visitors to Australia. Looking at the matter in context, we must realise that we must try to reduce th: cost to the nation of Australian tourists going abroad. We want tourists here to pay at least part of the national expense of Australians going abroad. We should not regard local tourist returns as something already in the bag, and think of oversea tourists as an additional source of earnings. We are really saving imports, so to speak. We are really trying to redress the balance. We must remember, too, that competition is very keen. As I say, these are some sobering reflections. We are not the only people who are seeking to attract more tourists. The whole world, including countries in our vicinity, is doing so. This is a highly competitive business and is not be engaged in lightly with the thought that the fish will just swim into the net. Let me give some examples of the competion that we face. In 1965, 185,000 Americans visited Japan. Japan has such tourist attractions as the Ginza, which is a great shopping area, and the ancient city of Kyoto. It has many other attractions. We should not think that we are the only people in the world with attractions. This large influx of Americans into Japan in 1965 was an increase of 15% over the number of Americans who visited Japan in 1964. In 1965 Taiwan, a very small country of ten million people, had 133,000 visitors. This was 40% more than in 1964 and 600% more than in 1960. In 1970 it plans to have 300,000 visitors. So Taiwan too is aiming at a quite considerable target, just as we are, and it is on our side of the Pacific. Even India, despite its famine and all its troubles, in its five year plan for 1966-71 has allocated $A30m for tourism. This is to be spent mainly on improving facilities for tourists. In 1965 Mexico had 1,400,000 visitors, and this was an increase of 100% on 1964. It is, of course, near the United States and so has a great advantage. There is, however, the encouraging thought that, although Europe used to be the main tourist resort for Americans they are prepared to look away from Europe because, with the increasing affluence of the Western world, so many of them have already seen Europe and are turning somewhere else. That is, of course, encouraging to us. Even the United Arab Republic, which includes Egypt, is expecting that tourism will become its second most important industry. It has targets too, and expects that in three years the revenue from tourism will be greater than the revenue from the Suez Canal. I said that these were some sobering thoughts, that tourism is not pure gain, that we are in a very competitive field and that we cannot win the tourists we hope to get without considerable effort. This means, firstly, greatly increased expenditure. The Minister for the Navy (Mr Chipp) has said nothing very much about this, except in the broad terms that he does expect that more will have to be spent. In 1966-67 Government expenditure for tourism was no more than $862,000, or under half a million pounds. This obviously must be stepped up considerably, and we must do more than engage in extended promotion. How this revenue will be raised or how the Government will provide the resources I do not know, and I am not dealing with this point in great detail now. But we may well have to consider, at either the Commonwealth or the State level, doing what is done in other countries. We may have to impose a surcharge on accommodation in certain types of hotels or an airport tax. Though this will not bring very much, it may be useful. If we are going to catch a mackerel the sprat must be a fairly sizeable one, in my judgment. I have a second point to make, apart from the fact that this new departure means the expenditure of much more money if we want to enter this highly competitive field with success. My second point has been made with great force by the honourable member for Kalgoorlie (Mr Collard) and a moment ago by the honourable member for Mackellar. It is that we must match promotion with facilities. I am afraid of the boomerang effect if our promotion goes ahead of facilities and tourists come here in large numbers, are gravely disappointed with the facilities they find and when they go back are the very reverse of ambassadors selling Australia for the future. I would hope that these two requirements would march very much hand in hand. Like the honourable member for Mackellar and others who have spoken in this debate - it is not a novel thought; indeed it is perfectly obvious - I am concerned about the Australian image that we will present. Those who go to Europe look for history, ancient buildings and ancient monuments. Many of the visitors who go to England may go back to the village from which their people have sprung. If they go to Italy they go to see the great works of the Renaissance. If they go to Florence, they may go to see the Giotto Campanile, the Church of Santa Groce, the Medici Memorial, the Pitt Gallery and so forth. We do not have this history or this heritage of architecture and art. What indeed is our image? What are the attractions that people would be likely to come to Australia to see. We have the advantage of the HKF report, which sets out the things in Australia in which the visitor is interested. I think in order I can state them as our outback, our Great Barrier Reef, our unique flora and fauna, the frontier aspect of our development and those peculiar creatures, the Australian people. So we do have some guidance from a proper assessment and survey, not from imagination, as to the things that ought to be promoted. But if they are promoted, will we have the matching facilities? This can be a difficult, expensive and intricate business. There is ample power under the Bill for them to be provided. It is the money with which to provide them that is likely to cause the trouble. May I say before I pass on that the report did not deal with other attractions in our area. We are concerned also with tourist attractions in New Guinea and the earning of money for New Guinea, whose development is so expensive to Australia. Tourism can bring revenue to Australia via the Pacific Islands if the facilities are provided by our shipping and so on. When we look at this matter we must realise that we do not have all the advan tages in the world. I think we must be realistic about this. I have heard member after member speak about the great glories of his own electorate. But we do not have all the scenery in the world by any manner of means. We do not have anything like, say, the Grand Canyon. Mention has been made of our Blue Mountains. We do not have anything like the Rockies or the Alps. Let us realise that we do not have everything. It is rather pathetic very often to hear somebody who has never been outside his own parish say that his area has the most wonderful scenery in the world. In order to make comparisons we must know the two things that we are comparing. If he has never been outside his own parish how can he make this comparison? To say that people want to see scenery and we have the most magnificent scenery in the world is a pretty naive approach to the problem. Fortunately the Minister has had the report which sets out what people do want to see when they come to Australia. They do not want to see all the things about which honourable members have been dilating for the last day or two. So it is the distinctive character of Australia with which we are concerned, and we have some guidance as to what are the distinctive features in respect of which facilities should be provided. The facilities should match the promotion so that people who come here to see something will not be disappointed because they cannot see it. I ask for leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Sitting suspended from 6 to 8 p.m. AUSTRALIAN TOURIST COMMISSION BILL 1967 Second Reading Debate resumed. Mr TURNER-Before the suspension of the sitting I was suggesting that if we are to promote tourism in Australia we must promote it in respect of those aspects of our country that interest people from overseas and not what we may happen to think are attractive features of our landscape. If we are to expect tourists here, they will expect to see things that are distinctive of Australia - the kind of things they are not likely to see elsewhere. We have the advantage of the report to which the Minister referred and which points out, after a survey overseas, those things that attract tourists to Australia. The first attraction, according to the report, is our outback. Promotion must keep in step with facilities and if we are to promote the outback and invite people to come to see it we must provide the facilities to enable them to see it. If, for example, they want to see a cattle station we must make sure they can see it. Similarly if they want to go to a sheep station and see shearing operations, sheep dogs in action and so forth, we must make sure they can see these things. If we are to promote the second feature that the survey says is attractive to overseas visitors - the Barrier Reef - we must make sure -they can see it in the way they want to see it. At present there are four or five launches operating in the Barrier Reef area and they are too small. The divisions between the cabins are by no means soundproof and tourists are cooped up on these small boats. Arrangements are not such that they can go ashore to spend a night on islands in the area. Altogether the facilities are not of the type tourists would wish to have, having been induced by our advertisements overseas to come to see our Barrier Reef. If it is a question of seeing our flora and fauna then it is fine to pass along miles and miles of our bush, but it is much more interesting if the tourist knows something about the way our various native flora are also able to protect themselves against the heat of the sun, bush fires and so forth, so that he does not see merely a lot of leaves, flowers, blossoms and seeds without knowing why they are as they are. I do not want to engage in this extensively, because the honourable member for Kalgoorlie (Mr Collard) spoke about it at considerable length. A little while ago I saw a television film of Montreal where the great Expo 67 is being held. It was a city of glass towers and vast buildings - a port on the St Lawrence River - just as Sydney is a port. It had industrial areas and so forth. Americans do not want to come to Sydney to see glass towers, vast buildings, a port or industrial areas. They have only to cross the border to Canada to see them. Indeed, their own cities are like that. There is nothing distinctive about it. On the other hand in Sydney, (or example, we have very little civic pride. Possibly one of the great advantages of tourism is that we may really discover our own history and background. We have in Sydney the old barracks in Queens Square, full of historical associations. We have the miserable law courts with a lot of outhouses, as we might call them, surrounding them. Queens Square is just a miserable place. Mr IanAllan - lt is being rebuilt. Mr TURNER- As at this moment it may be. It has been like this for a long time. Here was the centre of Macquarie's Sydney. It has a colonial atmosphere with St James Church, the old barracks building and so on. I hope that if we seek a distinctive image this kind of thing will be preserved. We can have plenty of glass towers rising to twenty storeys or more, as in Montreal or any city of the United States of America, but this little part of old Sydney is unique and we do nothing about it. It may be that in inviting tourists to Australia we may discover our own past, which would be a very good thing. Tourists - and 1 am indebted to my friend the honourable member for Scullin (Mr Peters) for this - like to have accommodation of an international standard. They like hotels of an international standard. My honourable friend from Scullin says that he does not want to encourage people like this to Australia, but tourism is a business proposition and if this is what they want it is no use saying that we have the best hotels in the world if the tourists, after they have been here and find they are the worst in the world, go back home and say to their friends: 'Do not go to Australia'. We have to meet the market, in other words. These are our customers and we must meet the market. In Taiwan, for example - and I mentioned earlier the tremendous number of tourists it has been able to attract and the tremendous hopes it has for the future - hotels of international standard gain a tax holiday for five years. In Australia, according to the estimates of the experts, we will need about 4,000 rooms per annum additional to the rooms we now have. It may well be that the Government will have to do something about this and think of the possibility of providing a tax holiday for hotels of a certain standard that would have to be defined. We must consider country accommodation. Country hotels, of course, have been quite appalling for a long time. We are said to have the best beaches in the world and the worst hotels. Indeed, some years ago I visited the Northern Territory, going up through New South Wales north of Bourke through Barringun, Cunnamulla, Charleville, Kynuna, Cloncurry and Camooweal, to Darwin and back by Tennant Creek and Alice Springs. I met with the most appalling hotels I think I have struck anywhere. It is no use saying that we have the best of this, that and the other in Australia when we have not. People from overseas are not going to accept it because it just is not true. Mr Katter- At least the service is preferable to some service. Mr TURNER-I should like to say something about service. Our attitudes in Australia have to be altered. I do not think the situation is as bad as it was but Australians in the past have regarded it as beneath their dignity to provide service in an hotel as service should be provided. 1 can remember some years ago being in Switzerland at a place called Lugarno and in the hotel where I was staying a skilled waiter attended to me. He was accompanied by an apprentice. The waiter took a pride in his skill and the apprentice was learning from him. If the Australian attitude is that it is beneath our dignity to exercise this kind of skill then we will not get tourists. Apart from this, there is no moral advantage in not taking pride in skill. If my honourable friend talks about service in these places, all I can say is that in the Northern Territory - and J was riding a motor bike at the time - I never before met so many hard faced men and women on the make. The service was bad and the attitude was appalling. These things have to be altered if we are going to be like, say, the Swiss - a nation of inn keepers, though not entirely, I hope. This was my own experience in travelling through these places. I repeat what I said: I never met so many hard faced men and women on the make, the accommodation was rotten and the charges were high. This situation has to be improved. I am not saying this for the sake of being unpleasant but for the sake of the truth and in the hope that these conditions may be improved. I wish to refer briefly to other matters that are likely to be taken in hand by the Commission. The first impression that people have of a country is tremendously important. If a person goes to a country and has to wait for the customs people to attend to him, for the health authorities to attend to him and all the rest of it, his impressions are unfavourable from the very outset. I hope that the Commission will set up an interdepartmental committee comprising representatives of the Departments of Customs and Excise, Health and Tourist Activities, because each of these Departments at present is concerned only with its own particular interests. To see, for example, whether a person has smallpox is the interest of the Department of Health and to see that a person has paid customs duty is the interest of the Department of Customs and Excise. 1 should hope that the Tourist Commission insists on the appointment of an interdepartmental committee to ensure that tourists are not unnecessarily held up with these procedures. Although I do not wish to spend much time on this topic, I hope that from the promotional point of view the Commission will do something about providing decent documentary films and seeing that the kind of propaganda that goes out in magazines likely to be read by possible tourists is better than in the past. In a recent issue of a leading monthly magazine of some repute a writer described the surf at one of the main Sydney beaches as being so rough that at the end of the day plates of false teeth found in the water would be placed on a shelf outside the club house to be claimed by their owners. It is time we got away from the Dad and Dave approach instanced in this case, and I hope the quality of this kind of article improves. Coming back to my friend from the Northern Territory, I would hope that some kind of welcome stranger organisation might be set up whereby an Australian with a similar calling to a visitor would be prepared to invite the visitor to his home for an after dinner chat; in other words, to give a friendly reception to visitors. In the survey that the Minister quoted, he mentioned that one of the five main things that visitors from America, at least, expect and are interested to see here are the inhabitants - the Australians - these strange people who produce such remarkable sportsmen and who are so friendly. Well, I hope they will be more friendly than I found the people of the Northern Territory to be. I suggest that a welcome stranger kind of organisation might be set up. I suggest, too, that the Commission might consider group travel for, say, American senior school children to visit Australia and see something of the life of this country, and I would hope that possibly travel grants might be made to senior school children on the basis that when they got back they would go around to various secondary schools and say something about the country they had visited. I point out that the Americans in particular think of buses as means of transport for the hoi polloi; they prefer to travel by train. Why should we not have some de luxe trains? People must move around on the ground if they are going to see the country, because they cannot see it from the air. Why should we not have some de luxe trains that could provide sleeping accommodation as well as a means of seeing the countryside? If they were not in use all the time, they could be used in local towns, for conferences and the like. This is an opportunity for the railways commissioners to take up. I would hope that there would be display centres in the cities where people could see the products of the country, and that we might be able to promote some of our own products such as our wines. Australians probably more than any other people enjoy very reasonably priced meals of Iamb and steak and so forth, and our restaurants are good. These are things that could be promoted and could assist in promoting our exports as well. I could mention many other things if I had the time, but probably they have been mentioned by other speakers and advocated more ably than I could advocate them. I support the Bill, and I hope that we will really be launching a campaign to bring visitors to this country. I hope that the facilities here will keep pace with the promotion. I do not want people to be brought here to see something but fail to see it and that the boomerang will come back through people saying: 'Don't go to that country, the accommodation is atrocious; I wanted to see country life but I saw nothing of it; I wanted to see the Barrier Reef but the way I saw it I don't advise my friends to go and look at it.' Mr ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Lucock)Order!The honourable member's time has expired. Mr HANSEN(Wide Bay) [8.15]- The purpose of this Bill is to establish an Australian Tourist Commission of seven persons to be appointed by the Governor-General. Two of the voting members are to be appointed by the Minister from a panel nominated by the Australian National Travel Association. Two non-voting members are to be persons nominated by the governments of the States. The honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Wentworth) has foreshadowed an amendment whereby he proposes that a representative of this chamber and another from the Senate should be appointed to the Commission. Whatever reasons the honourable member has for this I feel they are very hard to justify when we recall that on the Commission there will be only two persons representing all of the States, which have a very vital interest in this matter. I think the reason the honourable member for Mackellar has moved this amendment is that he feels that the Parliament is responsible to see how the money is spent. This brings me to the point that I do not see anything in the Bill to indicate that the Commission is required to present a report to Parliament. The Australian National Travel Association has been supported by the Commonwealth Government over a number of years, and while it does a very worthwhile job it presents its report or balance sheet not to the Parliament but to the Minister for Trade and Industry (Mr McEwen). If any honourable member has endeavoured to obtain a copy of the report of the Association I hope he has had more success than T have had. Twelve months ago I tried to obtain a copy of the Association's annual report and after a time I obtained one which was three years old. However, I have now been able, after three weeks of trying, to obtain the 1965-66 report of the Association. The Commonwealth has money invested in the work of the Association and invested, I believe, to bring about a good return. This is evident if one reads the report. But most honourable members have not had the opportunity to study the report of the Association and to appreciate just what has been done. The honourable member for Mackellar may have a very good point when he suggests that there be parliamentary representation on the Commission. However, it is to be a restricted Commission. Since the members will bc appointed not only because of their interest but also because of their ability and knowledge of tourism and what is required by tourists, and since membership is to be restricted even in the representation of the States, I believe that the proposed amendment should be rejected by the Parliament. The report of the Australian National Travel Association for 1966 indicated that it was hoped that 3,000 New Zealanders would come to this country. I had thought that the trend was for Australians to go to New Zealand rather than for New Zealanders to come to Australia, but apparently quite a number of New Zealanders come here. In 1965, 27,675 people visited this country from the United States of America and Canada. From the United Kingdom and Europe there were 35,140 visitors of whom 22,800 came from the United Kingdom. Also, there were 4,000 visitors from Asia and 5,375 from Malaysia and Singapore. The 4,000 from Asia came mainly from Japan. The only place from which we have had a falling off in the tourist trade was Hong Kong. I do not know the reason for this. The Minister referred to the value of tourism to Australia. He pointed out that this industry was the ninth most important earner of foreign exchange in 1965-66, bringing in a total amount of $59m. He also said that by 1970 we hoped to attract 320,000 overseas visitors and, five years later. 607,000. I join with the honourable member for Bradfield (Mr Turner) and other members in saying that we must ensure that suitable accommodation is available for these people. I do not think the rescue of false teeth by members of surf clubs should be decried. I suppose people have to identify their teeth. I know of an unfortunate case in which a friend of mine was wandering on a lonely beach at low tide looking for his teeth. He met a beachcomber who said he might be able to fix him up, and produced a box of teeth. My friend went to this man's house, and the man found a set of teeth that fitted him. My friend asked: Are you a dentist?' The man replied: 'No, I am an undertaker'. At any rate, my friend was satisfied. Mr Freeth- A service for tourists? Mr HANSEN- That is a service for tourists. Fourth-class accommodation has been mentioned in this debate. The honourable member for Bradfield (Mr Turner) spoke about hard-faced men and women on the make. These people are probably typical of many who find they have to pinch pennies to make a success of hotelkeeping This applies particularly to hotels owned by breweries in many parts of Australia, the licencees of which find that as soon as their trade builds up their rents are increased. These people work long hours and would probably earn more per hour if they worked forty hours a week on the basic wage. Probably this is one of the reasons why Australians do not take easily to service in hotels. Also, most Australians are not servile: they do not like to think they are waiting on people and at their beck and call. I do not mean that other people are thought any less of because of this, but Australians resent this kind of work. Most Australians do not like tipping, so they find, particularly if they are staying in first-class hotels overseas, where tipping provides the major part of the income of hotel employees, that they get black looks and poor service. Australians think every person is entitled to a decent wage, and for this reason they do not take readily to tipping, being tipped, or having to wait with hand out in order to get half of the wages to which they are justly entitled. The Government made available to the Australian National Travel Association in the year covered by the report the sum of $462,000, plus a further grant of $1 for $1 which amounted to $272,923. It was estimated in that year the tourist trade was worth $7 1.4m to Australia, so it can easily be seen that the money spent was a good investment. The point arises whether we will be able to keep pace in hotel accommodation. When on holidays, many people do not want to get up at 5 o'clock in the morning to watch kangaroos feeding on the dewy grass or to see wombats before they go to sleep, or koalas in the trees. Most people want to relax. If they have the money to travel long distances - this applies particularly to overseas visitors - they want reasonable accommodation. We should also cater for travellers on small budgets. Most overseas countries indicate the types of hotel available so that people will not find they have been booked into hotels where the tariff is above their means. In this vast country of ours there are many differences in country. All honourable members who have preceded me have dealt with various places in Australia - the Great Barrier Reef, Ayers Rock, Darwin, the north generally, the Blue Mountains. I believe Australians should be encouraged to get to know Australia before they go overseas. Affluence has been mentioned in this debate. I believe that the conditions under which we now work, particularly the fact that people get long service leave and three weeks annual leave, have contributed much to travel by Australians in Australia. Teenagers, and young married couples with their families, come north during the summer months and stay in places in my electorate and nearby. People are able to come from Victoria to these places because they now have three weeks annual leave, good cars and good roads. In the winter months the type of tourists changes; then the middle aged executives and retired couples travel north to get away from the cold in the south. Because Australia is in the southern hemisphere - it is the largest continent in the southern hemisphere - I believe it has something to offer to Europeans. As travelling increases with the advent of Jumbo jets and cheaper fares, perhaps people not only from Europe but also from the United States will come to Australia to dodge the northern winter. Mention has been made of gimmicks. What type of gimmick is necessary to attract people? My electorate has 120 miles of coastline, apart from 250 miles of shoreline of the largest sandy island in the world. I refer to Fraser Island, which is the largest island close to Australia. One of the best publicity gimmicks that I know was in relation to Burrum Heads. An anti-progress association was formed there which drew nationwide publicity, not because it tried to attract tourists but because it tried to keep them away. Signs were posted along the road leading to Burrum Heads warning tourists to keep out. The association advertised that it was setting up farms to breed sand flies and sharks. A previous speaker mentioned that bush flies were a problem, but I would rather put up with bush flies than with sand flies. With sand flies, at the end of a day I look like a case of measles. The association also urged the local regional board to ration power and turn it on intermittently for four-hour periods. As a result of these things, the local caravan park was booked out. I do not know whether this type of publicity would be successful on a national scale, but I mention it for what it is worth. The Great Barrier Reef, which is one of the wonders of the world, has been mentioned. For many years people did not realise just what it was like. The honourable member for Dawson (Dr Patterson) paid a tribute to Senator Ian Wood for the work he had done in publicising this great natural feature. I know that what was said is true, because an uncle of mine was connected with Senator Ian Wood, not only around Mackay but also on Heron Island. I know the battle these people had and how many people went broke trying to encourage tourists to come to the Great Barrier Reef to see what it had to offer. I believe much can be done, but unless we ensure that accommodation is available to the people whom we encourage to visit these places, I believe our efforts may misfire. The Commonwealth has a responsibility in this regard. I promised the Minister that 1 would not speak for very long. Therefore, I conclude by saying that if honourable members have been vocal about this Bill, particularly in regard to their own electorates, undoubtedly they have been fired by the enthusiasm of the Minister, whose second reading speech exceeded twenty-four pages. I support the Bill. Mr KATTER(Kennedy) [8.30]- While sitting here for the last week or so I have heard various references to the town of Cloncurry, in which I reside. Tonight I heard the honourable member for Bradfield (Mr Turner) speak. When he spoke of riding his motor bike we could almost visualise him in his leather jacket. Perhaps I should refer to him as the Marlon Brando of Bradfield. His reference to Cloncurry gives me the opportunity to speak briefly about the accommodation that is now provided there and in other inland areas of this great nation. A recent survey made in the United States revealed an interesting evaluation of tourist attractions in Australia. Clearly the average tourists from the United States want to see two things while in Australia. They want to see the Great Barrier Reef and the great inland regions of the Northern Territory arid the border areas of Queensland. I can quite understand why they would want to see those places. I should think that if they spent any time in Sydney and came in contact with the people there, who have clearly indicated their rudeness and lack of courtesy, they would go to these great inland areas even though the proprietors of the hotels in those areas may be a little hard faced. Do you know why they are hard faced, Mr Acting Speaker? They are hard faced because they are a little tired of city slickers passing through and taking most of the cutlery and any other portable utensils that may be readily available. This prompts me to mention a rather interesting incident; it relates strictly to tourism. All honourable members will be interested in it. City slickers nearly pinched the tree at Barcaldine under which, it is said, the Australian Labour Party was formed. It is said that shearers used to be chained to that tree. When these city slickers went there the plaque disappeared. I do not know whether it was the Marlon Brando from Bradfield who pinched the plaque. On the following morning there was evidence that they had tried to pinch the tree as well. With all due respect to the honourable member for Bradfield, I think it would be quite some time since he rode a motor cycle and since he visited the inland. If what I say is untrue, perhaps we might have some kind of test tomorrow outside Parliament House with a motor cycle. May I mention that we have ceased using smoke signals out in my area. Only a few months ago the honourable member for Griffith (Mr Donald Cameron) came up to the rugged frontier town of Mt Isa on a fact finding mission and of course while there he visited the air-conditioned bar of the Barkly Hotel. I hope certain people who may use this information at some future date are not present in the House. However, the honourable member enjoyed meeting the rugged, so-called hard faced people that we have in these areas and as I said, it was very difficult to get him to return to his electorate of Griffith. He enjoyed some of this so-called lack of hospitality. Quite seriously, we now find the most modern air-conditioned motels throughout inland Queensland and the Northern Territory. We also find caravan parks. They are all new, so they have the most modern equipment. The honourable member for Griffith saw much of these facilities. So I must refute decisively the implication in the speech of the honourable member for Bradfield that all we have in this area are old broken down pubs in which a person finds hard faced people who greet him and then touch him. I told you why they were hard faced, Mr Acting Speaker. It is interesting to note, as I said earlier, that a survey in the United States of America revealed that the two most outstanding attractions for tourists in Australia are the Great Barrier Reef and what the inland has to offer. This can be verified quite easily. Only recently, about sixteen miles from Cloncurry - that beautiful rugged town which effuses hospitality and friendliness - there was discovered what is called a bourie camp. In other words, various rocks with hand paintings were found. The art of Aboriginal painting ceased about 600 years ago but the craft of etching ceased about 1,000 years ago. It is interesting to visualise an Aboriginal male saying to a female Aboriginal: 'Come and see my etchings'. Tourists arriving at Cloncurry now may go on planned safaris. Honourable members know how rugged these are. We have big boxes in which the food is carried. Recently we asked a journalist who visited Cloncurry to come on one of these safaris. We said: 'We hope you like damper and corned meat'. He said he would come. When we arrived at our destination and opened the box he was quite shocked. We had a little refrigerated bar with lemonade and orange juice, tonic water and so on. In the lower hatch we had chicken and other delicacies. This was right out in the middle of nowhere. Honourable members will see that we now enjoy modern amenities. The point is that tourists can come across from New York to Sydney and see the same old thing all over again. Honourable members know that this is so, particularly if they saw the 'Four Corners' programme a few weeks ago. That programme indicated what was being offered in Sydney. Tourists from overseas can see the same old transportation facilities. But in the cities they do not see what they will find in the inland of Queensland, the Northern Territory. Western Australia and other interior parts of this great nation. There they will see something that is quite different. There they can get a beautiful piece of steak - not the sort of thing one gets here. Mr J.R. Fraser- Flies? Mr KATTER- Listen to the honourable member talking about flies. What about Canberra? Mr ACTINGSPEAKER-Order! 1 suggest that the honourable member for Kennedy be permitted to make his own speech without assistance. Mr KATTER- Thank you, Mr Acting Speaker. I appreciate that. What is handed up to you in Sydney as a steak, for the small cost of about $2.75, is not a steak at all. I think it is a piece of the saddle. I am not kidding about this. Honourable members should compare the steak they get in Sydney, for about $2.75, with the delicious steak one can get out in my part of the world, served with asparagus and celery by a charming person, for about $1.25. This is the sort of thing tourists would like. It would make them happy and they would go home delighted. I conclude by saying to the honourable member for Bradfield and his very good friend the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Wentworth), who is now planning to visit the various areas, that when he comes back to my area he will observe what has happened since his last visit. If the honourable member for Mackellar proposes to make a trip to the north, perhaps he will confer with the honourable member for Bradfield, and perhaps the honourable member for Bradfield will forsake his motor bike and hop into a Boeing 727 which will take him to Mount Isa. He will be staggered at what has happened since 1954. Mr CHIPP(Higinbotham- Minister for the Navy and Minister in Charge of Tourist Activities) [8.39] - in reply - As the Minister in charge of this Bill I must say that I have been very pleased with the quality of the debate and the amount of interest which the Bill has evoked from honourable members on both sides of the House. So many members have spoken, and have spoken so well and constructively, that I believe that the report of the debate will be useful and will be a challenge to the Australian Tourist Commission when it is formed, and to the Commissioners, whoever they might be. By reading this second reading debate they will know of the constructive interest that has been taken in this subject by honourable members of the Commonwealth Parliament. Some of the matters that have been raised have been provocative and interesting. The honourable member for Evans (Dr Mackay) and the honourable member for Kingston (Miss Brownbill) spoke of attracting conventions to Australia. Before I go any further T must join with other honourable members in complimenting the honourable member for Kingston on her maiden speech. This matter of conventions is one about which 1 am particularly keen. Let me describe two techniques for attracting tourists to the country as the rifle technique and the shotgun technique. Using the shotgun technique we can spend thousands of dollars by advertising in expensive magazines in the hope of attracting tourists of all classes from all over the world. But if we can attract to this country a convention, in one fell swoop, using the rifle technique, we can attract perhaps 1,000 delegates and 1,000 wives. And there are hundreds of conventions held throughout the world every year. Many other suggestions were forthcoming during the debate. What excited me as much as anything was the way in which Australian members of Parliament, representing the Australian electorate, eulogised the tourist attractions of this country. For so long we have admitted to ourselves that Australians are a race of knockers; that we knock our virtues and attractions. Anybody listening to the debate and hearing honourable members eulogise our great tourist attractions, ranging from the Great Barrier Reef to the centre of Australia, to our magnificent snow fields and to our beautiful coastlines which are the equal of anything in the world could be forgiven for coming to the conclusion that we have ceased to be a race of knockers. All of the suggestions that have been made in the course of the debate will be examined in detail by the Tourist Commission when it takes office. In a very good speech the honourable member for Reid (Mr Uren) referred to the Elizabeth Farm Cottage. I confess that I had known little of this matter before the honourable member raised it. As I understand the honourable member, this was the first farm built and operated in Australia. It is situated at Parramatta. The honourable member said that the building is now to be auctioned. If I could again express a personal view, which I think would be shared by most honourable members, let me say that we in Australia as citizens have not yet developed the consciousness to preserve our historic and traditional assets such as the classic one referred to by the honourable member for Reid. In fact, in the past we have bordered on the sacrilegious in the way in which we have allowed these assets to be destroyed, defaced and converted by private enterprise as a price for progress. I am happy to tell the honourable member that this matter has been referred to the Commonwealth Government and is currently under consideration. Might I make a plea to the many benevolent, beneficent and wealthy people of the city of Sydney: if the Commonwealth Government cannot see its way clear to intrude into this field of purchasing or assisting some form of national trust to purchase Elizabeth Farm Cottage it would be a great tragedy for our traditional history if this monument to our development were purchased by private enterprise, demolished and lost to us forever. If I could I would use my office and the forms of the House, with the assistance of our friends of the Press, to make an appeal to public minded citizens of Sydney to see whether some thing could be done to preserve for posterity Elizabeth Farm Cottage. Some of the proposals advanced in the course of the debate involve broader government action. The honourable member for Bradfield (Mr Turner) referred to the provision of finance to equip ourselves to meet satisfactorily the inrush of tourists which we hopefully expect will come within the next few years. The honourable member for Flinders (Mr Lynch) and other honourable members advocated an extension of income tax incentives for the overseas promotion of tourism. May I say a few words on each proposal. In leading for the Opposition the honourable member for Dawson (Dr Patterson) referred to internal facilities and said: lt does not appear to give consideration to aspects of tourism inside Australia . . . That is the main criticism we have of the Bill. 1 remind the honourable member for Dawson and other honourable members that we are a Federal Parliament. In Australia we have six State governments with sovereign rights. The internal facilities of this country are the responsibility of State governments, local government authorities and the private sectors of the tourist industry. Already there has been a tremendous improvement in this regard, although I confess that much remains to be done. I can say with some feeling, having played a part in the organisation of Melbourne for the 1956 Olympic Games, that one year before the Games one could have said that Australia had not grown up to meet the challenge of overseas tourists. I speak candidly of my own city of Melbourne and 1 suspect that the same observations would have applied in respect of Sydney and other capital cities. Steak and eggs was the staple fare in any restaurant that one cared to enter. Restaurants of world class were very scarce. Hotels at that time did a guest a favour or appeared to be doing him a favour if they accommodated him. A comfortable motel of first class standard in country areas was a phenomenon thai aroused surprise. But ten years later the response of the private sector and the public sector to this challenge has been phenomenal. They had responded to the demand. It would be our hope as a Federal Government, with the co-ordination and cooperation of the Australian Tourist Commission, that private enterprise on the one hand and the government and public sector on the other will meet the demand which we hope we will provide. As a Federal Government we expect the Australian Tourist Commission, in its early days at least, to perform one function and to perform it very well; that is, to treble the number of tourists who come to Australia in the next ten years. If we accept this as a minimum target and let the Commission know that it is our minimum target, I am sure that private enterprise, State governments and local government bodies will meet the demand. We as a Federal Government realise that by stimulating this demand we will encourage further approaches to us for additional finance. I sympathise with State governments for the position in which they may find themselves because I realise that an increase in tourists will mean an increase in demand tor roads, electricity and other facilities. I suggest that any need for finance which they may have in order to develop their tourist facilities must be reflected in their overall approach to the Commonwealth through the Premiers Conference and the Australian Loan Council rather than going through the back door for handouts or special grants for tourist purposes. As to the matter of tax incentives raised by the honourable member for Flinders, I can assure him that it is at present under consideration by the Government. I give him a further undertaking that a decision on the extension of income tax incentives to people engaged in genuine tourist promotion will be made by the Government in the near future. Some of the broader issues relating to State governments were raised by the honourable member for Evans and the honourable member for Riverina (Mr Armstrong). Both of them advocated the establishment of national trusts and national parks. I believe that there are very few members of this House who would not be in sympathy with the sentiments expressed by these two honourable members. I have often wondered about these terms 'national trust' and 'national park'. They are really misnomers because in fact such institutions are State trusts and State parks. But if we are to keep pace with other countries and preserve the heritage that our forefathers and nature have handed down to us, I believe we must attain a new level of thinking. Let me now refer to some methods of increasing the tourist business in Australia. Many stimulating suggestions have been made by honourable members. The honourable member for Evans voiced the rather provocative thought that we might establish a duty free port at Alice Springs. I am still rather confounded as to how we could create a port at Alice Springs, but I agree that the honourable member's point is well made. The honourable member for Perth (Mr Chaney) made what I thought were a few quite stimulating remarks, on the face of them, about the irritation that would be felt by a visitor who comes to Australia by ship and calls first at the fine city of Perth. Throughout the voyage from the United Kingdom to Perth he has been able to purchase cigarettes and gifts and the ordinary necessities of life free of customs charges, but after leaving Perth he is informed that for some mystical reason he must now pay considerably more for these commodities during the voyage from Perth to Melbourne or to Sydney. The honourable member for Wills (Mr Bryant) suggested reduced entry formalities. This is a matter which, of course, involves the Department of Immigration. I am happy to tell the house that my friend and colleague, the Minister for Immigration (Mr Snedden) has already written to me saying that all possible facilities will be made available by him and his Department to try to alleviate any real irritation that is being caused by present entry formalities. But the matters that have been raised by the honourable member for Perth and the honourable member for Wills are not without their problems. This is an area in which I would hope that the new Australian National Travel Association may prove of invaluable service to this Parliament and to the country. The matter of waiving duty on certain items, which was raised by the honourable member for Perth, involves certain problems, as I think the honourable member would be the first to acknowledge. It will not be the task of the Commission to go into this sort of thing, but we would envisage that a sub-committee consisting of a small group of experts from the ANTA might allocate itself the task of looking into this problem very carefully and making recommendations to the Government or to the appropriate Minister. We know that the present members of the Australian National Travel Association are very busy men, as will be those who will become members of the Association in the future. We would not expect them to form a sub-committee, write their own minutes and call their own meetings or - and this would be more important - to carry out their own research. We would plan for the provision of a service officer, a research officer, for the various and, I hope, many sub-committees of the ANTA which might be formed for the special investigation of specific problems such as the one I have mentioned. Let me now refer briefly to a matter raised by the honourable member for Wills. He was rather critical of the existing visa requirements as they affect tourists coming into Australia. At present these requirements do enable the great majority of genuine tourists to obtain visas without annoying delays or formalities. Delays have occurred mainly when the officers who issue visas have had reason to question whether a visitor's real intention was a tourist visit or permanent settlement in Australia. We should retain our sense of perspective in this matter of relaxing visa requirements. More than tourists and tourism are involved in this situation, as I hope to show. It will be realised that if Australia were to drop the visa requirements for all who claim to be visitors, as many European countries, I concede, have done, then very many people unable to obtain migrant visas would travel as tourists and having arrived here would refuse to leave. This is an unpleasant thought that I intrude into the debate, but I think honourable members are realistic enough to concede that this could happen. It did in fact happen in Canada, as is clear from a White Paper presented to the Canadian House of Commons a few months ago. The United States of America, like Australia, has been unwilling to allow this kind of uncontrolled entry. In other words, the countries most attractive to migrants - Australia, Canada, the United States of America, to mention a few - are in a very different position from that of the densely populated nations of the old world. Retention of the visa requirements also enables Australia to refrain from irritating controls on the visitor when he visits Australia. The tourist in Australia does not have to hand in his passport when he registers at a hotel, as the tourist in Europe does. Honourable members who have travelled in Europe will understand the frustration and irritation that I have experienced on finding that the first thing I must do when arriving at an hotel in some of the old world countries is to hand in my passport for police examination. This, of course, does ont happen here. We do not compel the Australian hotelkeeper to do this, and I hope that we never will. In recent months the Department of Immigration has made a comprehensive review of all visa requirements for intending visitors. This has been done in specific recognition that the flow of tourists to Australia will increase and must be encouraged. Special attention has been paid to requirements which have caused complaints in the past. Considerable streamlining of certain requirements and of the form of applications is already seen to be possible, and the Minister for Immigration has recently authorised the issue of the necessary instructions. These will be issued in the immediate future. I now turn to some particular aspects of the Bill and deal with them in more detail. The honourable member for Dawson was at pains to admonish the Government - and I thank him for this - to select the best men available in Australia as members of the Australian Tourist Commission. He said - and I think these were his words: Surely we should get the four best men available in addition to the member from the Department of Trade and Industry'. I give this House my personal assurance, as I did in my second reading speech, that the men appointed to this Commission will be, in our judgment, the best men available to perform this extraordinarily important task. I pause here to say that I was disappointed by one remark made by the honourable member for Dawson. I have already paid him a tribute and thanked him for one point that he made. When one of my colleagues in this quarter of the House was making the point today that the best men should be appointed, the honourable member for Dawson interjected and said: As long as they do not come from Sydney or Melbourne, or as long as some of them come from Queensland'. I can give him a written guarantee now, if he wants it, that parochial considerations will not influence me or, I feel sure, the Minister in charge of this Bill, the Minister for Trade and Industry (Mr McEwen), or the Government in determining the men or women who will be appointed Commissioners. We are playing for very big stakes. We have adopted the principle of a small commission. Surely the point has been made and it does not matter whether the men or women come from Western Australia, Queensland, Tasmania or anywhere else, they must be the best available from the point of view of experience, dynamism and knowledge of the industry. One thing I can guarantee the House is that all States will not be represented on the Commission, for that is an arithmetical impossibility. The honourable member for Dawson (Dr Patterson) was genuinely concerned with the provisions ot clause 12 of the measure, which provide that a commissioner who has a vested interest must disclose that interest and refrain from voting. I do not blame the honourable member for slightly misunderstanding the complex wording of the Bill, but I assure him that the terms of sub-clause (4) of clause 12 are consistent with the wording in many other similar Bills that constitute commissions. Explaining this sub-clause as best I can in plain, non-legal language, if the Commission enters into a contract with a company and a voting member of the Commission is a member of the company, and the company has fewer than twenty-five shareholders, the member concerned must do two things. First, he must disclose his interest, and will not then be permitted to vote or take part in the deliberations. This is a natural and usual provision for the declaration of interest that is found in many places. However, I should hope - and I expect that it would be done through prudencethat any commissioner who is a member or a director of a public company would have a sense of propriety and would refrain from voting in respect of any contract the Commission might seek to enter into in respect of his company. I have confidence in the good taste of men and women of the calibre of those who will be sought for this job. I need hardly say that such men and women would, as an act of propriety, abstain from voting on any issue directly involving their ordinary affairs. In conclusion, I thank the House and the honourable members who have spoken for the way in which they have commended this measure. I thank honourable members for the complimentary remarks that have been made in respect of my own efforts in this matter, and give the House the additional assurance that in performance the Australian Tourist Commission will not disappoint any member of the House. Question resolved in the affirmative Bill read a second time. In Committee Clauses 1 to 5 - by leave - taken together, and agreed to. Clause 6(1.) The Commission shall consist of five voting members and two non-voting members. Mr WENTWORTH(Mackellar) [9.5]- I move: In sub-clause (1.), omit 'two', insert 'four*. My amendment is designed to allow two members of this Parliament to act as nonvoting members of the Commission. The drafting of my amendment, which has been circulated, has been done by the Parliamentary Draftsman and is in accordance with the general provisions in this regard contained in the National Library Act. I did not intend to move this amendment until 1 heard the debate in this chamber and I realised that the measure was being treated in a non-party manner. I realised also that worthwhile opinions were being expressed by honourable members on both sides of the House. Therefore, I thought it was desirable that members of our Parliament should be associated with this Commission in a non-voting capacity. I take this view partly because I believe that members of this House - as they have shown during the second reading debate, and this has been acknowledged by the Minister - have something to contribute. After all, we are representatives of the people of Australia and the tourists who come to us are also, funnily enough, men and women. Perhaps members of Parliament have something to contribute which the experts may not always appreciate. I am not proposing that the members of Parliament should be voting members of the Commission; I propose that they be non-voting members. If honourable members look at the National Library Act they will see that we appoint a member of the Senate and a member of the House of Representatives to act on the National Library Committee, which is a similar body to the one we are at present considering. By a convention, which I am sure would be observed, one member would come from the Opposition and one member from the Government. For example, I can recall that only a few days ago we elected the honourable member for Wills (Mr Bryant) who is a member of the Opposition as our representative on the National Library Committee. It would certainly be envisaged that if we were to elect two people as nonvoting members to this Commission, we would elect one from the Opposition and one from the Government just as we have done in the past. This has been done through no legislative necessity to do so but by force of a convention, which I am sure would be honoured, such as with the National Library Committee and the Australian National University. I believe it is inappropriate for members of this House to be represented upon commissions or councils where political issues are involved or are likely to come to the fore, because whatever we may hope or believe to the contrary there is not a really bi-partisan policy on many matters dealt with in the House. However, where there is a bipartisan policy, as with the Australian Tourist Commission, the National Library and the Australian National University - where party politics do not enter into it - I believe very sincerely that this Parliament should be represented. We denigrate ourselves if we do not believe that we have the capacity to fulfil a function such as this. I have been told that this is a matter for experts and that members of this Parliament can have nothing to contribute. This is poisonous nonsense. Mr Chipp- Who told the honourable member that? Mr WENTWORTH-I have been told by honourable members of this House, and I believe by other people, too. Mr Chipp- Do not misrepresent them. Mr WENTWORTH-I believe that members of this Parliament have something to contribute and have a right to participate in the functions of government where non-party matters are involved. This involves the dignity of this Parliament. If we want to write ourselves off entirely as rubber stamps we will contract out of proposals of this character. However, if we believe in the reality of the parliamentary institution, acknowledging as we must the dictates of party loyalties in matters where party policy is involved, we should see that we participate in the government of this country. We should not be rubber stamps for the Executive. I know there are some people associated with the civil service who think that the Parliament is nothing, that the Government is everything, and that the Government should be the mouthpiece of experts and civil servants. I am not of that opinion. I believe that this Parliament still has some functions, and I believe also that this is one of the cases in which the Opposition can contribute something to the government of this country without involving itself or the Government in party politics. Some members have said that it would be inappropriate to increase the number of members of the Commission from seven to nine. Really, that is nonsense. The two non-voting members would not be able - and I do not think they should be able - to control the votes and decisions of the Commission. I believe that they, as ordinary people, could give the opinions of the man in the street. No man is better qualified to do this than a member of this Parliament. I am confident that the non-voting members would be able to contribute something of value to the work of the Commission. Indeed, since the Commission will be largely dependent on this Parliament for funds to discharge its functions, I believe they would be of assistance in reporting back to this Parliament, thus allowing it to participate as it should in a matter of this character. I put my submissions from two standpoints. First, I put it that this is one of the proper functions of this Parliament. If we are not prepared to do here what we have done in the case of the National Library and the Australian National University, then we are running away from our responsibilities as members of Parliament and are denigrating ourselves. Heaven knows, we were very strong a day or two ago against a member of the Parliament who had denigrated us. Do not let us fall into the same sort of trap and denigrate ourselves. Furthermore, I believe that two members of this Parliament, chosen from opposite sides, could and would be able to add something of value to the work of the Commission. The Commission will consist of experts. That is fair enough, but experts, though involved in research, also deal with men and women. In the matter of public relations, no group of people is more skilled than the members of this chamber. At any rate, let us have some idea of our own dignity and worth. Let us not denigrate ourselves, but let us see that there is proper liaison between the Commission in its non-political character and the members of this chamber. Finally, I refer to the tenor of the debate, about which the Minister spoke so generously. Honourable members, speaking off the cuff, had a great deal to contribute to the debate. From the way they spoke, they would make ideal members of the Commission. Mr UREN(Reid) [9.14]- I support the spirit of the sentiments expressed by the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Wentworth), and in particular the view that members of the Parliament, one from the Senate and one from the House of Representatives, sitting on this Commission would make a worthwhile contribution to its work. The honourable member said that they would be non-voting members. One cannot complain about that. After all, I think they would add strength to the Australian Tourist Commission. I disagree, however, on another aspect. The honourable member for Mackellar seems to have drawn an incorrect inference from the tenor of the debate at the second reading stage and the fact that members on both sides gave some praise to the Minister and the Government for bringing forward this legislation. He said that there had been a bi-partisan approach to the matter of tourism. I cannot accept that proposition in the terms expressed by the honourable member for Mackellar. We on this side want the public sector to have more say in the composition of the Australian Tourist Commission and to play a bigger part generally in tourism than the Government would have it play. We have said that we support this legislation. That is because it is a step in the right direction. Since 1929 a voluntary or semi-voluntary concern, the Australian National Travel Association, has been supreme in tourist affairs in Australia. Over the years it has received in excess of $Sm in subsidy from the Federal Government. The Commonwealth has contributed 70% of the Association's finances in the past few years. Now, even that body has decided that tourism is getting too big for part time voluntary organisations. It is now necessary for the Government and public institutions to enter the field of tourism. I point out that from 1950 to 1966 Australia has suffered a deficit of $634m on tourist activities. As an example of socialist undertakings I refer to Qantas Empire Airways Ltd, which has received contributions from this Government and has made about $19m profit over the last ten years. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Hon. W. C. Haworth) - Order! I remind the honourable member that we are discussing clause 6 of the Bill. Mr UREN- Mr Deputy Chairman, I am aware that we are discussing clause 6. The honourable member for Mackellar put forward the amendment that a member of the House of Representatives and a member of the Senate should be appointed to the Australian Tourist Commission as non-voting members. In support of his amendment he advanced the argument that in regard to tourism there was no difference between the attitude of the Government and that of the Opposition. I point out to the Committee that this is not entirely a non-party affair. We support the Government when it comes forward in a progressive manner, but we say it has taken too long to enter the field of tourism. However, we are grateful for the crumbs that have fallen from the table. We ask that the public sector be given a greater say in the affairs of the Tourist Commission. We have already said that not only in Sydney but also in every capital city and in provincial cities throughout Australia, there should be hotels like the Wentworth Hotel run by Qantas Empire Airways Ltd. Surely this is not a case of both parties being on common ground. We on this side want to see a growing interest in the public sector. We believe that entry of the public sector into tourism will result in better and more efficient tourist services in Australia. We have pointed out the frustration that has been caused by the Government's holding back the development and establishment of the new Wentworth Hotel in Chifley Square, Sydney. That venture was frustrated by members of the Government. We are not in agreement with the Government on this issue. We criticise the Government for restraining Qantas Empire Airways Ltd. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN - Order! 1 hope the honourable member will connect his remarks with the constitution of the Commission. Mr. UREN- I shall link my remarks with the amendment moved by the honourable member for Mackellar who, in moving the amendment, argued on the premise that we were non-partisan in the matter of tourism. I repeat that we support the Government in the positive and progressive attitude it has adopted in introducing this measure, but I emphasise that we are not in entire agreement in the matter of tourism generally. I believe the Chair was very lenient with the honourable member for Mackellar. I have been called to order twice and have been asked to link my remarks with this clause. But at no time was the honourable member called to order for not speaking to it. I repeat that we believe the tourist industry should expand and that the expansion must come from the initiative of the public sector. We already have Qantas Empire Airways Ltd, which operates overseas, and we need a shipping line that operates overseas. Surely that is not a non-partisan suggestion. Has any honourable member on the Government side suggested that an overseas shipping line be established? We have said before that tourists from overseas have their first experience of Australian hospitality when they board aircraft used by Qantas Empire Airways. If we had an overseas shipping line, passengers boarding its ships overseas would then have their first experience of Australian hospitality. It is in this way that we want the public sector to move further into the tourist industry. I agree in spirit with the amendment moved by the honourable member for Mackellar. I think honourable members on the Government side of the chamber must agree that we on this side sincerely wish to see the tourist industry in Australia grow. But surely the honourable member for Mackellar will agree that last year, although we received S58m from tourism, we spent $122m overseas, leaving a deficit of §64m. It has taken a long time for the Government to move positively to encourage the tourist industry and surely we on this side of the chamber are entitled to mention this. We believe that tourism cannot be left to the private sector. We as parliamentarians acting in the best interests of Australia want the public sector to be more active in tourism. In many instances the public sector may have to work in co-operation with the private sector if the best' interests of Australia and our tourist industry are to be served, lt may be that a divergence of opinions between parliamentarians who are members of the Australian Tourist Commission, one from the Government and one from the Opposition, may be stimulating. Therefore in spirit I support the amendment. I confine my agreement to agreement in spirit because, after all, I am bound by the decisions of my Party. If a division is called on the amendment I will vote with my Party. The honourable member for Dawson (Dr Patterson), who led for the Opposition in the second reading debate, will decide this matter and we will support him unanimously. Therefore, I support the amendment only in spirit and if a VO It' is taken I may not be able to vote with the honourable member for Mackellar. My Party has decided to support the Government on this issue and I do not think at this late stage we should divide the Committee on it. Dr PATTERSON(Dawson) [9.24]- I wish to speak briefly to clause 6 of the Bill. The Minister for the Navy (Mr Chipp) has agreed that the five most capable people should be chosen to form the Commission. One of the voting members must be an officer of the Commonwealth Public Service and the Minister has already said that this public servant will come from tha Department of Trade and Industry. The Opposition has no objection to any of the provisions of clause 6. It could easily be that all five voting members of the Commission will come from the Public Service. Perhaps the Minister will define more precisely what is meant by 'a body or association that is representative of the industries in Australia connected with tourism'. This is an extremely wide wording and could almost embrace everyone from the ranger at Ayers Rock to one of the top representatives of a tourist organisation. About 90% of the debate on the Bill has been related to Australia's tourist attractions for people overseas. However, it is recognised that no good purpose is served in bringing tourists to Australia unless we can make them happy. As I said, about 90% of the debate related to tourist attractions, principally with the outback and the Great Barrier Reef, and with some of our other attractions thrown in for good measure. There can be no question that the outback and the Great Barrier Reef are two of the finest attractions that we have and two of the finest tourist attractions in the world. Mr Stokes- Read the amendment. Dr PATTERSON-I am speaking to clause 6 of the Bill. I hope the Minister, when he is selecting the voting members mentioned in clause 6 (3.), will give some thought to the types of attractions that will be promoted overseas. He said that it is quite possible that the five members will come from Melbourne or from Sydney. I hope that this will not be so and that the members will be selected from all parts of the Commonwealth. I find it hard to believe that no Western Australian or Queenslander would be capable of serving on the Commission. Nevertheless, we respect the Minister's sincerity and believe that he will do all he can to select the five most competent people for this work. Mr CHIPP(Higinbotham - Minister for the Navy and Minister in Charge of Tourist Activities) [9.28]- If I may, I will first deal with the point raised by the honourable member for Dawson (Dr Patterson). He referred to clause 6 (3.) of the Bill and asked what bodies would be approved to provide representatives of the industries in Australia connected with tourism. I thought I had made this point clear in my second reading speech. Two of the voting members shall be nominated by a body or association that is approved by the Minister as being representative of the industries in Australia connected with tourism. At this stage we regard the Australian National Travel Association as being the body meeting this requirement. I am sure the honourable member will agree that this is the body that should nominate two of the voting members. The Government does not accept the amendment moved by the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Wentworth). One never expects the honourable member to bring forward a thought that is not provocative, original or stimulating, and he has not let us down tonight. He talked about the denegation of the House if we as members of the Parliament did not stick up for our rights and join in committees like this Commission. This is a most interesting piece of political philosophy, and on this point of political philosophy alone I should like to join issue with him. I disagree vigorously with him that for members of Parliament to demand membership of bodies such as this is uplifting their status; it is possibly working in the reverse direction in respect of their status and responsibilities. I suggest to the honourable member for Mackellar that this Federal Parliament is the fountainhead of power in the Commonwealth and that each member of this Parliament is a symbol of power insofar as he represents an electorate. After having said that, for us to suggest that each of us should join as members in a position of equality with people that we, as a Parliament, appoint to decide matters on the fringe of fundamental Government policy, does not uplift the status of the member of Parliament but rather lowers it. Apart from that I cannot imagine that members of this Parliament would feel that their status, importance and position of power had been strengthened if members of the Parliament were members of the Australian Broadcasting Commission, the National Capital Development Commission, the Export Payments Insurance Corporation and a dozen or more other statutory corporations that we have. Let me take this a stage further. I wonder what would happen to the performance, efficiency and objectivity of the Commission if two members of the Parliament sat on it, even as non-voting members. Let us not go into party politics. The honourable member for Mackellar suggests that one member from the House of Representatives and one from the Senate could join the Commission. Let us assume, for the sake of argument that one is a member of the Liberal Party and the other a member of the Labour Party. They will be two Federal members overlooking men whose appointment this Parliament has approved - men who are expert and who are trying to determine in all honesty and objectivity basic matters of tourist policy and tourist promotion policy. Indeed at least one public servant will be on the Commission. Does the honourable member suggest to me that the presence of two members of Parliament on the Commission will not embarrass that public servant? Does he suggest to me that two members of the Federal Parliament, which, as I have said, is the fountainhead of power in this community, as members of the Commission will not embarrass the objectivity of other members of the Commission? Dr Patterson- The Minister could be on the Commission, and that would embarrass the other members of the Commission. Mr CHIPP- The honourable member for Dawson makes an excellent point. The Minister could be on the Commission and this would suborn the objectivity and honesty of members of the Commission. If the honourable member for Mackellar is worried about the control that Parliament has over the Commission I remind him quickly of three clauses of the Bill. By clause 21 the moneys appropriated to the Commission are appropriated by Parliament. The Commission, by clause 25, must submit particulars of its proposed expenditure to the Minister. Under clause 29 (1) the Commission must report annually to the Minister on its financial statements and on its operations and the Minister must table these reports in this House within fifteen sitting days of their receipt. This is provided for in clause 29 (3). I believe that this Parliament has more than adequate control over the activities of the Commission. When the reports are tabled every member of the Parliament will have the opportunity to make his contributions, as he has had today. The honourable member for Mackellar would be the first to know that there is access, through ministerial channels, whereby each member of the Parliament can express his point of view about any aspect of the Commission. This Parliament has adequate control over the activities of the Commission, both, financial and otherwise. It would be an error of political judgment and of political philosophy for this Parliament ever to demand for its members the right to sit on statutory corporations appointed by the Government from time to time. For these reasons the Government rejects the amendment. Mr WENTWORTH(Mackellar) [9.35]- 1 do not want to close the debate on the amendment if anyone else wishes to speak, but since no other honourable member has risen I shall exercise my right to do so. I do think that the Minister spoke a little without consideration a moment ago. He said: 'How terrible it would be for members of the Parliament to sit on a body such as this Commission', but he has forgotten that we elect members of this Parliament to sit on the Australian National University Council and on the National Library Council. If it is wrong to have a member of the Parliament on the Australian Tourist Commission why did we elect the honourable member for Willis (Mr Bryant) a few days ago to sit on the National Library Council? We do these things, and the Minister is talking nonsense when he says that it is a derogation from the dignity of this House. Secondly, the Minister said that we are adequately protected because we vote money to the Commission and will get reports from it, but this frankly is nonsense. It is a mere matter of form to vote the money, because we cannot refuse the money without throwing the Government out of office, and no member on this side wants to throw the Government out of office. However, we are entitled to know a little bit more about the causes for which we are voting the money. The Minister spoke about the reports being submitted to us. This, as he knows, is entirely a matter of form, and it is deceiving the public and trying to deceive members of this House to pretend that it is anything else. This House has lost its real authority, and it has lost its real authority because it gives everything to the Executive. I know that there are political matters where we must give to the Executive, and I am not quarrelling with that position. I do not want to weaken the Executive unnecessarily, but I believe that over the last twenty years the Executive has weakened this Parliament unnecessarily and it is time we started to stand up for some of our rights. The Minister referred to the presence of members of Parliament on the Commission. Mr Turner-What about Qantas, TAA, the Egg Board, the Australian Broadcasting Commission or the National Capital Development Commission? Mr WENTWORTH-The honourable member for Bradfield has mentioned several bodies. We should be represented on the National Capital Development Commission. I do not see why we are not represented on it, because it does not raise matters of party politics. Party politics are not involved in the National Capital Development Commission. Where party politics are involved I can see good reason for not having members of this Parliament as members of a council, commission or whatever it may be. The Minister claimed that we would embarrass public servants by having members of Parliament on the Australian Tourist Commission. I do not think that this is sense at all. There are public servants who sit on various bodies with Ministers. I instance the River Murray Commission or the Snowy Mountains Hydro-Electric Authority. After all, the Minister again says, we write down ourselves if we put members of this House on a level with people appointed by this House. What damn rot. The Ministers do this time and time again. What the Minister is doing is trying to deceive this House. He is trying to appropriate for the executive government, of which he is now a part, the privileges which should belong in part to this House. He has said things which are not factual. As I have said, he stated that members of this House would degrade themselves by sitting on the same level as public servants. However, this is what Ministers do on such bodies as the Snowy Mountains Authority and the River Murray Commission. What he means in point of fact is that no member of this House should share in the divine prerogative of Ministers. He is endeavouring to mislead this House. Mr Deputy Chairman, I shall not go any further in this regard. I regret very much the necessity to speak to a Minister in this tone of voice, but when I find a man at the table getting up and saying things which are patently coloured in the way the Minister has spoken a moment ago- Mr Snedden- I rise to order. The honourable gentleman is making his point with very great clarity. It does not require him to use words which 1 feel do not add to the dignity of this chamber. 'Patently coloured' is not an expression which should be used in this place. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN - Order! The point of order is not upheld. Mr WENTWORTH-If the Minister for Immigration is so thin skinned that he finds the words cutting I withdraw them. Of course, I do not want to offend the Minister for Immigration; I fear him too much for that. All I say is that the Minister at the table did himself and this House and the system of parliamentary government a wrong when he adduced the reasons which he did a few moments ago, because they were patently reasons without substance. He was saying that the members of this House would degrade themselves by putting themselves in the position of Ministers in relation to public servants, and that is patently untrue when we come to consider it. 1 want to put these facts on the line. Mr Chipp-I rise to order. I have sat here and taken a fair amount from the honourable member for Mackellar. I do object to being misrepresented patently by the honourable member. Hansard will show clearly that at no stage did I suggest that any member of this House would degrade himself by sitting with public servants. I resent the statement by the honourable member for Mackellar. I never said that or anything like it, and I do not appreciate his saying it. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN - Order! If the Minister objects to any of the words used by the honourable member for Mackellar or to any of the statements he makes he has his right of reply later. The honourable member for Mackellar may continue. Mr WENTWORTH- Thank you, Sir. The Minister said that he never said anythink like that, but I will let Hansard be the judge of that. I think the Minister is perfectly entitled to refer to Hansard in that regard, and I hope that my memory fs not at fault in relation to it. The Minister did say if I remember rightly, that the members of this House should not lower themselves - I think they were the words - to the position of putting themselves on equality with public servants sitting on a commission of this kind. My memory may be at fault, but let us have a look at Hansard when it comes out. However, I think that was in point of fact the substance of what the Minister said. In conclusion, I suggest to the House that the amendment I have moved is consonant with the proper functions of this Parliament, and that the proper functions of the Parliament do not mean that everything should be given to the executive government and that we should be mere rubber stamps in every respect. Amendment negatived. Clause agreed to. Remainder of Bill - by leave - taken as a whole, and agreed to. Bill reported without amendment; report adopted. Third Reading Bill (on motion by Mr Chipp) - by leave - read a third time. STATES GRANTS (TEACHERS COLLEGES) BILL 1967 Bill presented by Mr Freeth, and read a first time. Second Reading Mr FREETH(Forrest- Minister for Shipping and Transport) [9.47] - I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The purpose of this Bill is to put into effect the Government's promise to make unmatched grants to the States for the construction and equipping of colleges for the training of teachers throughout Australia. The Bill provides for expenditure of up to S24m spread over the three financial years starting in July 1967. Payments will be made to the States in respect of college projects which are selected by the States, to be erected on sites selected by the States and in accordance with plans and standards drawn up by the States and approved by the Minister for Education and Science. A schedule showing their projects is attached to the copy of this second reading speech which is circulated to honourable members. The offer to the States has been made on two clear understandings. Firstly, the State undertakes not to reduce its own expenditure on teacher training. Secondly, at least 10% of the places made available as a result of the Government's offer are to be available for student teachers not bonded to the State Education Departments. This applies whether the places be new or replacement places and whether they are teaching places or places in residential accommodation. Winners of Commonwealth advanced education scholarships - or of university scholarships - will be able, if they wish, to apply their scholarships to courses at these colleges. Commonwealth assistance in the construction of teachers colleges is regarded as of the highest priority by the States. This became clear from discussions during 1966 between my colleague, the Minister for Education and Science, and the State Ministers and Directors of Education. As a result, the Government included in its last policy speech the offer of capital grants, and subsequently, at the beginning of 1967, after further discussions, the Minister reached agreement in principle with each State on a programme of work within each State as part of a Commonwealth three-year S24m programme. Honourable members will be pleased to know that, because of the early attention given to these matters both by us and by the State governments, in at least one State tenders have already been called for one large project and in another State planning is almost to the same stage. At this point 1 draw the attention of the House to the Schedule to the Bill, which gives a preliminary estimate of how the amount of $24m is to be distributed among the various States. I emphasise that, because the amounts estimated for each individual project are only estimates and because the actual annual rate of expenditure in any State is also only an estimate, the Bill gives the Minister power to vary the amounts both between individual projects in a State and between States. This is done to provide the flexibility which is necessary to ensure that individual colleges are built to the proper standards and to ensure that the money provided overall in any one year is used to the best advantage. Similarly, because some States may take some time to develop their programmes the total amounts required in any one year may not be equal to the amounts required in another year. Therefore the Bill provides, not for $8m each year but for a limit of $8m in the first year, of $16m in the first two years and, of course, of $24m in the three-year period. Honourable members will note that the Bill requires the Minister to table in the Parliament each year a statement showing the amounts he authorised for all projects in the various States in the past year. I now give the House a brief statement of the projects to be developed with these grants in each State. In New South Wales two new teachers colleges will be built, one at Chatswood and one at Shortland. In addition to providing new places, these colleges will provide up to date facilities to replace existing facilities at Balmain and Newcastle respectively. In the country, the first stage of a new college with residential facilities will be built at Goulburn. In Victoria, projects include a new secondary teachers college, a new technical teachers college and other projects to be selected by the Victorian Government from the list of projects in the schedule which I have circulated to honourable members. In Queensland, additions will be built at the Kelvin Grove Teachers College, a new college will be built at Mount Gravatt, and $200,000 is available for site development works at the Ross River site in Townsville should it be required. In South Australia, a new Northern Teachers College will be built on a site near Elizabeth, and there are other projects yet to be selected by the South Australian Government. In Western Australia, a secondary teachers college will be built at Nedlands. In Tasmania, a teachers college will be built at Launceston. We believe that these grants will enable the States to provide new places and to replace out of date places in teachers colleges a good deal earlier than they could ever hope to do from their own resources, and we further believe that the grants will accelerate the introduction of a three year training course for primary school teachers, which is a widely expressed hope among Australian educationists. When this Bill becomes law, capital expenditure during the 1967-69 triennium on universities, colleges of advanced education, and teachers colleges will be at least $68m a year, of which the Commonwealth will provide $41m a year. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Dr Patterson) adjourned. INCOME TAX ASSESSMENT BULL (No. 2) 1967 Bill presented by Mr Howson, and read a first time. Second Reading Mr HOWSON(Fawkner - Minister for Air and Minister Assisting the Treasurer) [9.56]-I moveThat the Bill be now read a second time. It is proposed by this Bill to amend the Income Tax Assessment Act in three respects. One proposal is to extend for three years the period in which deductions are available for certain capital subscriptions to companies prospecting or mining for petroleum or other minerals. Another is to convert the withholding tax on dividends paid to non-residents to a final tax on the dividends. The third is to amend provisions applicable to United States contractors and personnel engaged on the North West Cape naval communication station project so that the provisions apply also to contractors and personnel engaged on other similar projects in Australia. At present, income tax deductions are available in specified circumstances for share capital subscribed to petroleum exploration and mining companies or to other companies whose principal business is mining or prospecting for minerals other than gold, uranium or oil. These deductions are granted only to Australian residents. They are dependent upon the particular company lodging with the Commissioner of Taxation a declaration that the share capital received from the Australian investors is expended in mining or prospecting operations. It is, of course, also a condition of the deductions that the company actually spend the money in the way set out in its declaration. The provisions that authorise these deductions are due to terminate on 30th June 1967, having already been extended for three years from 30th June 1964. It is proposed by this Bill to extend the operation of the provisions for a further period of three years to 30th June 1970 so as to provide a continued incentive for Australian residents to invest in companies prospecting for petroleum and other minerals in Australia. As I have said, the Bill also proposes amendments to the dividend withholding tax provisions of the income tax law. As imposed by other countries, a withholding tax on dividends or other income has three basic characteristics. These are that it is imposed at a flat rate, that it is deducted by the payer at the point of payment and that it is a final tax on the income. The Australian dividend withholding tax system has two of these characteristics, but not the third. The tax is imposed at a general flat rate of 30% of the gross dividend, but this is reduced to 15% for residents of countries with which we have double taxation agreements, namely, the United Kingdom, the United States of America, Canada and New Zealand. The tax is, of course, deducted by the paying company at the point of payment. However, non-resident recipients of Australian dividends have the option of either accepting the withholding tax as a final tax or exercising a right of election to be assessed and pay tax on the dividends in the ordinary way. Where an election is made, Australian tax cannot be increased beyond the withholding tax rate but if the income from Australia is small the tax may be reduced below that rate or even eliminated altogether. The main reason for the right of election was the situation that existed in regard to some overseas investors in Australian companies when our withholding tax system was introduced in 1960. At that time these investors were not subject to tax on dividends in their own country, and imposition of withholding tax at the full rate on Australian dividends may have caused hardship for small investors in individual cases. This situation has greatly changed over the years in that dividends are now generally taxed in the country of residence and credit is allowed for the Australian withholding tax against the home country tax. Moreover, experience has shown that the right of election not only causes considerable administrative difficulties but also results in much inconvenience to overseas investors. While the right of election remains, many overseas investors find that they cannot finalise the credit for Australian withholding tax against their home country tax until they have satisfied the home taxation authorities that they have minimised the Australian tax by exercising their right of election. To these extents, the right of election surrenders tax on Australian income to foreign treasuries and tends to defeat two primary objectives of a withholding system, namely, simplicity of operation and certainty of liability for the overseas investor. In all these circumstances, the Government has decided that the time is ripe to convert our withholding tax to a final tax and it proposes to do this by abolishing the right of election. I remind honourable members that this change was recommended by the Commonwealth Committee on Taxation, of which Sir George Ligertwood was the Chairman. A further amendment to the dividend withholding tax provisions proposed will ensure that residents of all our external territories are treated as Australian residents for the purpose of taxing dividend income they derive from Australian companies. At present, residents of the Territory of Papua and New Guinea are exempt from the withholding tax on dividends received from Australian companies and are liable to tax on an ordinary assessment basis. Residents of other territories, however, are liable to dividend withholding tax at the general rate of 30% on dividends received from Australian companies, subject to their right to elect that the dividends be assessed under the general provisions of the income tax law. It is now proposed, with the withdrawal of the right of election, to exempt residents of all the external territories from dividend withholding tax. These taxpayers will then be taxed on the same basis in respect of their Australian income as are residents of Australia. The amendments proposed to the dividend withholding tax will apply in respect of dividends derived on or after 1st July 1967. Finally, I turn to amendments proposed by the Bill that will give effect to two agreements, so far as they relate to taxation. between the Australian Government and the United States Government concerning projects in Australia known as Sparta and the Joint Defence Space Research Facility. Honourable members may recall that in 1963 the income tax law was amended to give effect to our agreements with the Government of the United States of America relating to the establishment of the naval communication station at North West Cape in Western Australia. Those agreements bound us to exempt from our income tax the income of American civilians and military personnel derived here solely as a result of their connection with the establishment or maintenance of the communication station. Similar taxation arrangements have been made in the agreements relating to the project Sparta and the Joint Defence Space Research Facility. It is therefore proposed to extend the exemptions now authorised in respect of the North West Cape project to the two new projects I have mentioned. As in the case of the North West Cape project, the exemptions will operate only so long as the United States Government taxes the income. No exemptions are proposed for people connected with the projects who are citizens of Australia or ordinarily resident here. Similarly, the income of a company incorporated in Australia and carrying out a contract in connection with the projects will not be exempt. In general terms, the practical effect of the amendments is to reserve to the United States the taxation of American citizens and taxpayers on income that originates from expenditure by the United States Government on the two projects in Australia while these persons remain subject to the American tax laws. Australia's taxation rights in respect of other income derived from the projects are not disturbed. An explanatory memorandum giving more detailed explanations of the technical provisions of the Bill is being made available for the information of honourable members and I do not propose to speak at greater length at this stage. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Crean) adjourned. INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENTS) BILL 1967 Bill presented by Mr Howson, and read a first time. Second Reading Mr HOWSON(Fawkner) [10.8]- I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. This Bill proposes amendments to provisions of the Income Tax (International Agreements) Act enacted in 1963 following upon our agreement with the Government of the United States of America concerning the establishment of the naval communication station at North West Cape in Western Australia. The broad concept of that agreement, so far as it relates to taxation, was explained when the provisions now being amended were introduced in this House. The concept is that the presence in Australia of United States contractors and other personnel in connection with the North West Cape project should not, of itself, render them liable to Australian income tax, or to more Australian income tax than they would otherwise pay. This concept has also been adopted in the relevant agreements relating to two new projects in Australia. These are the project Sparta and the Joint Defence Space Research Facility. The Bill is accordingly designed to ensure that United States contractors who come to Australia for a purpose connected with those projects will not, by reason only that they are carrying on business here for that purpose, become liable to a higher rate of tax than would otherwise apply to dividends that they may receive from Australian companies. The technical features of the amendments proposed by the Bill are explained in a memorandum that has been prepared for the information of honourable members. I do not, therefore, propose to speak at great length on the Bill at this stage. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Crean) adjourned. ESTATE DUTY ASSESSMENT BILL 1967 Bill presented by Mr Howson, and read a first time. Second Reading Mr HOWSON(Fawkner- Minister for Air and Minister assisting the Treasurer) [10.9] - I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The purpose of this Bill is to give effect to terms of an agreement reached by the Governments of Australia and the United States on 9th December 1966 relating to the establishment of the Joint Defence Space Research Facility in Australia. Stated broadly, Australia is to exempt from Commonwealth estate duty personal property that is in Australia solely because of the presence here of persons in connection with the establishment, operation or maintenance of the Facility. The exemption is to apply only where that property is subject to the estate tax of the United States. A memorandum explaining the clauses of the Bill has been prepared for honourable members and I do not think I need to elaborate further at this stage. I commend the Bill to honourable members. Debate (on motion by Mr Crean) adjourned. GIFT DUTY ASSESSMENT BILL 1967 Bill presented by Mr Howson, and read a first time. Second Reading Mr HOWSON(Fawkner- Minister for Air and Minister assisting the Treasurer) [10.10]- I move That the Bill be now read a second time. This Bill is a further measure arising from our agreement with the Government of the United States covering the Joint Defence Space Research Facility in Australia. The Bill will give effect to an undertaking that Australia will not levy Commonwealth gift duty as regards gifts of certain personal property which is in Australia solely by reason of the presence here of persons connected with the Facility, so long as the gift is within the scope of the gift tax imposed by the United States. A memorandum explaining the clauses of the Bill is being circulated to honourable members and I do not propose to discuss them further at this stage. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr. Crean) adjourned. BRIGALOW LANDS AGREEMENT BILL 1967 Bill - by leave - presented by Mr Fairbairn, and read a first time. Second Reading Mr FAIRBAIRN(Farrer- Minister for National Development) [10.12] - I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The purpose of this Bill is to seek the approval of Parliament to an agreement between the Commonwealth and the State of Queensland, under which financial assistance would be provided by the Commonwealth for the development of a further area of brigalow lands in the MackenzieIsaac River basin of central Queensland. Approval of the agreement, which has been signed by the Prime Minister on behalf of the Commonwealth and by the Premier on behalf of the State, would have the effect of increasing the amount available under the existing CommonwealthState Brigalow Agreement by $8.5m. Under the Brigalow Lands Agreement Act 1962-1965, the Commonwealth has agreed to provide financial assistance to Queensland of up to $ 14.5m over an 8-year period ending 30th June 1970 for the development of certain specified areas in the Fitzroy River basin. The scheme involves the acquisition by the State of the existing holdings in the area and re-subdivision to yield a larger number of blocks, some of which are allotted to the existing landholders, some sold at auction and the remainder ballotted for by applicants selected by the State. The ballot blocks are developed by settlers with the assistance of loans provided by the State Government from funds made available by the Commonwealth under the Brigalow Lands Agreement Act. The scheme is administered by the State, the Commonwealth's participation being restricted to the provision of financial assistance. This additional area, like the area presently being developed, has been the subject of an economic evaluation by the Bureau of Agricultural Economics. The Bureau has reported very favourably on the economic potential of the area and the Commonwealth has decided that the provision of financial assistance to the State to allow the development to proceed would be fully justified. The assistance would be provided over the period extending up to 30th June 1975. lt has been estimated that the existing limit of $ 14.5m on Commonwealth financial assistance for the development currently under way would have to be increased to $23m to permit development of this new area. The proposed scheme of development for the new area is along lines generally similar to those adopted for the development of the areas covered by the existing Agreement, although the State has suggested one or two additional features that experience has suggested are desirable. One proposal is for the State to pre-develop portion of the brigalow country on some holdings before they are allotted to settlers, so that the blocks will have a carrying capacity of 400 to 500 head of cattle at the outset. This would enable the settler to earn income more quickly, and would also reduce the risk to the settler of a major setback due to poor pasture establishment or serious brigalow re-growth problems. It is also proposed that Commonwealth financial assistance under the Agreement should be available for cultivation on brigalow blocks. There is considerable evidence and technical opinion to indicate that under some circumstances cultivation and cropping of grain or fodder crops for a few years is the most effective way of overcoming brigalow sucker regrowth. It will be observed also that the amending Agreement provides for a minimum of 30% of the new blocks in the northern area to go to auction, instead of 25% as in the areas of the existing scheme. An increase in the number of auction blocks may help to avoid excessively high prices for these blocks. It is proposed that the increased level of Commonwealth financial assistance for the development of the additional area will be made available on the same terms as under the existing Agreements. That is to say, assistance will be by way of interest-bearing loans repayable over twenty years. Under the present Agreement interest on advances made to the State up to 30th June 1967 is capitalised and repaid with principal over twenty years from 15th January 1968. For advances made after 30th June 1967 and up to 30th June 1970 interest is payable as it accrues and capital is repayable from 15th January 1971 over twenty years. The amending Agreement provides that in respect of advances made to the State from 30th June 1967 to 30th June 1970, interest will be capitalised up to 15th July 1970 and repayable over twenty years from 15th January 1971. In respect of advances made by the Commonwealth after 30th June 1970, interest will be capitalised up to 15th July 1975 and repayable over twenty years from 15th January 1976. In conclusion I should like to record the Commonwealth Government's confidence in the brigalow scheme and its belief that it will prove a notable success. Although the scheme has had its problems, these have been largely the consequence of the recent drought, and we are confident that the scheme remains a sound economic proposition which will make an important contribution to northern development and to our export earnings from beef. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Dr Patterson) adjourned. BILLS RETURNED FROM THE SENATE The following Bills were returned from the Senate: Without requests - Customs Tariff Bill (No. 2) 1967. Excise Tariff Bill 1967. Without amendment - Diplomatic Privileges and Immunities Bill 1967. Pay-roll Tax Assessment Bill 1967. Income Tax Assessment Bill 1967. Sales Tax (Exemptions and Classifications) Bill 1967. Sheltered Employment (Assistance) Bill 1967. National Health Bill 1967. HOMES SAVINGS GRANT BILL 1967 Second Reading Debate resumed from 6 April (vide page 999), on motion by Mr Bury: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr CONNOR(Cunningham) [10.18] - The Opposition does not oppose this Bill but will offer certain criticisms in accordance with the forms of the House regarding some very notable omissions, particularly the failure of the Government to continue to recognise savings within a credit union as qualifying for a grant under the legislation and the failure of the Government to curb certain excesses or rectify errors of the Secretary of the Department of Housing in respect of the valuation of homes. The arbitrary assessment of home values has given rise to grievances. This Bill is designed to bring within the scope of the homes savings grant legislation widows under 36 years of age with at least one dependent child, and to increase from $14,000 to $15,000 the limit of the value of a home that may qualify for a grant. The remedies proposed represent one more stage in the patchwork pattern of legislation resulting from the election promises of the former Prime Minister, Sir Robert Menzies, in 1963, designed to secure the votes of a particular group of home seekers. In fact the legislation could be called 'Operation Cover-Up', being intended to remedy some of the worst bureacratic excesses, which cost this Government the votes of many disgruntled applicants. The 1965-66 report showed that up to the end of June 1966 only 88% of applications had been approved. The Minister stated that some 74,000 couples had already received grants totalling more than $33m. The average grant since the inception of the scheme has been approximately $450. The problem faced by the former Minister for Housing has undoubtedly been a complex one, namely to extract the maximum political advantage from a sweepingly generalised dragnet and at the same time to supply a justifiable set of definitions that would qualify the most eager applicants, without excessive cost to the Government - and I stress 'without excessive cost'. In his 1964 speech in this House the then Minister for Housing (Mr Bury) said that housing was vital to the welfare and happiness of individuals and to our future development as a nation. He then went so far as to say that without proper housing the processes of marriage and family formation which are the very essence of Australia's future development would be seriously impared. He qualified his statement by saying that in housing we shall always fall short of the ideal. Having delivered these most laudible sentiments the Minister then lapsed into his Party's inner view of political realities when he said: 'The Government has become particularly concerned with the difficulties facing home seekers in raising sufficient funds for a deposit large enough to meet the requirements of lending institutions.' I mention these facts because they provide the background to the Bill and the Government's motivation. The Minister continued: The causes of the situation are complex, but two factors are worthy of particular notice - the rising price of land, especially in the vicinity of our capital cities, and the availability of funds from lending institutions. There is little the Government can do about the price of land, which must bear the cost of development - these are State matters. The availability of funds is also highly critical and is subject to Commonwealth influence. Basically in a fully employed economy additional resources can only be devoted to housing if less are applied elsewhere. Overcoming any housing shortage, therefore, entails some diversion of funds from other uses to housing finance Then came the Minister's apologia. He said: 1 ask the House for a wide measure of administrative discretion until the scheme settles down. It will be readily recalled by honourable members that the procedures under our social services legislation - those most closely akin to these - have been refined by practical experience of fifty years. Are we to have as an annual feature of this legislation a stream of empirical amendments? Already the legislation has produced the most complex application form in the history of public administration in this Commonwealth, and our congratulations must surely go to the hardy grantees who have been survivors in the bureaucratic obstacle race. As to the Minister's prognosis of fifty years of remedial legislation, the next Federal election will decide that issue. In the meantime Australian development will continue to be grievously retarded by the absence of a national housing plan. No assessment of Australia's present housing needs has been or could be made by this Government, whose political philosophy has regarded economic planning and long term development as 'non-words', as witness its treatment of the Vernon Committee's Report. Australia was held up to ridicule recently at the conference of the Economic Commission for Asia and the Far East in Tokyo, when the leader of the Australian delegation said that Australia had no formal machinery for national economic planning and that no single administrative body had responsibility for making operational forecasts and long term proposals. There is no industry more important, no issue more basic and no problem more pressing than housing in Australia today. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr Whitlam) said in an address delivered recently: The Australian paradox in housing is that the authority which accepts the greatest responsibility for raising and allocating funds in this field does not accept a parallel responsibility for planning the use of those funds. There has been no thoroughgoing review -of Australia's housing needs and likely trends since 1945, prior to the introduction of the Commonwealth and State Housing Agreement. We have a situation where the Commonwealth is in a position to regulate as much as 90% of housing finance in Australia today, yet it takes no responsibility for the cost of the land and of the house itself. Housing has become an instrument of general economic policy rather than part of a planned and relatively predictable programme. In the absence of a planned programme slum reclamation is retarded and costly ugly suburban sprawl continues unchecked. To the Minister's credit he did say in August 1965: 'To damp down housing because of undue expansion in other sectors of the economy may distort our ultimate priorities for survival.' In contrast, the present Prime Minister (Mr Harold Holt), in a letter to the President of the Housing Industry Association last October, said: It still remains our firm view that the task of forecasting housing demand and performance over a period of years is not one for the Government to undertake. In an economy where home building is overwhelmingly the function of private enterprise the Commonwealth, although it may indirectly influence the level of home building, is not in a position to make overall plans to ensure that they will be carried out. In contrast to this, in the United States the Federal Government shows greater interest and discharges greater responsibilities in housing and urban re-development. The financial relationship between the State and Commonwealth governments has been revolutionised, and the former tax reimbursement formulae and supplementary grants have been replaced by a system of direct grants under section 96 of the Commonwealth Constitution which, as is well known, gives the Commonwealth power to attach such terms and conditions as it thinks fit to any such grants. In this way and through the Commonwealth and State Housing Agreement the Federal Government can lay down a complete pattern of housing development, slum clearance, urban re-development, and reduce and control land prices by direct resumption by the States. Land so acquired can be developed and sold at cost. If profit is to be gained the benefit should accrue to the community through the Government and not to the land speculator. The whole purpose of this legislation, apart from its political motivation, has been to bridge the deposit gap caused by inflated land values due to the speculation boom in the postwar period, which this Government has persisted in refusing to control. The amendments outlined are in the main ad hoc, and the original Act resembles an old boot which has been patched and clouted so that little of the original leather in the uppers remains. There has been a housing shortage in Australia ever since the first fleet arrived in Port Jackson. The question may fairly be asked whether this legislation has actually helped or whether the Bill before us will help young people and widows to acquire homes in the absence of control over land prices and while building costs continue to soar. Against those who have benefited by the Bill, as claimed by the Minister, may be considered those who have not benefited because of their exclusion. In fact the legislation was carefully designed by the age limit that has been imposed to exclude all World War II ex-servicemen from any benefits. The Government still adamantly refuses to recognise credit union savings as being acceptable. It applies the same principles to exclude friendly societies, and discriminates against the lower income groups who are purchasing housing commission homes. Among those who can never hope to benefit from the scheme are the 800,000 hidden people in Australia - the age, invalid and widow pensioners, the recipients of sickness and unemployment benefits, and migrants living in Commonwealth hostels who can never hope to save a downpayment for a home after paying the increased hostel charges from their low wages in heavy industry. The most grievously injured group of all are the pensioners who, since 1956, have been deprived of any Commonwealth assistance in the construction of low rental housing commission flats following their elimination from the terms of the agreement. Add to these the 200,000 married men who receive less than $40 a week taxable income - men whom the building societies will not accept even if they could, by their sacrifices, save $500 a year for the three years required under the legislation. Apart from the grievances of those people who can never hope to save, how far have the young savers themselves been hurt? A report of the Directorof the War Service Homes Division is most interesting. His report for the year ended 30th June 1966 contains a statement that in the two years since the introduction of the legislation the average cost of a dwelling house and home has increased by the following amounts: New South Wales $1,026; Victoria $515; Queensland $542; South Australia $1,738, and Tasmania, $1,437. That was in a period of two years, and the average increase per home throughout Australia from 1963-64 to 1965-66 has been $741 - almost $300 more than the average grant. Mr Stokes- That was mostly labour costs. Mr CONNOR-We shall come to that in a moment. I thought the honourable member would fall into the booby trap. Over $100m have been paid in price rises, and only S33m for grants. The Australian Capital Territory has been an exception, with a reduction associated probably with the reduced price paid at leasehold auctions. The aggregate increase in the cost of all dwelling houses and land in Australia from May 1964 to now has been over $!00m. The much vaunted grant of $33m under the terms of this scheme is paltry and pitiful by comparison. I shall quote from a report on the development of Australia by the world famous Stanford University Research Institute - 'Think Tank' as I believe the Americans term it. This was circulated to all members in 1964, and at page 235 states: One important factor that limits both the capacity and the incentive for many people, particularly young married people, to save is the extraordinarily high cost of housing construction and purchasing. Interest rates running up to 8% on first mortgage and more on second mortgage represent a serious deterrent to home ownership. There is in Australia no institution comparable to the State Advances Corporation in New Zealand, and housing finance is poorly organised. There is constant complaint that State housing programmes are inadequate. Private construction is expensive and often not safeguarded against inexperienced contractors. It is difficult to raise the funds necessary to build except by incurring a liability to the building contractor. Those who might become substantial and regular savers through the amortisation of payments on their own home are often discouraged and led to dissipate their own incomes in consumption expenditure. When this Government assumed office in 1949 the Commonwealth Savings Bank was making housing loans at 31%; its current lending rate is 5% - an increase of Building societies are largely dependent on the savings banks for their funds and the maximum loan receivable is $7,000. Repayment of such a loan over a period of thirty years represents an additional payment for interest of about $1,250. The borrower from one of the savings banks subsidiary to the general trading banks would pay, as the current 'Statistical Bulletin' of the Bureau of Census and Statistics shows, up to 5i% interest. Borrowings on this basis for a similar loan, with a period of repayment of thirty years, would result in an additional payment of about $2,000 for interest. In the 'Sydney Morning Herald' of 8th April is a reported cut by the United States Central Bank of its discount rate from 4i% to 4% on borrowings by banks, members of the Federal Reserve System. The Bank of Canada has announced a reduction of its bank rate from 5% to 4i%. Interest rates must be restored to those operating in 1949. Interest rates on housing loans and bank loans in Australia are much higher than they are overseas. The Government must accept full responsibility by its failure to modernise the Australian banking system with its rigid, inflexible, and archaic approach to the requirements of a modern age. Of the stability of the Australian banking system there cannot be the slightest doubt; the same applies to its inflexibility and lack of imagination. In 1953 the hire purchase companies successfully challenged the system of banking controls. When denied further advances from the trading banks in discounting hire purchase agreements and associated negotiable paper, they decided to appeal directly to the investing public, and offered higher interest rates than those payable by the trading banks' on fixed deposits. From this has resulted a complete distortion of the Australian interest rate structure which the Government has not been prepared to control. The latest statistics disclose that total outstanding balances on hire purchase contracts in Australia are SI, 932m, and cheque paying bank total advances are $3,253m. There has now developed an alternative, or 'black market', banking system in Australia which remains completely outside the control of existing banking legislation despite the Commonwealth's clear constitutional powers of regulation and control. Institutions soliciting deposits at fixed rates of interest for fixed terms, and in certain cases allowing withdrawal on notice, are clearly carrying on the business of banking when they lend such deposits. Hire purchase companies have now progressed far beyond the financing of contracts of hiring of retail goods with an associated option of purchase. They are now, at exorbitant interest rates, moving over into first and second mortgage finance of housing and commercial and industrial construction, factoring, the provision of bridging finance, and the financing of contracts for the purchasing of land, in addition to assisting land sub-dividers. Acting on the principle that if you cannot beat them then join them, the major private trading banks of this country at present either fully own or have a major controlling interests in hire purchase companies, now euphemistically terming themselves 'finance companies'. In many cases the profits from such companies are forming the major part of the associated banking companies' profits. Having failed almost completely to establish their own hire purchase divisions within their normal banking functions, most of our trading banks until very recently almost completely shunned personal loans. Their evaluation of requests for assistance have been dominated by the concept of freehold security and related improvements, and they have largely ignored cash flows as alternative security in propositions relating to the development of Australia's mineral and other associated resources. The structure of Australian interest rates is, at the present time, geared to and dominated by those offered by hire purchase company borrowings. The obvious solution is for a separate classification to be created, under the Commonwealth banking legislation, licensing such organisations and subjecting them to the full discipline of Reserve Bank controls. There is a close association between the benevolence of the Government to the hire purchase racketeers, and their antagonism to credit unions and friendly societies. Until recently an honest man of good character and with a steady job applying to certain of the trading banks for a personal loan would be steered to its hire purchase subsidiary where greater interest could be extorted. The obvious threats to excessive interest charges and inflated retail mark-ups on consumer durable goods by a working man walking into a retail store with cash in his pocket provided by a credit union and demanding a cash discount are horrifying to this Government. The excesses of hire purchase finance obviously bred the popularity of the credit unions as a counter to them, and it is for this reason, not the availability of housing finance through credit unions, which has influenced the Government in its rigid policy. The recent Reserve Bank policy statement on personal loans is obviously intended as a counter to credit union activities. The growth of credit unions is alarming this Government. In the Commonwealth Bank there is a credit union with more than 9,000 officers participating. The general trading bank officers are in the process of forming one also. In the Australian Broadcasting Commission there are six credit unions with a total membership of 6,000. In the Taxation Branch of most States there are credit unions. In my own constituency, the Port Kembla steelworks has a credit union with 7,000 members and $1,400,000 in deposits. I come to perhaps the most significant fact of all. Deposits in credit unions rose from $12m in 1962 and now total $80m, $40m of which is held by New South Wales credit unions. It is significant that they are strongest in New South Wales, where their growth was first stimulated and encouraged by a Labor Administration. The Government's arguments as to the percentage of credit union funds available for housing are merely specious humbug. Instalments paid on contracts for the purchase of land have been properly recognised as acceptable savings since the inception of this legislation. Are we to believe that instalments paid to land speculators in this way are readily available through accumulation in savings banks and building societies for relending to intending home builders? The discrimination against credit unions is outrageous when land purchase contracts are acceptable. Total current Commonwealth Savings Bank loans for home building represent 24.1% of total deposits held. I obtained those figures a fortnight ago. Under present policy, the maximum which can be advanced by the Bank for home building purposes is 35% of total deposits. At the present time 30% of all credit union funds are lent for housing purposes, such as the discharge of second mortgages, part purchase of land, alterations and extensions to existing home accommodation, bridging finance, deposit assistance to migrants and also first mortgage finance up to a sevenyear limit. Credit unions function in New South Wales under the same Act of Parliament as do co-operative building societies, namely, the Co-operation Community Settlement and Credit Act of 1923. There is no legal distinction between these two types of organisations. They come under the control of the same Registrar, have their accounts subjected to the same audit and general supervision, and their rules are approved and registered in the same manner. The Government obviously views credit unions in the same way as Conservative Administrations throughout the world have opposed and crushed any attempt by wage and salary earners to enter into the business of banking and credit. Credit unions in fact represent the little people's banks. Behind the scenes the Government wishes to channel every dollar into the control of the people who are its political supporters and whose pressures are applied shrewdly and persistently. In no country in the English speaking world are higher interest rates being paid for public credit than in Australia. The entire credit system and interest charges are a disgrace to this Government. The average family in Australia today is paying S2.50 per week in retail profits and interest charges on money borrowed to purchase such essentials to modern living as refrigerators, washing machines, television sets and the whole range of electric household appliances. In addition there are the excess interest payments on home mortgages to which I have already referred. This Government will naturally do its utmost to destroy any move to help the wage and salary earner to rise above the level at which he can be exploited by the Government's associates and supporters. Credit unions have expanded almost miraculously in size and speed in North America. In the United States credit unions are accepted by the Housing and Homes Finance Agency. If given the opportunity for legitimate development and growth, credit unions will grow into a formidable alternative to the less desirable sectors of our present credit structure, and the case for their recognition is unanswerable. The total number of members investing and borrowing in credit unions in Australia today is over 200,000, of whom 100,000 are in New South Wales, and it is to these people that the Government will answer for ils arrogance and hostility. It is interesting to note that of the total number of 2,838 co-operative building societies in .1963-64 more than 1,951 were registered in New South Wales. This is further evidence of the foresight of a Labor Administration. At no stage in the former Prime Minister's policy speech was reference made to the question of mobilising savings of applicants in institutions of the Government's choice. This has been the gravamen of repeated rejections by Ministers for Housing of representations from credit unions for recognition. The valuable role of permanent building societies has been largely ignored by the Government. In the United Kingdom they are one of the major credit sources for home construction at relatively low interest rates. A similar development in the United States has been the growth of housing banks. The limitations imposed by the trading banks and co-operative building societies in financing the purchase of older homes has also seriously prejudiced young home seekers, many of whom have been forced to purchase a new home at a higher price in an outer suburb when their real preference would have been for the purchase of a sound but less pretentious home at a much lower price in an inner area more accessible to public transport and employment. Permanent building societies can discharge a valuable function in this field. The former Minister for Housing, who is now the Minister for Labour and National Service, was not able to achieve a most valuable suggestion made by him to reduce housing costs. Over three years ago he said that the complex building regulations in Australia added $500 to the cost of each new house. With over 900 local government authorities in Australia, the range and variety of building codes is amazing. The proper initiative is obviously to call together the various State Ministers for Housing and Local Government to achieve a rational modern building code with due allowance for the varying climatic zones of this continent. Housing costs have been further inflated by the utter failure of the Government to deal with the problems of urban redevelopment. The inner heart of our capital cities, and even of major provincial cities, is being deserted by former residents. Increased land values and associated council rate rises have been a major contributing factor. The obvious answer is high density inner urban development. In the heart of each Australian city is a completely adequate system of sewerage, water supply, drainage, electricity, telephone and public transport. With the exodus of lower income groups to the supposedly cheaper land of the outer suburban areas, costly public utilities are being left unused and public transport problems intensified. Metropolitan Sydney is only 70% sewered, although sewerage main capacity exists for 3£m people in a city of lim. The unregulated urban sprawl provides a further demand for public utilities. It has been estimated that the cost of providing these is $3,200 for the average outer suburban block. A survey by the Cumberland County Council in the area of Sydney some years ago showed that the average time spent daily travelling to and from work from the outer suburbs of Sydney was from 2i to 3 hours If any supporter of the Government - I say this to the honourable member for Maribyrnong (Mr Stokes) who, I understand, will follow me - rushes to its defence and claims that increased wages for building workers have been a major factor in increasing costs, the complete answer is contained in statistics of unimproved land values in Sydney and other Australian capital cities. In 1954 the unimproved capital value of the Sydney metropolis and the associated City of the Blue Mountains was $952m. By 1959 the value had increased by 120% to $l,920m. The trend has continued and the latest unimproved capital value for 1966 is $4,38 lm, an increase of 360%. In the same period the average wage and salary earnings in New South Wales rose from $33 to $58.60, an increase of 75%. The price of suburban land, in contradistinction, increased by four and a half times as much as wages. The wholesale prices of building materials in the comparative period increased by only some 30%. Today we have a government faced with capital investment curbs imposed by both the United States of America and the United Kingdom. We have the Minister for Trade and Industry (Mr McEwen) hotfooting it overseas now to see what he can save from the Kennedy Round proposals. What is the position in Australia? How underpopulated is Sydney? Greater London has an area of 693 square miles and a population of more than 8 million. New York, with 299 square miles, or less than half the area of Greater London, has a population of 11.3 million. Sydney has an area of 500 square miles and a population of 2.3 million. In other words, the density of population in Sydney is out of all proportion to the area. The national advantage in terms of the capital cost of servicing public utilities that will be saved by a swing to higher density housing will be substantial, the public transport system better patronised and the peak hour rush to outer suburbs reduced. More than half the lives of the average married couple, is spent either with no children or after their families have been reared. A more logical pattern of housing would be for the outer suburbs with the larger homes and living areas to be made available to meet the needs of young couples for the rearing of their families and for the middle-aged and childless couples to move into the higher density residential areas of redevelopment in major cities. Let me summarise in this way: The homes savings grant is a completely ineffective method of coping with inflated land values. In pre-war home finance, land value represented only 10% to 12% of the total cost of the house and site. As a result of the speculative boom, it has now risen to 30%. lust as the present Government has continued to increase its contribution to medical benefit funds without controlling doctors' fees so it is prepared to pay an ineffective subsidy towards inflation of land costs. Recently a conference of Commonwealth and State Ministers for Housing was held In Perth. This highlighted the present limitations on Australian housing development. Despite the assurances of the present Commonwealth Minister for Housing, with special reference to the homes savings grant, the State Ministers for Housing resolved unanimously that additional money from the Commonwealth was urgently needed to build permanent homes for migrants, in addition to the moneys available under normal agreements. The Premier of Western Australia, Mr Brand, said that unless substantial help came from the Federal Government Australia would be faced with grave social problems as a result of the lack of housing, despite the claims of record home completions. The conference dealt with housing of low income groups, including widows, deserted wives and the aged, the needs of migration, the problem of the second mortgage and the maintenance of an adequate flow of finance. The Victorian Minister for Housing said that housing for the aged and the clearing of slums were projects towards which the Commonwealth now gave nothing but should give specific help. Mr Brand went further and said that with a falling off of war service home applications the Federal Government should provide additional finance for housing to equal the flow of war service homes finance at its peak. All States had felt the pressure of demand for lower rental homes and criticised the stop-go methods of financing housing. Regular consultation between the States and the Commonwealth to plan future demand and promote stability in the industry were also specifically requested. A major defect in the present legislation is the unfettered discretionary power conferred on the Secretary of the Department. He has the power to reject applications for grants which in his opinion are for homes exceeding in value the limits contained in the Act. This is one of the most blatant escape hatches in the legislation and, in operation, can be used to relieve the Commonwealth of any obligation to pay grants in respect of all homes which can be said to be in excess of the statutory limit. I have had many complaints from bitterly disappointed and irate applicants on this issue. The injustice is felt most keenly by industrious persons who have, to reduce expense, done part of the construction work on their own homes. In such cases they have been deliberately penalised for their industry and thrift. Provision of arbitral machinery in cases of disputed valuation has been carefully debated. In most States the statutory valuing authority should be called in to adjudicate on the basis of the statute prevailing in the State. May I say this in conclusion. In Australia today young people who marry and have a family not merely give hostages to fortune but face the near certainty that they have by their decision almost destroyed the possibility of home ownership. In simple terms they face the choice of either having a family or a home; they cannot have both. Whilst the immigration scheme must continue, the best of all immigrants is still the child born to parents in an Australian home. The average young couple today who consciously decide to limit their family and delay the birth of their first child do so mainly so that both can take employment and can amass the necessary savings to qualify under this legislation. They still face the near certainty that annually increased costs of houses and land will be equal to their annual savings. They are the poorer in the lack of a family and its joys, and Australia is the poorer for the retarding of its population growth. Mr STOKES(Maribyrnong) [10.58]- We have just listened to the diatribe of a dedicated Socialist, the honourable member for Cunningham (Mr Connor). He has led for the Opposition in the debate on this Bill, which amends the Homes Savings Grant Act, and in doing so he has roamed over the whole field of housing and banking. He has demanded controls, licences and the discipline of banking and the building industry, with rigid, long term planning in the true Socialist manner. I can understand why he claimed that the home savings grant scheme was nothing more than an election gimmick. This grant, which was introduced by the Government, has always stuck in the craw of Opposition members. They did their very best when the promise of the grant was made during an election campaign to prevent its introduction. They said: This is unconstitutional. You cannot do this.' But when they examined it they discovered on a very good authority that marriage loans and loans of this sort were quite within the terms of the Constitution. Who was that eminent authority? None other than a former Leader of the Opposition, their own Dr Evatt. They have been chagrined ever since that this measure was brought in by the Government, and they have sought constantly to throw muck at it. The honourable member spoke about credit unions. He knows that despite the size of some credit unions the bulk of their business is directed to activities related to the purchase of consumer goods except that in the housing field assistance is given by way of part deposit for the purchase of land, in providing small second mortgages, and in enabling an additional room to be built or an extension or a garage to be added to a property. This cannot be considered as true home ownership moneys invested for that purpose, and the honourable member knows that full well. He spoke also about nothing being done for people who could not buy their homes, namely, widows and pensioners. He even mentioned Second War people. The War Service Homes Division exists to help ex-servicemen, and for those who do not want to purchase homes but who seek low rental accommodation funds are made available to the States under the Commonwealth and State Housing Agreement to build this type of accommodation. I do not intend to cover the whole field of housing. The Bill before us amends the Homes Savings Grant Act, and I want particularly to speak to it. This measure, as the Minister for Labour and National Service (Mr Bury) said, gives effect to promises made by the Prime Minister (Mr Harold Holt) prior to the last election. However, as the Minister said, these amendments go far beyond the original promises, because the Government, in a commonsense way, has decided to adjust a new and unique piece of legislation as experience has indicated the necessity to do so. When the original Act was being discussed some of my colleagues and I voiced the opinion that lack of discretion would cause difficulties in borderline cases, but at that time the Government was not disposed to widen a strict interpretation of the legislation. It is now pleasing to note that a provision in this Bill proposes that the head of the Department of Housing ls to be given new discretionary powers which will operate retrospectively from the date of commencement of the scheme - from 2nd December 1963. This discretion is vested in the departmental head, but the Minister is responsible for the direction of his administration and therefore the Minister also is able to exercise these powers. The Government and the Minister are to be commended, too, for the announcement that after the passage of this legislation it is intended to distribute a new brochure which will clearly set out the operations of the Act as finally amended. Some matters are rather contentious and complex, and I want to try to clarify some points before the brochure is issued. It is proposed to increase the value of the home to be purchased from $14,000 to $15,000. This needs no further comment. However, I wish particularly to refer to the extension of the grant to either widowed spouse aged less than thirty-six years with one or more dependent children. Under the legislation this provision will apply on or after 28th November 1966 provided the widowed person has saved for at least three years immediately preceding the prescribed date, which is the date of the contract to purchase. It is important here to stress that not only will the savings of the deceased spouse that were held in an acceptable form prior to death be taken into account in establishing the widowed person's eligibility, but also any other moneys or interest that may be bequeathed to the other will be accepted if it is placed in an acceptable form or converted into acceptable savings on or before 31st December 1967 or a date on which the applicant contracts to buy or build a home, whichever date is the earlier. Another matter of concern is that difficulties were experienced where the effective date of the contract to purchase had been misconstrued as the actual date appearing in the contract, which was the date on which the purchaser signed the contract. Actually the legal effective date of the contract to purchase is the date on which the two parts, one signed by the vendor and one signed by the purchaser, are exchanged, irrespective of the fact that it may be dated with the date the purchaser signed it a week or two earlier; and of course this date is a very important date. This is the date which acts as the cut off; it cuts off the savings period and it also originates the period within which an application must be lodged Under the amendment no change is intended in the way in which the prescribed date will be fixed. It will continue to be fixed as at present, and the general eligibility requirements regarding age and residence will need to be fulfilled at the prescribed date. The purpose of this amendment, which is clause 14 (d) of the Bill, is to enable the Department to accept certificates from the banks or from the building societies if they are made out for a period of three years up to a prescribed date, lt does not have to be the exact date as settled by the contract. There will be a period of grace of fourteen days before or after the prescribed date so that there will not be the inconvenience of sending back to the banks and building societies requests for fresh certificates to be issued every time there is a disparity between the finishing date of the certificate as to savings and the actual prescribed date under the contract. As I have said, another matter originates from this particular amendment, and that concerns the time limit for the lodgment of an application. As we know, this period is being extended by the amendment before us to twelve months, and after that a discretion is given to the departmental head in very unusual circumstances. For the benefit of those who may wish to know something more about this, Mr Deputy Speaker, I should like to stress that they should not take this twelve months period as giving them a right to sit down and forget about it for twelve months, because if they run over the period they may well find that their case is not one of unusual circumstances and that they will miss the boat. Therefore, 1 can only stress to all applicants that they should lodge their applications as soon as possible after their contract is signed and so not run the risk of being left out because their particular case is not one for discretion. It is also very well worth while considering in this regard that the Government has undertaken to reconsider all applications previously rejected because they were lodged later than the permissible time, and that these cases will now be processed by the Department without the need for the lodging of any further application. However, I must stress again that there are some people who did not submit applications because somebody at the counter in the Department, their banker, or somebody else said to them: 'Look, you are out of time; you are wasting your time putting it in'. These people must be alerted to the fact that they may lodge a fresh application which will be treated as having effect from the commencement of the scheme on 2nd December 1963. One requirement for eligibility in the original scheme was that neither of the couple may have owned another dwelling during their marriage, whether or not they had occupied it or regarded it as their matrimonial home. As a result of this condition of eligibility some people have been disqualified from obtaining the grant. 1 refer to people who, perhaps, have bought a home for their aged parents or who have been left a property by parents or some other relative. Although the premises may have been unsuitable for their purpose or subject to a long standing tenancy agreement, they were regarded as owning the premises. The amending Bill will empower the Department to disregard ownership of another dwelling house where it would be unreasonable to regard that house as the matrimonial home. I believe that this is quite a step forward. if we bear in mind the proposal to disregard a house which is unsuitable as a matrimonial home and consider also the amendment which extends eligibility to a widowed spouse, raised in our minds is the question of what happens to divorced persons. This is a point which has not been discussed, but it is one on which 1 should like to dwell for a moment. 1 sought advice from the Minister on this point and was told that if either or both of the couple, prior to their divorce, had been made a grant in respect of the home owned during the first marriage, both would be ineligible for a second grant in respect of the later marriage. However, the new spouse of each of the divorced persons may be eligible if the divorced spouse has not retained ownership of the previous home and another home is acquired during the second marriage, provided of course that the new spouse meets all requirements of the schemIf neither of the couple, prior to the divorce, had been made a grant in respect of the first home and that home had been sold after the divorce, both could be eligible persons if they were to re-marry and another home was acquired during their second marriage. Ownership of another dwelling house precludes payment of a grant only if that dwelling house has been owned by one or both of the couple during the marriage in respect of which the person is applying for a grant, but if one of the couple, after the divorce, retains ownership of the matrimonial home of that couple and then remarries, no grant would be payable in respect of that home during the second marriage. The scheme is intended to assist young couples to acquire a home and in this case the couple would already have a home. Nor would a grant be payable in respect of a second home acquired by the new couple if the divorced member of the couple retained ownership of the first home until after he or she remarried. A further amendment which is proposed will allow the acceptance of savings in either name, where both parties to the marriage are under thirty-six years of age at the prescribed date and are eligible in all other respects. An exception is when one or both of them have not saved individually for the minimum period of three years immediately preceding the prescribed date. In these circumstances the savings of both members of the couple will be taken into consideration in determining the amount of grant payable, provided that together they have saved for three years or more. For example, the wife may have saved for up to eighteen months or two years before the prescribed date and then may have started to spend her money on items for her glory box and so would not be saving so much. On the other hand, the husband, having become engaged, may have decided to save and perhaps saved for the eighteen months or the two years immediately preceding the prescribed date. So, there are two sets of savings in individual names, but they aggregate over three years and will therefore be counted as eligible savings. Mr Devine- They have to be in special accounts. :. Mr STOKES - They have to be in a home savings or similar account. Further, where both parties have saved in individual accounts for a total of three years, those two accounts will now be aggregated so that a larger grant will be attracted than at present. The provisions that cover the matters I have just raised are to operate on and after 1st May 1967. It is pleasing to note that the original requirement in respect of the certificates issued by banks and building societies covering seven years of prior saving is to be discontinued and that it is intended that this detailed information will be restricted to the three years before the prescribed date. When the original legislation was introduced many of us wondered why the seven-year period was included. We are now very pleased that this commonsense amendment has been introduced, as it will greatly simplify application forms and save a great deal of work for banks and building societies. Another amendment to the legislation is the introduction of a minimum limit to the grant. This may seem a trifle incongruous, particularly as the minimum limit has been set at SIO, but applications have been made for a home savings grant where the payment has amounted to only 60c or so. Another amendment introduced by this Bill relates to a break in the savings period: It provides that any break not exceeding thirty days in the savings period will be disregarded should there be good and sufficient reasons for the break, such as the transfer of savings from one place or institution to another. The expressed intention is that, where a savings date falls within such a break, the amount of savings acceptable at that date will be the amount held immediately before or after the break, whichever is the lesser. Although usually when people transfer an account from one place or institution to another through the normal banking channels the same amount is deposited as was drawn, some people like to draw the money from the first institution in cash or by a cheque which they can cash. Sometimes they spend some of the money and deposit a smaller amount when opening a new account at a bank or when paying money into another society. Others may have a win at the races and within thirty days be able to pay into the account they are opening at the second institution a greater amount than was withdrawn from the first. The amendment provides that in either case the amount to bc taken into consideration will be the lesser amount. There are a number of other amendments that will possibly be covered by colleagues who will follow me in this debate. I commend the Government and the Minister for their willingness to introduce this measure and the speed with which it was introduced to deal with matters that were found to be contrary to the original expressed intention of the scheme. Despite what the honourable member for Cunningham (Mr Connor) has said about a miserly $33m, it is interesting to note that since the commencement of operations by the Department under this scheme, from 20th July 1964 until 7th April 1967 only 7,584 applications were rejected out of a total of 87,411. Many of these will come within the scope of this new legislation. Already S33.685m has been paid out in respect of 75,061 applications. To the beginning of last month the Department had in hand over 4.000 applications in process or in query. I should like to refer also to another minor amendment. It relates to the admission of savings held in banks in the Territory of Nauru. The addition of the Territory of Nauru completes the list of external territories which were covered originally by section 4(5.) of the principal Act. The Government thus illustrates that it is prepared to accept savings with banks in all our external territories. This brings me to a proposal I should like to advance. I should like the scheme to be extended to intending migrants, provided they can fulfil all the other conditions laid down as to age, the period of saving and the form of savings, together with the provision that savings, when transferred to this country, are transferred to an acceptable account and are accompanied by a certificate from the overseas bank as to the period of saving. There could even be a provision that, say the last twelve months of the saving period must be spent in this country. There is no doubt in my mind that this not only would provide a great fillip to our immigration programme, which 1 think is sorely needed, but would also assist migrants to purchase their own homes earlier than would otherwise be possible, thus reducing the time families would spend in hostels. It may be argued - 1 take it the Minister would so argue - that this cuts across one of the purposes of the original legislation, namely, the creation of special savings in the hands of approved institutions which would increase the funds they would be able to lend in the housing field. As against that, 1 would say that the savings transferred from overseas, having been saved there for a couple of years, would be greater than savings held by people just starting an account. What is more, they would be available to the approved institutions, banks, etc.. for at least twelve months for lending out. 1 believe that many intending migrants would not bother to save before coming to Australia unless they were given the incentive to do so and were told that if they had saved for a couple of years before migrating they would be able to obtain the Government's grant after a further period of twelve months. I believe this is a worthwhile incentive to offer. I know it would be necessary to vary some of the present conditions, such as the condition relating to the three year residential period and in some cases the required period of three years as an Australian citizen. I do not think these difficulties are insurmountable, particularly as in recent times more than 50% of migrants have come from the United Kingdom. I ask the Minister for Labour and National Service to have a look at this question in collaboration with his colleagues, the Minister for Immigration (Mr Snedden) and the Minister for Housing (Senator Dame Annabelle Rankin) and determine whether such a scheme is feasible and whether it can be introduced at some time in the future. I can speak with a great deal of pride and sense of satisfaction of the Government's actions in improving this very worthwhile piece of legislation, the Homes Savings Grant Act. I strongly commend this amending Bill to honourable members. Mr HANSEN(Wide Bay) [11.25]- The Bill before the House represents the second series of amendments to the Homes Savings Grant Act which was introduced in 1964 by the Minister for Labour and National Service (Mr Bury) who was then Minister for Housing. When introducing the first of the amending Bills in March 1965 the Minister said that during the time the Act had been in operation the Government had studied the method of operation of this legislation and the means by which people saved for their first home. He said at that time that the amendments would do much to make more persons eligible for grants under this legislation and would result in freer implementation of the Act The honourable member for Maribyrnong (Mr Stokes) would remember that on that occasion a number of members from this side of the House proposed that widowed persons should also be eligible for homes savings grants. If my memory is correct, when the former honourable member for Hughes, Mr Johnson, was speaking during that debate, the honourable member for Maribyrnong said that widows were a bad financial risk for the sale of homes. I am pleased to see a change in this respect, particularly with regard to widows rather than widowers. A widow, following the loss of the breadwinner, is usually more in need of a home and if she qualifies in other respects I believe she should not be denied this opportunity. I do know of cases where this has happened. Some of the amendments contained in this Bill will date back to the original date of operation of Che Act, which was immediately following the 1963 general election. But the particular amendment I am referring to, relating to eligibility, is not retrospective to that date, so these people to whom I have referred do not qualify in this instance. Still it is pleasing to know that money will now be made available to them. Quite a number of amendments are being made in this Bill. One of them will increase the limit of acceptable savings for each year from $500 to $600. Honourable members know that money is losing its purchasing value. Perhaps there has been some increase in the earning capacity of some people. Whilst it may be commendable, this Bill will most assist those people who are in the least need of assistance to purchase their first home. There are people who find it easy to save $500 in a year. But there are other people, such as a person in his first year as a qualified tradesman who, at the age of 20, becomes engaged. Statistics concerning marriage show that couples marry at a younger age each year. So if that young tradesman follows Che usual pattern he will have very little time in which to save for a home from the time at which he first receives tradesmen's wages to the date of his marriage. He will be very fortunate if he and his fiancee can save $500 a year. The purchase of a home involves much more than just the purchase of a piece of land and a dwelling on it. Furniture, kitchen utensils and many other items have to be bought. This cost has to be met from savings. In the operation of this legislation a great deal depends on the prescribed date. If a person draws money out of his account before the prescribed date he finds that his eligible savings are reduced. I have warned young couples to watch how their bank accounts go before they sign a contract. If someone who is building his own home makes a large withdrawal to meet the cost of building materials and the prescribed date is the date on which the foundations went down, he finds that his eligible savings have been reduced. It is quite a complicated matter. I do not blame anyone who has been misled. I think the Minister for Housing (Senator Dame Annabelle Rankin) has acknowledged that some people have been misled in making their applications and eventually have found themselves outside the previous period of three months. That period has now been extended. People will be able to make fresh applications. That is an indication of the problems that arise. The honourable member for Maribyrnong mentioned the encouragement given to migrants to save for the purchase of a home and the need to recognise the savings that they make. This is quite commendable in itself. But it does not follow the line of thinking of the Minister for Labour and National Service. He does not consider that any savings should be eligible unless while they were in the bank they were being used for the purpose of home construction. I do not believe that enough of the money that is in the savings banks is made available for the building of homes. If we follow the line of thinking introduced by the honourable member for Maribyrnong, why should we give migrants a privilege that we are prepared to deny to Australians whose savings in credit unions are not recognised? The honourable member for Cunningham (Mr Connor) dealt fully with the credit union movement in Australia. It has grown considerably and at a very fast rate. I believe that its growth has most of the previously recognised banking authorities worried. There may be something in the suggestion that the banking authorities do not want savings in credit unions to be recognised as eligible savings. The latest report that I have received on the credit union movement shows that Australia has 500 credit unions with approximately 200,000 subscribers and savings of more than $80m. One of the largest credit unions is the Commonwealth Bank officers credit union. Police unions, electricity commissions and the Australian Broadcasting Commission have credit unions. They all make available for the purchase of homes and items to go into homes and for extensions of homes, cheap money which would not be available from other sources. Instead of the young couple being forced to pay hire purchase interest rates of 8% or 10% flat on refrigerators and other essential items for their home they can obtain the money for these items at lower rates of interest from credit unions. The credit unions are doing a good job in helping young people to set up their own homes. A home is something more than just a dwelling. The credit unions have helped young couples to bridge the deposit gap by providing second mortgage money. Formerly such money was available only for short terms at high rates of interest. In 1964 the Minister for Labour and National Service, who was then Minister for Housing, said that credit unions were excluded from the legislation because the maximum amount available at the time from a credit union by way of loan was only £1,000, which had to be repaid within five years. Many young couples trying to purchase their first home would be glad of a loan of $2,000 repayable over the five years to help bridge the deposit gap. Some credit unions have taken notice of what the Minister said in 1964. At least two of them - the Electricity Commission Employees Credit Union Ltd of New South Wales and the Irrigation Commission Credit Union Co-operative of New South Wales - have amended their constitutions in order to increase the amount of loan available to $4,000. Credit unions do encourage savings. The Minister for Labour and National Service and the present Minister for Housing both have stressed that the homes savings grant was introduced to encourage people to save. Because of their closeness to the people cred t unions do encourage savings. They encourage people to budget and to live within their wage, meagre as it may be. Credit unions encourage people to save for the various commitments which must be met throughout the year, such as rates. The credit union movement is growing. It has been suggested that a scheme be devised to grant concessions to migrants. This would be a worthy undertaking, but having regard to the Minister's attitude to credit unions qualifying under the legislation, I cannot see how such a scheme in respect of migrants could qualify. The honourable member for Cunningham pointed out to the House that credit unions make money available for the purchase of items for the home and for bridging the deposit gap. While credit unions cannot make available all the funds required to purchase a home, they do something towards helping prospective home owners. For these reasons we believe that credit unions should be recognised for the purposes of this legislation. The Bill proposes to increase the limit on annual savings from $500 to $600. Another amendment provides that savings need not be confined to those made during the three years immediately prior to the prescribed date. They may be for a three year period extending further back than the three years immediately prior to the prescribed date. This is a notable amendment because many young couples have drawn on their savings in order to place a deposit on land. Since 1965 money so spent has been recognised as savings. It could be that money saved in the last three years has been used to buy things for the glory box or to purchase necessities for the home, leaving little or no savings. Reference was made to the eligibility of divorced persons compared with widowed persons. I remember the former honourable member for Eden-Monaro, Mr Allan Fraser, citing the case of Tommy Manville Mr Fraser pointed out that if Tommy Manville continued to marry women under thirty-six years of age, those women would qualify for the giant of $500. Tommy Manville had thirteen wives, I think, unless I am confusing him with someone else. If he lived in Australia, as long as he made sure they were young enough and he remained married to them long enough each would have been able to qualify for a home savings grant of $500. 1 believe that there are reasons why divorced persons should be assisted to finance the purchase or construction of a house. Close attention should bc given to this aspect of the scheme. lt is proposed also that savings in the Territory of Nauru will be included in the scheme. Can the Minister for Labour and National Service tell me what banks operate in the Territory? Must they of necessity bs of the same type as the banks that operate in Australia? lt is very difficult to get information about the form that savings would take in Nauru. 1 do not know what banks operate there. My information is that the Territory is very small. The Minister for Territories (Mr Barnes) may know how many Australians who are working there might qualify under this scheme and he may even be able to tell me what banks operate there. Are they Australian, English or New Zealand banks? If they are Australian banks would savings deposited in them qualify under the scheme? 1 hope to hear from the Minister for Labour and National Service about this. A further proposal is that the minimum giant payable shall be $10. I suppose that this is a reasonable limit. 1 doubt whether many people would bother to make inquiries if, after going to all the trouble of making out their applications, they would not receive at least $10. The Minister for Labour and National Service has promised that immediately this measure becomes law, and the principal Act is amended as provided for, a new information booklet will be printed and made available to the public. I suppose that there are many people who would like an opportunity to discuss these matters and inquire into them. When the original legislation was before this House, the Minister who ,was then Minister for Housing, was very patient with members of my party and, I suppose, of his own party, in explaining the various provisions. Any ordinary person who picks up the existing explanatory booklet becomes further confused immediately he begins to read it, I believe. This applies not only to interested young couples but also to many bank managers. It is recognised that many people have been given misleading information about the homes savings grant scheme. I am sure that they have not been misinformed by members of this House, however. Any honourable member who is interested in the matter knows where to go to get the required information, even if he was not present to hear the debate on the original legislation. Honourable members recognise that some people have been misinformed about whether they are eligible. For this reason, I am pleased to see that persons who, since the origin of the scheme, lodged applications outside the permissible time limit or who failed to lodge applications because they had been wrongly informed that they were not eligible, are now to be treated as eligible. This Bill will also empower the Department of Housing to disregard the ownership of a dwelling house in certain circumstances. We all recall that Mr Johnson, the former member for Hughes, brought this matter to to the attention of the Minister. He pointed out that because of a shortage of funds some people do not wish to borrow too great a sum or have difficulty in raising sufficient to go ahead with the construction of a home. Sometimes a person purchases land on which is situated an old house, the purchase being made not to occupy the old house but to acquire the land so that a new house may be built on it. The old dwelling on the land may have been condemned. In some instances, such purchases of old houses were made before the prescribed date immediately after the 1963 general election. The land with the condemned house on it having been purchased before the specified date, the people concerned have been reckoned ineligible for the grant. Even though the house had been condemned it was regarded as being a dwelling. The people were living there only temporarily while arranging for permits and contracts to have their permanent home built, and I suggest it would be unreasonable to regard the temporary dwelling house as being the matrimonial home or as being suitable for that purpose. There is another suggestion that I should make to the Minister and I hope he will bear it in mind in preparing the new booklet. I refer to the single person who is contemplating marriage and who commences to build a home before his marriage. There is some doubt as to when such a person should apply for a grant. I have been asked whether the application should be made before the marriage takes place, and I have given the advice that a person is not eligible until he is married. I think other honourable members have had experience of cases of this kind and I think the new booklet should make clear the point of time at which an application should be made in these circumstances. Another amendment included in this Bill is to increase the maximum value of a home in respect of which an application for a grant may be made from $14,000 to $15,000. There may be quite good reasons for this. I think one reason is the increase in the cost of homes, and another particular reason is the increase in the cost of land. I have a copy of the 'War Service Homes Report 1965-66' which shows that in New South Wales the cost of a dwelling increased by $87 and in Victoria by $287. In New South Wales the cost of a building block increased by $599, so that the total increase would exceed the amount of the grant. When the original Bill was being discussed in this House the opinion was expressed by some honourable members that the grant would simply be another hand-out to real estate investors and land developers. As I have said, in New South Wales the cost of land increased by $599 in twelve months while the cost of the average home increased by $87. These are figures contained in the annual report of the Director of War Service Homes. We know that war service homes are not palatial homes by any means. They are ordinary family homes. In fact families of any size frequently find it necessary to build extensions on to these war service homes. In Victoria, as I have said, the cost of a dwelling increased by $287 but the cost of land decreased by $41. In Queensland there was a decrease of $128 in the cost of a dwelling. I feel sure that this is a reflection of the condition of the building industry in that State. There is a shortage of work in the industry and contractors are undercutting one another. I am sure that the former Minister for Housing (Mr Bury) in his new capacity as Minister for Labour and National Service is well .aware of the extent of unemployment, especially among skilled tradesmen, in the building industry in Queensland. At the same time as there was a decrease in the cost of a dwelling in that State there was an increase of $650 in the cost of land. In South Australia there was an increase of $703 in the cost of a dwelling and a decrease of $13 in the cost of land. In Western Australia, the position was fairly static, the increase in the cost of a dwelling being only $14 while there was a decrease of $324 in the cost of land. Values must have reached their peak there at that period. In Tasmania there was an increase of $1,101 in the cost of a dwelling and of $422 in the cost of land. No figures have been given for the cost of land in the Australian Capital Territory, but the increase in the cost of a dwelling was $1,474. The average cost of a war service home in the Australian Capital Territory is $12,436. The question has arisen as to how the value of these homes is to be assessed. I note from the Minister's second reading speech that the Housing Ministry will be given new discretionary powers in this matter. Hitherto, decisions on this point rested with the Director and he was allowed no discretion. I am pleased to see this provision included. I do not think it will be abused. I should like to mention the case of the person who is building his own home and who has been able to show that he has kept costs down to a certain figure. In most cases people in this group are connected with the building industry. Because they are able to buy materials cheaper than can the ordinary person, they can build a house for about $14,000 or $15,000. They can buy building materials such as hardware, gravel and bricks at concessional rates which help them to keep down the cost of the home. I do not disagree with the proposal in the Bill, but I believe that where people can show that they have been able to build for a comparatively low figure the fact that they have been able to buy their materials cheaper should be given due recognition. 1 suggest that experienced valuers employed by the various government departments be employed in assessing the value of homes. I point out that valuers employed by the Taxation Branch value properties for the Department of Social Services for the purpose of assessing a person's eligibility for social service benefits under the means test applicable to those benefits. The services of these officers could well be used to assess values under this legislation. We welcome the proposed amendments even though we think that they are a little overdue. We are pleased to note that the Government is paying heed to what is being suggested by honourable members on this side of the chamber. Honourable members such as the former honourable member for Hughes who took part with me in a similar debate some time ago will be pleased to note that the suggestions which they put forward and which were included in the Government's policy speech at the last election are now being implemented. I have much pleasure in supporting the Bill. Debate (on motion by Mr Erwin) adjourned. ADJOURNMENT Land Tenure in the Northern Territory - Dairying Industry Bill Debate Motion (by Mr Bury) proposed: That the House do now adjourn. Mr CALDER(Northern Territory) [11.55] - Northern Territory land tenure proposals appear to be a genuine attempt by the Government to encourage economic development in the Northern Territory, with special reference to top end properties where soil and rainfall are suitable for improved pasture and agriculture. In the centre there are also some regions where soil and water of suitable quality and quantity may be found. Open range grazing as used in the north, with few exceptions, since the first settlers is not in the best interests of rapid development. Professor Elcock of the University of Montana in the United States of America, while visiting the Northern Territory property on which I was working, told us in 1950 that northern Australian grazing methods were seventy years behind the times. By this he was referring to open range grazing, bronchoing calves, cutting out on an open face with thousands of cattle on the camp, fire branding, ear marking with pliers and even knives, castrating with knives, dehorning with horn saws and even solid wooden sticks and droving cattle many hundreds of miles on the hoof. This was nearly twenty years ago. Some properties have progressed considerably since then, but many have not been in a position to effect improvements. Today, in the high rainfall areas especially, with the great developments in improved pastures, holdings can be smaller and station improvements much more sophisticated. Agriculture and farming becomes an economic possibility, but this sort of development requires big money. Whence does it come? In the past Australians have been noticeably hesitant to take a gamble on this sort of investment. They will gamble on the horses, football and two-up, but they will not do so on important matters such as the original development of the Holden car, oil exploration in the real outback and land development in distant areas. I have experienced this reticence myself, especially in the last two cases I have mentioned, for I have lived in this country for many years and have seen the lack of faith in outback Australia, not entirely by the Government, as suggested by the headline-seeking honourable member for Dawson, but by the general public of Australia who live outside the northern areas. Dealing with pastoral proposals specifically, in relatively short-term leases there has usually been a period of no development, or bare holding of the improvements, during the latter part of the lease. This is only natural if the owner senses that the property is to be reclaimed. To combat this it is proposed to introduce a system similar to the one now used in Western Australia whereby, when the lease has run for between twenty and forty years and the lessees have completed their original covenanted improvements, and wish to continue the lease and have worked out a new development programme, they may apply to convert to a new fifty-year lease. The area and new rentals would then be considered and the new lease worked out by the land board - not by the Minister or by the Administrator in Council but by three of six picked and impartial highly-experienced men. The lessee must convert under this scheme to preserve the priority right to a new lease. This is fair enough, for by this time the lessee would have normally done a great deal of expensive improvements and be justified in expecting to hold his land against would be applicants with less original foresight, finance or experience than he had had twenty or forty years earlier. But it also means that lessees will really have to improve their properties or be faced with the grave danger of losing them. In many cases they will be able to raise additional finance for this by splitting their leases, and in some cases converting parts of them to agricultural leases of up to 200,000 acres, of which they themselves may own half. But these agricultural leases must be improved to such a standard that successful agricultural operations could be conducted on the subdivided blocks. Here the land board which had previously determined the size, rent and tenure of pastoral leases should once again be the determining body in the case of agricultural leases converted to freehold. If not, it could be done by the Administrator in Council before the final consent is given. Otherwise we may have agricultural land passing into foreign hands for lease in perpetuity at the rate of 200,000 acres at a time. It is agreed that the financing of this part of the scheme may have to be carried by companies, both local and overseas owned. I am sure this will happen but, although we must expect these companies to receive a fair return for their initial outlay and the risk involved, we cannot afford to allow them to hold great tracts of this arable land in perpetuity. Either the size of the holdings must be diminished as the years go by, or it is limited at the outset, or the length of tenure with regard to companies both overseas and Australian must be limited or come up for review at regular intervals. Increasing the Land Board to six members under these circumstances would be a good move for these members will not only have greater powers but also far more work to do. The honourable member for Dawson rushed to press to condemn these proposals, possibly only for political headlines, for he had apparently not really considered them from the practical landholder's point of view. Does the honourable member realise that these proposals, in part at least, emanated from the Committee of the Centralian Pastoralist Association long before Sir William Gunn had ownership of pastoral land in the Northern Territory, and that this Association is almost entirely comprised of private owners who run the properties themselves. The honourable member stated that these proposals were made specifically to suit Sir William and his holdings in the Northern Territory, especially Tipperary. This is certainly not so. But if they or any other large company, either foreign or local, wish to get control of large areas of arable land in the Northern Territory, they should certainly have to convince the Land Board on which will sit six men of outstanding knowledge, experience and integrity and/or the Administrator in Council. Also, the land must be improved to a standard where successful agricultural operations could be conducted on subdivided blocks. The cost of this, judging by the pilot farm experiment, could be so great as to preclude almost every private farmer and may result in over capitalisation by big company landholders. The pastoral land in the State of Texas in the United States of America was almost entirely owned by British interests in 1880. Who owns this land today? It is owned by the Texans. They used foreign capital for land development. We need the assistance of large scale investors in this part of the country. But they must expect some reward for their services. With these constructive suggestions that the Land Board of six or the Administrator in Council determine the subdivisional plan regarding agricultural freehold land, I support the proposals and see them as a genuine effort on behalf of the Government to get greater development for the Northern Territory pastoral industry including closer settlement, pasture improvement, agriculture and farming. 1967-05-03 Mr BRYANT(Wills) [12.3 a.m.] - I would just like to place on record what I think is the inherent danger in the remarks passed by the honourable member for the Northern Territory (Mr Calder). The assumption that Australia is incapable of developing this kind of area from within its own resources is, I think, invalid. I know a good deal about Australia. I have been around Australia as much as any other member of the House has. I have done as much to try to develop my little bit of it as the honourable member for the Northern Territory has done for the land that he has inherited. Therefore I am prepared to speak on the subject. The honourable member for the Northern Territory advocated the surrender of Australia's proprietary interests in its land to people who have no basic interest in this country. Their only interest is to extract what they can from it. This is part of the menace that this country has suffered in recent years through the complete inadequacies of the developmental policies of the people who sit opposite me. I rise on this occasion to challenge not the integrity nor the sincerity of the honourable member but the very basis of the philosophy upon which the Government Parties operate in this field. I hope that the people of Australia will soon wake up to what this Government is doing to this country with the policies that it is pursuing. Dr PATTERSON(Dawson) [12.4 a.m.] - I rise to comment also on the statement made by the honourable member for the Northern Territory (Mr Calder). It is quite obvious that he has not even read the proposed amendment relating to agricultural leases and the prohibition by the Government on the right of resumption. Perhaps he and the Minister for Territories, who sits with a smug look on his face, will tell this Parliament now- Mr ACTINGSPEAKER-Order! I suggest that the honourable member for Dawson restrain himself in his remarks concerning the Minister. Dr PATTERSON-Perhaps the Minister will explain to this Parliament how it is that the Government will resume land in the interests of public importance - closer settlement for agriculture, of course - under this new legislation to enable agriculture to be introduced on pastoral leases. Under the current legislation it is possible to do this, but nowhere in the Minister's statement can it be found. Nor did the honourable member for the Northern Territory tell us how it can be done. How will the Government resume land for agriculture and closer settlement as a matter of importance under this proposed ordinance? That is the first question. It is a great coincidence that today in the precincts of the House there happened to be members of the Legislative Council. Of course it is merely a coincidence that this is the time when the honourable member for the Northern Territory makes a statement about this matter. We shall make more statements about Sir William Gunn and the reason for rushing this land resumption tenure through the Legislative Council. Mr Robinson- He does not own the Northern Territory. Dr PATTERSON--Goodness, he will own most of it, the way you are going. As I said before, and the Minister has never refuted it, the proprietors of Lakefield and Sir William Gunn had access to the contents of this ordinance before it reached the Cabinet. Mr Barnes- Nonsense. What is the honourable member suggesting? Dr PATTERSON- Perhaps next week I might table a document which actually states this in writing. We shall then see how much the Minister for Territories knows about it. I do not join issue with the honourable member for the Northern Territory on the agricultural aspect of the proposal. I have not commented on any part of the proposed ordinance except that part of it affecting Tipperary and enabling the Lakefield Company to take over the equivalent of one million acres of the best soils at the top end of the Northern Territory - the Tippera and Blain soils - for its own benefit. The proposal is that 500,000 acres of this country be subdivided and sold to the highest bidder. The Company would like to keep the other 500,000 acres with the ultimate object, of course, of its becoming freehold. Under the proposed ordinance relating to these agricultural provisions, there will be an increase in the agricultural holdings from 38,000 to 200,000 acres. That is 200,000 acres for one interest. The legal definition of interest is one person or one company. Two pseudo partners can have 400,000 acres. There are plenty of examples in Australia and overseas of what can be done in a properly conceived land settlement scheme that is backed by scientific knowledge and finance. The Queensland brigalow scheme, for which a Bill was introduced tonight, is an excellent example of what can be done. It is no good pointing to half-baked pilot farms. Who will go to the Northern Territory, to Marrakai and farms in that area, to try to prove that agriculture can be carried out when there are no basic amenities for families to live there? While you are chiding me, Mr Deputy Speaker, you are allowing the Minister to interject all the time. Mr ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Lucock)Order!The honourable member for Dawson will resume his seat. I suggest that he consider certain things he has said. I point out to him that during his speech interjections have been coming not only from one side of the chamber but from both sides. I suggest that he reflect upon that. Dr PATTERSON-This is the first time that I have heard you or any other member occupying the chair allow a Minister to sit on the back bench and- Mr ACTINGSPEAKER-Order! The honourable member for Dawson will resume his seat. The question is: That the House do now adjourn. Mr Webb-What about the- Mr ACTINGSPEAKER-Order! The honourable member for Stirling will resume his seat. Mr Webb- If the Minister wants to interject, why can he not go to his own seat? Mr ACTINGSPEAKER-Order! Mr CharlesJones - I rise to a point of order, Mr Acting Speaker. Tonight the honourable member for Dawson has been subjected to a continuing fire of interjections by the Minister for Territories (Mr Barnes) and by members of the Minister's Party. I believe that the honourable member for Dawson was most tolerant in accepting the interjections for as long as he did. I suggest to you, Mr Acting Speaker, that the honourable member for Dawson be permitted to complete his remarks. Only about three or four minutes of his time is left. Quite frankly, I think that he was entitled to appeal to the Chair for some protection from the interjections coming from the other side of the chamber. Mr ACTINGSPEAKER-I remind the honourable member for Newcastle that I pointed out to the honourable member for Dawson that interjections had come not only from one side of the chamber, but from both sides. I do not desire to name any of the honourable members concerned but there was a running fire of interjections from one side of the chamber to the other. I suggested - I thought reasonably - to the honourable member for Dawson that he might reflect on that fact But the moment that the honourable member continued his remarks after I had made my comments to him he made a further reflection on the Chair. Again I suggest to the honourable member that he should bear in mind what I have said. I call the honourable member for Dawson. Dr PATTERSON- Thank you, Sir, for your indulgence. The main point 1 wish to make in the few minutes remaining to me is that when I sought leave to make a statement or to ask a few simple questions of the Minister for Territories after he had introduced these proposals, I was refused leave. There was no reason to refuse leave unless something very fishy is behind these proposals. It did not take me very long to find out what was behind them. I have said before and I will say again that as long as these proposals contain the clauses relating to a maximum area of 200,000 acres - designed for the benefit of overseas companies so that they may take the pick of the Northern Territory for agricultural purposes - they do not have a bolter's chance of being passed by the Legislative Council of the Northern Territory. It is completely wrong for a company to have access to an ordinance before it has reached Cabinet. It is particularly wrong for a company to be able to say to the Commonwealth Government: 'We want an answer by June or we will pull out'. This is exactly the attitude of Sir William Gunn and his American colleagues and this is what the Minister for Territories is fostering. Mr BARNES(McPherson- Minister for Territories) [12.13 a.m.] - The honourable member for Dawson (Dr Patterson) said that he has not been able to discuss in this chamber the statement I made. I point out to honourable members that on several occasions the honourable member has initiated discussion on matters of urgent public importance and all the rest of it. Had he wanted to discuss this matter he has had ample opportunity to do so under the forms of the House. Mr TURNER(Bradfield) [12.14 a.m.]J want to correct a small matter and to put the record straight. What I have said has been misrepresented by the Minister for the Interior (Mr Anthony). The Hansard report of 20th April 1967 shows at page 1533 that in the course of the debate on the Dairying Industry Bill I said: I should like to correct my friend, the honourable member for Macarthur, who did not know that the consumer subsidy in New Zealand was withdrawn in January of this year. Later in the debate the Minister for the Interior who, of course, was not in charge of the Bill and certainly was not the Minister for Primary Industry, said: I want to make one comment on what the honourable member for Bradfield said. It is not an important comment. I just want to correct him slightly. He referred to what the honourable member for Gippsland (Mr Nixon) said about the dairying subsidy paid in New Zealand. I think he was really referring to what 1 said in respect of the speech of the honourable member for Macarthur (Mr Jeff Bate). The Minister continued: The honourable member for Bradfield said that the subsidy in New Zealand had been eliminated and was now being paid by the consumer. I would like to inform the honourable member, Mr Chairman, that in New Zealand there is a guaranteed price scheme for all butter exports. There is a guarantee that the dairy farmer will net a return from export sales of 330s per cwt. The price during the last two years has been only 300s per cwt. This means that the central bank in New Zealand has had to make up the difference, which has amounted to about £NZ8m each year for the past two years. The honourable member should not say that New Zealanders do not get assistance. They do. Every single dairy industry in the world has some sort of prop beneath it. This may seem ridiculous and ludicrous, but that is the situation. Honourable members should not ask Australian dairy farmers to stand up against subsidised dairying industries in other countries if they have to export in competition with them. This appears at page 1553 of Hansard for 20th April 1967. What the Minister said was a complete misrepresentation of what I had said. I have checked this and I put it to the House because the record should be straight. The Minister was wrong. The facts regarding the consumer subsidy on butter in New Zealand and the return to New Zealand dairy farmers from export sales of butter show that the Minister's statements were misleading regarding the role of the New Zealand Central or Reserve Bank and that he wrongly quoted what I had said about the consumer subsidy. He implied that the Reserve Bank df New Zealand stands the loss for any deficit between the guaranteed price to farmers for exports of butter, which is calculated annually, and the actual returns from export sales, and, because of this, New Zealand's dairy industry must be considered as being subsidised. What happens in fact is that there is a self-balancing fund held at the Reserve Bank by the New Zealand Dairy Production and Marketing Board on behalf of the dairy farmers. Surpluses from export sales of butter and cheese are paid into this fund and deficits are withdrawn. When the fund becomes depleted, as it did in 1966, further deficits are met by the Bank by way of overdraft at a very low rate of interest. This overdraft has, however, to be paid off by the farmers out of surpluses from sales in subsequent years when the guaranteed price is adjusted. It is not always possible to estimate accurately what the guaranteed price should be, so surpluses and deficits keep recurring. The price fixed for butter in any season must not vary by more than 5% from the maximum price fixed for the previous season. The overdraft from the Reserve Bank is thus a debt incurred by the farmers, not a gift from the Bank. The New Zealand Government stands guarantor to the Bank for the overdraft. Basically the New Zealand dairy farmer in the long run receives only what he earns and cannot be described as subsidised. The Minister quoted me as saying that the subsidy in New Zealand had been eliminated and was now being paid by the consumer'. What I said, of course, was that the consumer subsidy in New Zealand was withdrawn in January of this year'. This appears at page 1533 of Hansard for 20th April 1967. This was the subsidy the New Zealand Government paid to the local butter market to encourage domestic consumption by lower consumer prices. At the time of its removal in January it was equivalent to 9.25d per lb in New Zealand currency or 9.6c per lb in Australian currency. As a result of the removal of the subsidy the local price of butter rose from 2s to 2s lOd in New Zealand currency or from 25c to 35.4c per lb in Australian currency. This was to reduce the load on the Treasury. Subsidies on some other foodstuffs were removed at the same time. It is quite clear that the Minister misrepresented me. He said that I had made a little mistake. This was very clever. It suggested that all I had said was wrong. But the Minister was inaccurate and not me. Anybody who chooses to read what I said and what he said, and what I say tonight, will know that I did not make a little mistake but that the Minister misrepresented me. Sir, the record is now straight. Question resolved in the affirmative. House adjourned at 12.21 a.m. (Thursday). 1720 ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS UPON NOTICE The following answers to questions upon notice were circulated: 1720 1720 YF4 0 0 CROSS, Manfred Mr Cross asked the Acting Minister for Health, upon notice: What is the establishment of medical officers of all ranks in his Department? How many medical officers were in service at 1st January 1967, and where were these officers located? How many of these medical officers possess post-graduate qualifications in (a) public health and (b) medicine, surgery or medical specialities? How many medical officers are engaged in (a) full-time and (b) part-time medical research? How many of the medical officers are engaged fully in administrative tasks? What steps are taken by his Department to ensure that its medical officers keep abreast of modern developments in medicine and public health? 1720 KVR 0 0 SWARTZ, Reginald Mr Swartz - The answers to the honourable member's questions are as follows: One hundred and ninety-eight. A total of 180 medical officers were in service at 1st January 1967. The locations of those officers were as follows: 1720 1720 1720 1720 1720 1720 1720 1720 1720 1720 1720 1720 1720 1720 1720 1720 1720 1720 1720 1720 1720 1720 Other locations: London - 2 Cocos Island - 1 3. (a) 58. (b) 52. 4. (a) 1. (b) 4. Seventeen. Each year an average of three medical officers are sent to the School of Public Health and Tropical Medicine, Sydney, to undertake postgraduate study leading to the Diploma of Public Health and Tropical Medicine. In addition, a total of seven medical officers are sent overseas each year for study purposes. One such officer, a pathologist, is sent to obtain specialist qualifications. The remaining six officers study quarantinable diseases. All officers are encouraged to attend scientific and professional conferences. Conferences attended include those arranged by the Australian and New Zealand Association for the Advancement of Science, the North Queensland Medical Society, the Royal Australian College of Physicians, the College of Pathologists, and many other professional and scientific bodies. 1720 1720 6U4 0 0 WHITLAM, Gough Mr Whitlam asked the Attorney-General, upon notice: When was consideration last given to abolishing the death penalty for any of the crimes listed in his predecessor's answer to me on 13th October 1965? 1720 JRN 0 0 BOWEN, Nigel Mr Bowen - The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The penalties for the offences referred to in the answer on 13th October 1965. are at present under review, together with other provisions of the criminal law. 1720 1720 6U4 0 0 WHITLAM, Gough Mr Whitlam asked the Prime Minister, upon notice: Does the Commonwealth lay down minimum standards of safety for the motor vehicles it purchases for its own use as the United States Government does? If so, where are the standards published? If not, when was consideration last given to laying down such standards? 1720 009MC 0 0 HOLT, Harold Mr Harold Holt - The answer to the honourable member's questions is as follows: There is a number of Commonwealth transport authorities each of which, when purchasing vehicles, sets minimum safety standards in accordance with its technical requirements. So far as motor vehicle safety in Australia generally is concerned, I draw the honourable member's attention to the Australian Motor Vehicle Design Advisory Panel which was set up in 1965 by the Australian Transport Advisory Council, which is under the Chairmanship of the Minister for Shipping and Transport. The Panel comprises experts in various fields associated with road safety and was set up to investigate and report on motor vehicles and their component parts and accessories, with a view to reducing road deaths and minimizing the extent and severity of accidents to road users and pedestrians by the production of a safer road vehicle. The Panel has already made a number of recommendations and is continuing its investigations. There has also been functioning for many years an Australian Motor Vehicle Standards Committee on which the Commonwealth Government is represented. The main function of this Committee is to advise the Australian Transport Advisory Council on standards for motor vehicle construction, equipment and performance, including braking and lighting efficiencies, with a view to improving road safety and obtaining uniformity of relevant legislation in the States and. Territories. 1721 1721 KGH 0 0 HANSEN, Brendan Mr Hansen asked the Acting Minister for Health, upon notice: ls it a fact that between one and two people in every one hundred suffer from glaucoma, making this eye disease three times more prevalent than diabetes, and more common in people over forty years than tuberculosis? ls this complaint more prevalent in the northern parts of Australia where the sunshine is brightest? What research is being carried out in Australia for the treatment of glaucoma? Will he consider setting up clinics, in cooperation with the States and staffed by qualified personnel, for the treatment of glaucoma on similar lines to the tuberculosis and cancer clinics? 1721 KVR 0 0 SWARTZ, Reginald Mr Swartz - The answers to the honourable member's questions are as follows: 1 and 2. No official records of the incidence of glaucoma in the Australian population generally, or in the population in specific areas of Australia, are available within my Department. However, surveys in other countries indicate an average incidence of 2.5% in persons over forty years of age. A small private survey conducted in Victoria during 1965-66 revealed an incidence of 1.75% in the same age group. Further, expert medical opinion is that bright sunshine is not a causative factor in glaucoma. With regard to diabetes no official records of the incidence of this disease in Australia generally are held by my Department. However, a small private survey conducted in the Australian Capital Territory during 1961 revealed an incidence of approximately 2.5% in the Territory. The incidence of tuberculosis in Australia, in the over forty years age group, is well below 1%. Basic scientific and clinical research relating to glaucoma is currently being carried out in eye hospitals in Sydney and Melbourne. The establishment of clinics in the States for the treatment of glaucoma is a matter for which State authorities are primarily responsible. 1721 1721 RK4 0 0 HAYDEN, Bill Mr Hayden asked the Acting Minister for Health, upon notice: Has his attention been drawn to an article in the Australian Financial Review of Sth April 1967 wherein it is claimed that one in four Australian women between the ages of twenty and forty years use the contraceptive pill, that its use is rapidly increasing, that chemists retain 46.9% of the consumer price as profit, that sales tax on the pill does not apply in other countries, and that doctors' prescriptions are regularly required by women seeking to obtain it? As the cost of purchasing the pill represents a very heavy charge on the income of low wage earners' families, and as the pill is quite obviously established as an accepted and important factor in our modern day family life, will he consider making the pill available as a pharmaceutical benefit, or, at the very least, will he take steps to free it of sales tax? 1721 KVR 0 0 SWARTZ, Reginald Mr Swartz - The answers to the honourable member's questions are as follows: Yes. The basic aim of the Government's Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme is to assist members of the community to meet the cost of drugs and medicines required for the purpose of medical treatment. The contraceptive pill, as such, does not come within this category. No preparation may be made available as a pharmaceutical benefit without a prior recommendation to that effect by the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee. The question of removing sales tax from the contraceptive pill is a matter for consideration by my colleague, the Treasurer. 1721 1721 KXI 0 0 WEBB, Charles Mr Webb asked the Minister for Health, upon notice: What is the average rate per day charged by hospitals in each of the States for (a) public, (b) intermediate and (c) private wards? What is the average return to patients in each of the States of (a) fund benefit and (b) Commonwealth benefit in respect of each of these average charges? 1721 KVR 0 0 SWARTZ, Reginald Mr Swartz - The answers to the honourable member's questions are as follows: Details are available only of the general scale of fees charged by public hospitals in each State for the various classes of ward accommodation provided. The daily rates are as follows: Note: (a) In practice, small variations occur in individual hospitals, (b) The charges in South Australia and the Northen Territory came into effect on 1 April 1967. Information is not available in the form sought by the honourable member. However, the average fund benefit per day paid by registered organisations to insured patients for the 1965-66 financial year was: 1722 KVR 0 0 SWARTZ, Reginald Mr Swartz - The answers to the honourable member's questions are as follows: 1. Commonwealth benefit is $2.00 per day for insured patients in all States. For uninsured patients, Commonwealth benefit is 80c per day. This amount is deducted from the patient's hospital account and is later paid to the hospital by the Commonwealth. Hospital and Medical Benefit Organisation (Question No. 52) Mr Collard asked the Minister for Health, upon notice: What were the total (a) contributions, (b) fund benefits, (c) operating costs and (d) reserves of the hospital and medical benefit organisations registered under the National Health Act during the year 1965-66? What were the total reserves for the year 1964-65? These are preliminary figures and are subject to adjustment. The total reserves, including provisions for outstanding claims, of the medical and hospital funds as at 30th June 1965 were as follows: In September 1966, in answer to questions, I informed honourable members that medical fund reserves as at 30th June (965 were $24,110,576. This estimate was based, in some instances, on provisional returns from registered medical benefits organisations and was the latest information available at that time. Finalised returns from all organisations have now been received, and the verified figure is $20,002,206. 1722 1722 JSU 0 0 BRYANT, Gordon Mr Bryant asked the Minister for Health, upon notice: What tuberculosis allowances were paid to Aboriginals in each State and Territory in each of the last five years? What was the rate of allowance in each year? 1722 KVR 0 0 SWARTZ, Reginald Mr Swartz - The answers to the honourable member's questions are as follows: These details are not available, as no distinction is made between Aboriginals and other persons in departmental records relating to applicants for or recipients of tuberculosis allowances. These are shown in the following table: 1723 1723 JZX 0 0 COLLARD, Frederick Mr Collard asked the Postmaster-General, upon notice: Is it a fact that all high frequency channels allocated to Australia under International Radio Regulations are currently being used by National Broadcasting Stations and by Radio Australia? If so, does this prevent a short wave commercial radio service being made available to people in the north and north-west of Western Australia? Who is responsible for determining the number of high frequency allocations to Australia, and do they result from applications by Australia? Could an application for additional channels have any possibility of success? If so, is there any intention of making any such application? If there is no such intention, why not? 1723 KIF 0 0 HULME, Alan Mr Hulme - The answers to the honourable member's questions are as follows: 1 and 3. The use of radio frequencies in Australia is governed by international agreements to which Australia is a party as a member of the International Telecommunications Union. Member administrations are required to submit to a body known as the International Frequency Registration Board seasonal schedules of their proposed high frequency usage for broadcasting services. The suitability of frequencies varies with the seasons of the year. This procedure is followed by Australia and all frequencies listed in the current schedule are being used to the full extent of the periods for which they are listed as being available to Australia. They are used by national high frequency stations broadcasting to remote areas in Australia including the north west of Western Australia and by Radio Australia broadcasting to overseas countries. The availability of frequencies in the high frequency bands is strictly limited and due to greatly increased use of such frequencies by various countries since the last war there is serious overcrowding of services in these bands. In view of the shortage of frequencies, the assignment of high frequency channels in Australia to private organisations could only be made to the detriment of the national services and Radio Australia. Because of the difficult frequency position there is no prospect of the establishment of commercial high frequency stations in Australia. 4 and 5. An application for additional channels would be considered by the International Frequency Registration Board in its scrutiny of the seasonal channels submitted to it by all administrations. However, where the schedules contain applications for more than one frequency to serve a selected target area, there would be very little prospect of a favourable decision, as the very limited number of channels must be strictly conserved; no action is therefore being taken to apply for further high frequency channel assignments. 1724 1724 JZX 0 0 COLLARD, Frederick Mr Collard asked the Postmaster-General, upon notice: If it is found that television can be made available to Kalgoorlie by way of the proposed microwave link between Perth and South Australia, will it be necessary, before transmission, for the whole link to be completed or will the completion of the section between Perth and a point near Kalgoorlie be sufficient? If the Perth-Kalgoorlie link will be sufficient, will he arrange for this part to be completed and put into operation well before 1969-70? If not, why not? 1724 KIF 0 0 HULME, Alan Mr Hulme - The answers to the honourable member's questions are as follows: If it is decided to establish a television service at Kalgoorlie it will be possible to provide a television link between Perth and Kalgoorlie as part of the first stage of establishing the East-West microwave link. It is not practicable to complete the PerthKalgoorlie section of the microwave link until 1969-70 because the contractor is unable to design, manufacture and install the necessary relay stations within a shorter period. 1724 1724 KUX 0 0 STEWART, Francis Mr Stewart asked the Postmaster-General, upon notice: What was the cost of providing the coaxial cable between Canberra and Sydney and Canberra and Melbourne? What is the rental paid by General Television Corporation Ltd, Melbourne, for the lease of the cable? 1724 KIF 0 0 HULME, Alan Mr Hulme - The answers to the honourable member's questions are as follows: Nearly $14,000,000. The annual rental received by the Post Office from General Television Corporation Limited, Melbourne, is the subject of a written agreement between the two parties and it would not be proper for me to release publicly in the House the information sought by the honourable member.