23rd Parliament · 2nd Session
The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Sir Alister McMullin) took the chair at 3 p.m., and read prayers.
page 293
– My question, which is addressed to the Minister representing the Treasurer, relates to the almost complete destruction of the town of Carnarvon by a terrible willy-willy last week, and also to other devastation which it caused along the coast south of Carnarvon. In view of the considerable damage caused by the blow, will the Commonwealth Government consider rendering assistance to the unfortunate people of the area, particularly the banana-growers of Carnarvon who, I understand, have lost at least two years’ crops as a result of this unfortunate occurrence?
– As a matter of policy, the Commonwealth is always prepared to consider requests from State Governments to subsidize, on a £l-for-£l basis, the relief of personal distress caused in disasters of the kind referred to by Senator Vincent. There are many examples of the readiness of the Government to consider such requests. It is not the practice to make assistance available for the repair of private assets. Assuming that a case comes forward from Western Australia, I imagine that when such a request is made it will receive the customary treatment that I have indicated. Where State government works have suffered damage, it is also possible for the governments concerned to obtain relief from the Commonwealth. In this connexion, I instance roads which have been damaged by floods. In some cases, the Commonwealth has in the past assisted in that regard also.
page 293
– I preface my question, which is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for External Affairs, by stating that, on 12th November last, I asked the Minister whether the fact that the Australian delegate to the United Nations had refrained, on the Government’s instruction, from voting on a motion put before the United Nations with the object of censuring South Africa because of its racial policies, might be construed as support for those policies. The Minister for National Development, in reply, stated that the only interpretation that could be placed on the matter was that Australia did not desire to interfere in the domestic arrangements of South Africa. I now ask: In view of the latest outrages in South Africa, as a result of which many native Africans have lost their lives, will the Minister give an assurance that the Australian delegates to the United Nations will be instructed to support resolutions censuring the action of the South African Government?
– The Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies) gave a. lengthy reply in the House of Representatives this afternoon to a question which included the matter that Senator Kennelly has now mentioned. It is a very important matter which enters into our relations with a sister Dominion; and if Senator Kennelly does not mind, I would prefer to study the Prime Minister’s statement before attempting to answer the honorable senator’s question. I invite Senator Kennelly also to study the Prime Minister’s reply which covers the ground quite fully.
– I wish to ask a question supplementary to Senator Ken-‘ nelly’s question. In view of the world-wide disgust at the virtual massacre of Africans at Sharpeville last week and in view of the fact that the United Nations Organization has been approached by the 29 Afro-Asian nations to have this matter debated, will the Minister for National Development confer with the Minister for External Affairs with a view to instructing the Australian delegate to the United Nations to move for the setting up of a United Nations commission of inquiry to go to South Africa and make a full report on the massacre which has shocked the whole world?
– I repeat what I have said to Senator Kennelly. I do not think we help this situation by making what I might call, without offence, rather extravagant statements on the matter. As matters now stand, the South African Government has arranged for a judicial inquiry into the events. It is not to be thought that the Australian Government is not in very close touch with this matter, or that it is not concerned at what has happened; but as I said earlier, the matter is of such tremendous importance that I would ask honorable senators to study the Prime Minister’s reply to a question in another place before canvassing the issues.
page 294
– I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Supply concerning a new concrete which is known as low aggregate concrete. It differs from the older type principally in the density of set concrete as it weighs 95 to 110 lb. compared with 150 lb. to the cubic foot of the old type of concrete. In view of the increased use of low aggregate concrete in building construction, will the Minister inform the Senate whether the Department of Works is satisfied that this type of concrete is as strong and durable as the old type; and if so, will the new mixture be used in future government works?
– The question involves a number of technical aspects. I have read of this development with considerable interest, but I know nothing of the technical aspects of it. I shall be pleased to refer the question to the Minister for Supply and obtain an answer for the honorable senator as soon as possible.
page 294
– I direct a question to the Minister representing the PostmasterGeneral. Some time ago I asked a question relating to the installation of a coaxial cable between Sydney and Melbourne which would allow Melbourne people to view Sydney television programmes and vice versa. I am pleased to know that this installation has been commenced. However, the cable provides only two television channels and I understand that no provision is being made for the transmission of additional programmes. I ask the Minister: Will the Government have additional channels included, as could be done at low cost during the installation of this cable, so that viewers not only in the capital cities, but also at intermediate centres which will later be served by television, may have an opportunity to see what is going on elsewhere in Australia? This would appear to be particularly desirable in view of the probable extension of the cable ultimately to Brisbane.
– I am aware that the installation of the coaxial cable has been commenced, but I shall have to bring before the Postmaster-General the matter of its use for television purposes, and I shall obtain an answer for the honorable senator.
page 294
– I direct a question to the Minister representing the Treasurer. As primary producers are currently receiving their income tax assessments for the financial year 1958-59, and having regard to the drought year in South Australia, will the Treasurer adopt what I believe is the accepted practice and1 allow such amounts as are beyond the primary producers’ ability to pay to stand over until after the forthcoming harvest?
– I shall be pleased to refer the question to my colleague, the Treasurer, who will, I am sure, as sympathetically as possible meet the request of the honorable senator.
page 294
– I direct a question to the Minister for Civil Aviation. Who was the person, or who were the persons, who forced Trans-Australia Airlines to purchase Electras in lieu of Caravelles, more particularly as the Electras are causing so much worry at the present time in the United States of America? In the light of the tragic happenings to Electras in the United States, what investigational work is being carried out on Electras by T.A.A. or others and is supervision being exercised to see that Ansett-A.N.A. is observing the speed limits? Which department has, or which departments have, been instructed that a portion of the transport of passengers and/ or goods has to go to Ansett-A.N.A.? What steps are being taken to curb AnsettA.N.A.’s underground activities as regard T.A.A. patronage, more especially as Ansett-A.N.A. owes its existence to Liberal paternalism? Will the Government now insist that as T.A.A. has piston-engined aircraft, the words “The Nation’s Jetline “ be removed from its aircraft?
– Rather surprisingly, the first part of the honorable senator’s question is based on a completely erroneous understanding of the facts. No one at any time forced T.A.A., or for that matter any other airline, to buy any particular type of aircraft. What happened - and one would1 have expected the honorable senator to be aware of this - was that in 1958 the Commonwealth Government, in its wisdom, said that no pure jet aircraft would be introduced on the domestic network, and at the same time it gave general approval to both major domestic airlines to purchase aircraft other than pure jet aircraft. Both airlines availed themselves of this approval, T.A.A. purchasing two Viscounts and two Electras, and Ansett-A.N.A. purchasing four Viscounts and two Electras. The application for approval of the purchase by T.A.A. of the Electras came, as a matter of course, to me as Minister. Naturally enough, I approved of it.
– Mow long ago was that?
– That was in 1958. You should remember that; you were here. I remember your taking part in the debate - at least by interjection.
I might say that as recently as two months ago T.A.A. again approached me with an application to purchase a further Electra aircraft as a matter of urgency, and I approved of that purchase. Realizing, as T.A.A. did, that it would not have that aircraft for some months, I personally took some interest to see that it would have an Electra aircraft made available to it on charter, as I realized it required one - it had asked for one - to cover the interim period until T.A.A. could effect the purchase.
Now, as to the investigations that are taking place subsequent to the unfortunate Electra accident in the United States of America, I can inform the Senate that the work is under the close supervision of the Department of Civil Aviation at this moment. As soon as the inquiry was commenced in the United States, arrangements were made for our civil aviation liaison officer to attend the hearing; and the next day we also despatched to America our director of investigations into aircraft accidents to attend the hearings. I take this opportunity to commend the prompt action taken by the Department of Civil Aviation. The effect of it was that Australia was the first country outside America to take the action which was recommended by the Federal Aviation Agency in the United States of America; and it was able to take that action before we in Australia received telegraphic advice of the decision of the F.A.A.
I come now to the third part of the question as to which department or departments have been instructed that a portion of the transport of passengers and/ or goods has to go to AnsettA.N.A. The honorable senator, like myself, was not here in 1952; but if he reads the relevant legislation he will find that the act provides that both operators shall have equal access to Government business. As far as I know, that is the limit of anything that has been done to see that Ansett-A.N.A. shall get even 50 per cent, of the Government’s business. If Mr. Ansett is seeking further Government business now, he is seeking it merely as a part of his own sales promotion campaign.
The next question is rather unusual. It is: What steps are being taken to curb Ansett-A.N.A.’s underground activities - that is a rather unusual expression to apply to an airline - as regards T.A.A. patronage more especially as Ansett-A.N.A. owes its existence to Liberal paternalism? Frankly, I do not know what the question refers to. If it refers to some particular sales promotion campaign which the Ansett organization has embarked upon, then it has my general blessing just as would any sales promotion activities by T.A.A. We set out to create competition in this airline industry, and if there is evidence of fair competition developing, then I am all for it.
The last part of the honorable senator’s question is rather humorous. He asks whether the Government will now insist that, as T.A.A. has piston-engined aircraft, the words “ The Nation’s Jetline “ be removed from its aircraft. Mr. President, the answer is “ No “. As Minister for Civil Aviation, I am too pre-occupied with matters of importance even to think about embarking upon something which has to do only with the managerial functions of the organization.
– I desire to ask the Minister a question supplementary to the one just asked by Senator Dittmer. In fact, I had my question prepared before Senator Dittmer got the call. Is the Minister aware that Tasman Empire Airways Limited has grounded its three Electra aircraft for rigid inspection following the recent unexplained accidents in the United States of America? Is the Minister also aware that a Qantas Boeing 707 has been withdrawn from service and is prematurely receiving periodic overhaul following the discovery in Sydney yesterday of a twoinch crack in the undercarriage support of that aircraft? In view of those circumstances, will the Minister inform the Senate what steps are being taken to ensure the safe operation of all passenger aircraft in Australia?
– I saw the newspaper report, which apparently has prompted the honorable senator’s question about Tasman Empire Airways Limited, and I asked for a report in connexion therewith immediately. I am happy to be able to tell the honorable senator that Electra aircraft in Australia are being inspected in the same way as those aircraft in use in America and on the New Zealand service. Electra aircraft have not been grounded in America or on the New Zealand service. They are simply being successively withdrawn from service for short periods so that inspections may be carried out. It should be emphasized that those inspections are no more than the normal routine inspections which have always been specified by the manufacturers. The only difference in the present situation is that the Federal Aviation Agency, which is investigating the two recent crashes of Electra aircraft in the United States, has recommended that inspections be carried out within the next 30 days if inspections have not been made within the last 30 days. So, in point of fact all that is happening is that the normal inspections are being carried out earlier. I hasten to assure the honorable senator that the aircraft of Tasman Empire Airways Limited have not been grounded in the sense of being withdrawn from commission or anything of that nature.
With regard to the question about the Boeing 707 in Sydney, the honorable senator’s information appears to be somewhat in advance of mine. I shall have inquiries made of Qantas immediately to ascertain the present position. I suspect that the condition referred to by the honorable senator is no more than an ordinary service condition that occurs from time to time. If it were anything of a serious nature I would have been made aware of it long since.
– My question, too, is supplementary to the question asked by Senator Dittmer. With regard to Senator Dittmer’s remarks about underground activities - I might call them fifth column activities - the Minister said that he did not know what they were about. Has the Minister seen a newspaper report stating that Mr. R. Ansett of Ansett-A.N.A. has contacted business people throughout Australia imploring them not to use the socialized airline? Will the Minister make clear to this Senate that Ansett-A.N.A. could not put one aircraft into the air without the use of socialized facilities such as aerodromes, navigational aids, and many other things necessary for flying?
– I regret that the honorable senator’s -question is of such a political nature that I must give something of a political answer. I have not seen the letter to which the honorable senator refers but which allegedly has been sent by Mr. Ansett to a number of people engaged in private enterprise.
– You are not interested to get a copy?
– I have no doubt that the honorable senator who interjected will get a copy. His own private enterprise interests are probably sufficient to attract one. If Mr. Ansett wants to indulge in a fair sales promotion campaign he is at liberty to do so and only socialists would try to prevent him. As to the rest of Senator Sandford’s question, as a matter of Government policy Ansett-A.N.A. has been supported by Government guarantees for loans in order that two airlines - one Governmentowned and one privately owned - shall engage in the industry in Australia.
I know that the Opposition does not like that, but it happens to be a matter of
Government policy which has existed since 1352; and while this Government remains in office we will continue, legitimately and reasonably, to support private enterprise in the air. All that private enterprise has to fea>r is that when the socialists come to office they will be the first to try to run it out of business. But the job is far more difficult now because there are no fewer than 18,000 good Australians who are shareholders in the Ansett-A.N.A. organization.
– I wish to ask the Minister for Civil Aviation a question supplementary lo those which have been asked by Senator Dittmer and Senator Sandford. If the Minister thinks that this is a political question, he can give me a political answer to it. He said that the sales campaign of Ansett-A.N.A. has his general blessing. Will he explain to the Senate whether he considers that parity has been achieved between the airlines, in view of the fact that Mr. R. M. Ansett, in his letter to his clients, stated that AnsettA.N.A. “ now offers services equal to and better than those of its competitor in scope, frequency and type of aircraft “? He went on to say that he had waited until AnsettA.N.A. was as well equipped as, if not better equipped than T.A.A. before he made his appeal to business executives. In view of the fact that a considerable amount of Commonwealth money has been lent to Ansett-A.N.A. - as much as £3,000,000-
– That is not right.
– Well, the Commonwealth guaranteed that amount. In view of the fact that parity has favoured AnsettA.N.A., which did not want to expand its fleet because of the Government’s economic policy, and in view of the further fact that Sir Giles Chippendall has found it necessary to hit back in rather unusual terms, considering the usually gentle nature of his replies in these matters, I ask the Minister to lay on the table of the Senate the next annual report and balance -sheet of Ansett-A.N.A., bearing in mind the financial backing of this company that has, been provided by the people of Australia. Will he also lay on the table a list of the main shareholders of Ansett Transport Industries Limited, so that we can see whether this company is a part of an international monopoly, or a genuine Australian private enterprise?
– Answering the last of the rather lengthy series of questions first, I inform the honorable senator that I do not propose to lay on the table of the Senate a list of the shareholders of AnsettTransport Industries Limited. If the honorable senator is really interested in the matter, he can institute a search and have that information made available to him for a small fee. As to whether I will table Ansett-A.N.A.’s final accounts, the answer is “ No, certainly not “. This is a private enterprise organization. It has nothing to do with any one other than the shareholders of the company. As to the amount which was guaranteed by the Commonwealth Government, I remind the honorable senator that from time to time opportunities have been provided to discuss that matter, lt has been made abundantly clear, time and time again, that the Commonwealth’s guarantee has been amply covered by the value of the chattels over which it holds a mortgage.
In reply to the first part of the question - I have not seen Mr. Ansett’s letter; but I must obtain a copy of it because it would appear to be very interesting. It must have rubbed the socialists up the wrong way. It must be a pretty effective letter. I shall be extremely interested to see it.
– Is that not a bit cheap?
– I do not think so. If I wanted to get in the gutter, I could do so; and I would not have to get mud on myself either. The honorable senator asked whether it was not going to extremes for Mr. Ansett to say that his airline now offers services better than those of its competitor in scope, frequency and type of aircraft. Well, Mr. President, all I can say in answer to .that aspect of the question is that I have lived to this day of grace and have continually wondered at the lengths to which advertising can take some people. Since I nave been Minister for Civil Aviation I have been continually wondering where the flamboyancy in advertising by both airlines is designed to get them. For my own part I prefer the more sober statement of facts. If both airlines were to revert to that method of advertising - I express my personal view - it would suit me a good deal better.
– I wish to direct a further supplementary question to the
Minister for Civil Aviation. In the light of the Minister’s reply, will he say whether, in accordance with governmental policy, the two airlines have equal access to passenger traffic as it affects members of Parliament? Just as departmental officials have been instructed to travel by AnsettA.N.A. will Liberal and Country Party members of Parliament be similarly encouraged to travel by Ansett-A.N.A.? I understand that in Queensland 75 per cent, of these members travel by T.A.A.
– This second question asked by the honorable senator has the same deficiency as the first which he asked. It is based on a completely inaccurate statement. Both airlines have equal access to Government business. To my knowledge no departmental officers have been instructed to travel by one airline or the other. As a matter of fact it so happens that at this moment, and for some years past, T.A.A. has enjoyed a greater measure of Government patronage than has the private airline.
– My question also is directed to the Minister for Civil Aviation. Is it a fact that Tasman Empire Airways Limited, which is responsible for the Australia-New Zealand air link, has recently disposed of three Douglas aircraft to buyers in the United States? What was the sale price of each of those aircraft? Is it a fact that the aircraft sold have been replaced by Lockheed Electras? Finally, is the Minister yet in a position to say whether, and when, the recent aircraft exchange agreement between T.A.A. and AnsettA.N.A. will be tabled in the Senate?
– Negotiations for the disposal of aircraft by T.E.A.L. are now taking place and, I understand are at an advanced stage. The disposal has not yet been effected1 nor have arrangements been made for any purchase of replacement aircraft. As regards the final part of the question I am happy to be able to tell the Leader of the Opposition that at the appropriate stage of the proceedings to-day his curiosity will be satisfied.
page 298
– I should like to give the Minister for Civil Aviation a rest by directing my question to the Minister for National Development. What is the price charged by the Snowy Mountains Authority for electricity supplied to the New South Wales Electricity Commission? Does that price compare favorably with the price charged for electricity supplied by coalburning power stations? How does it compare with the expected cost of electricity generated from nuclear reactors?
– I hesitate to answer offhand a question on such an important matter, because I might give incorrect figures. I shall be tabling in the Senate, either this week or next week, the annual report of the Snowy Mountains Authority. That report sets out the cost at which power is being produced at Guthega and T.l, and that cost of production is the price at which the power is sold to the States. I know that I should be able to give the actual figures, but they are not in my mind at the moment. I may add that I am sure that the electricity authorities in both New South Wales and Victoria are quite happy with the price that they are being charged.
page 298
– I preface my question, which is addressed to the Minister representing the PostmasterGeneral, by referring to a recent press statement in connexion with “ all-up “ airmail services. Is the “ all-up “ airmail service now in operation and, if so, is all first-class mail, of appropriate weight and size, being carried by air, or is a quantity of it being carried by rail, such as between the eastern States and Western Australia? If mail is being carried by rail, what is the reason? In view of the undertaking that has been given that all first-class mail of appropriate weight and size would be carried by air without surcharge, is it still necessary for such articles to bear an airmail sticker?
– I am able to give the honorable senator some information in regard to the question that he has asked. Since 1st November, 1959, all small and medium-sized mail posted in Australia for delivery within Australia has been carred by air, where such carriage would speed delivery. Any such mail passing between the eastern States and Western Australia is always carried by air without special fee. There is no need for such mail to bear an airmail sticker.
page 299
– I address a question to the Minister for National Development. It appears that there is some doubt as to the period that applicants for financial assistance from the War Service Homes Division have to wait before such assistance is made available. Can the Minister inform me of the average time that applicants have to wait for financial accommodation from the division after a property has been approved for purchase by an applicant, and also in the case of applicants who wish to build homes? As the usual rate of interest for temporary accommodation is approximately 10 per cent., so that the delay that occurs makes a considerable difference to the financial stability of applicants, can the Minister say what steps, if any, he has taken to curtail the delay between an application being approved and funds being made available?
– Senator Sheehan was good enough to indicate that he intended to ask a question along those lines, and I took the opportunity to obtain accurate figures. The present waiting time for financial assistance from the War Service Homes Division is as follows: - Eighteen months for the purchase of new homes; twenty months for the purchase of old homes; three months for applicants who intend to build homes; and twelve months for the discharge of pre-arranged mortgages.
– Is that the same in all States?
– it is the same throughout Australia. There is a good deal of misconception about the rates of interest that are charged for temporary finance. In October, 1959, we had a survey made of 629 cases in which temporary finance had been obtained. The survey disclosed that 1.3.4 per cent, of loans were obtained at 5£ per cent., 33.7 per cent, at from 5i per cent, to 7 per cent., 22.3 per cent, at between 7 per cent, and 8 per cent.; six per cent, at between 8 per cent, and 9 per cent.; 23.1 per cent, at between 9 per cent, and 10 per cent.; and 1.5 per cent, at more than 10 per cent. Those figures show that 69.4 per cent, of ex-servicemen who obtained temporary finance did so at interest rates of 8 per cent, or less; that 47 per cent, obtained loans at less that 7 per cent., and that 13.4 per cent, obtained loans at 5i per cent.
I think that Senator Sheehan’s question about what can be done to reduce the waiting time is answered by the fact that we are providing such large sums of money each year for war service homes. The sum of £35,000,000 a year is the utmost that the Government believes it can find for this purpose. The great demand for war service homes, is, of course, basically due to the fact that war service homes finance is easily the most attractive financial arrangement whereby homes may be built in Australia.
page 299
– On two occasions since the Senate began its current sittings, I have asked the Minister for Civil Aviation for a copy of a certain report. He was good enough to say that he would let me have a copy, but my trouble is that I do not know when it will be made available. I again ask him: Are we to see the report before the Easter adjournment?
– I think it is true, as the honorable senator has said, that he has asked for this report on two occasions. I think it is equally true that on the last occasion that he asked a question on the matter, he asked particularly for the early release of a section of the report which dealt with Mr. McDonald’s view of parity. I said that I would have a look at that matter. The honorable senator has hit the jackpot, because I propose to table that section of the report to-day.
page 299
– I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Trade whether Australia imports steel from other countries. If so, will the Minister advise me of the quantity, in tons, of steel imported from Japan during the last three years, and the quantity that it is estimated will be imported from Japan in 1959-60? Will he also state the quantity, in tons, of steel imported from other sources during the last three years, and the quantity that it is estimated will be imported from other sources during 1959-60?
– I shall have to ask the honorable senator to place that question on the notice-paper, because I have not the figures in my mind. We import steel only to the extent that production in Australia falls short of requirements.
page 300
– I address a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Labour and National Service. Is it a fact, as stated in the Melbourne social democratic publication “ News and Views “, that the International Labour Office committee on freedom of association has published at Geneva a report on trade union rights in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, dated 1959? What facilities are available for Australian trade unions to obtain I.L.O. reports on this and similar important matters? In view of the attempts by bodies in the U.S.S.R., which claim to be bona fide trade unions, to form associations with Australian trade unions and to exchange visits, is it not essential that Australian unions be advised, through such means as the I.L.O. publication, of the peculiar nature of unionism in the U.S.S.R. and other iron curtain countries?
– I have not seen the particular publication to which the honorable senator has referred, but I will look at it and supply an answer to his question as to what facilities are available for trade unions in Australia to obtain copies of such publications. As to whether trade unions in Soviet Russia are, in fact, bona fide trade unions or not, I can only refer the honorable senator to the recent remarks of representatives of American trade union organizations, including the Confederation of Labour. As recently as two days ago, an American trade union representative stated that, in his view, anybody who thought that trade unions in Soviet Russia were free organizations of workers was “ either naive or nuts “.
page 300
– I direct a question to the Minister for Civil Aviation. Having regard to my question and his answer with reference- to Tasman Empire Airways Limited, would he take the opportunity of referring to the “ Sydney Morning Herald “ report of 19th March attributing to the Minister for Civil Aviation in New Zealand, Mr. Mathison, a statement to the effect that DC6B aircraft had been sold to American buyers at a satisfactory price andhad, in fact, been replaced by Electras? Will the Minister ascertain,, and inform me later, whether Mr. Mathison has been: mis reported, or whether the other alternative may be right and the Minister’s own information on this point might not be up to date?
– I would be most interested to read the press statement to which the honorable senator has referred. I can only repeat what I said before, that whilst I am aware that the negotiations for the disposal of certain aircraft is at an advanced stage, I know no further than that. I shall be pleased to examine the report to which the honorable senator has referred because I am rather mystified by it.
– I direct to the Minister for Civil Aviation a question supplementary to that asked by Senator McKenna. Has the Minister seen a statement published in the Melbourne “ Sun “ to-day that while the sale of DC6B aircraft is under contemplation, they are to be called into service in New Zealand to take the place of Electras while those aircraft are being grounded and inspected?
– I have not seen that report either, but I would assume that, in the present circumstances, it is highly likely that such would be the case, and that the DC6B aircraft are being reserved, for the time being anyway,, even if negotiations for their sale have reached an advancedstage. However, I suggest that the report to which Senator Tangney has referred only confirms my own statement of the case as I understand it rather than the case that was put by Senator McKenna based on a newspaper report.
page 300
– I direct a question to the Minister representing the Prime Minister. Is there, in the Prime Minister’s Department,, a committee, which is responsible for naming streets and suburbs in Canberra? If so, will the Minister inform that committee that it is impossible to find a street or avenue in the National Capital which is named after Perth, the capital city of Western Australia which comprises one-third of this Commonwealth? While Perth Avenue- does appear on some earlymaps of the- city as a dirt track, it does not appear on the latest maps issued by the National Capital Development Commission. We Western Australians think this is a slight on tha western third of Australia, and that its capital city should be honoured in the same manner as are the capital cities of the other States- I also ask the Minister whether, in the naming of the suburbs and streets of Canberra, greater cognizance could not be taken of the work of citizens who, whilst not necessarily members of Parliament, have done so much for the advancement of the Commonwealth? I refer particularly to Sir Robert Garran whose name, to my knowledge, has not been perpetuated in the National Capital to which he devoted so much of his long life.
– There is a National Memorials Committee which comes under the control of the Minister for the Interior. The Leader of the Opposition and myself are both members of it. That committee is charged with the responsibility of considering recommendations made by the Minister for the Interior in connexion with this matter, and we recently approved the names of new suburbs in Canberra. I noticed with a great deal of interest that one of the suburbs was named after a prominent Western Australian who was not, to my recollection, a member of the Parliament. So, I think that action, procedure or policy in this matter is, generally speaking, along the lines that Senator Tangney has advocated.
page 301
asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health, upon notice -
– The Minister for Health has furnished the following reply to the honorable senator’s questions: -
page 301
asked the Minister representing the Postmaster-General, upon notice -
– The
Postmaster-General has furnished the following replies: -
page 301
asked the Minister representing the Postmaster-General, upon notice -
– The
Postmaster-General has furnished .the following replies: -
page 302
asked the Minister for Repatriation, upon notice -
– I furnish the following replies to the honorable senator’s questions: -
page 302
asked the Minister representing the Postmaster-General, upon notice -
– The Postmaster-General has furnished the following information in reply: -
page 302
– On 16th March, in reply to a question from the Leader of the Opposition, I stated that I would discuss with the Chairman of the Australian National Airlines Commission and with Ansett-A.N.A. the possibility of tabling in the Senate the agreement concerning the exchange of aircraft between the two companies. As a result of those discussions, I now lay on the table the following paper: -
Exchange of Aircraft - Agreement between The Australian National Airlines Commission (T.A.A.), Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited (A.N.A.) and Ansett Transport Industries Limited, dated 26th February, 1960.
– I move -
That the paper be printed.
I ask leave to continue my remarks at a later stage.
Leave granted; debate adjourned.
page 302
– I lay on the table the following papers: -
Colombo Plan for Co-operative Economic Development in South-East Asia - Australia’s Part - Progressive Report to 31st December, 1959.
– I move -
That the papers be printed.
I ask for leave to continue my remarks at a later stage.
Leave granted; debate adjourned.
page 302
Motion (by Senator Spooner) - by leave - agreed to -
That Senator Buttfield be granted leave of absence for one month on account of ill health.
Motion (by Senator McKenna) - by leave - agreed to -
That Senator Cooke be granted leave of absence for two months on account of absence overseas.
page 303
Senator SPOONER (New South Wales-
Vice-President of the Executive Council and Minister for National Development) - by leave - The statement that I now propose to make is one that was made by my colleague, the Minister for Defence (Mr. Townley), in another place earlier to-day. With the indulgence of the Senate, I shall read it in the terms in which Mr. Townley himself made it. It is as follows: -
Honorable members will recall that in a statement to this House, on 26th November last, I announced the Government’s decisions on the new defence programme.
These involved important and far-reaching changes in the organization and equipment policies of the services, to be carried into effect over the three-year period of the programme ending in June, 1962.
The objectives approved in November have been vigorously pursued in the past four months, and this afternoon I shall briefly survey for the information of the House the present stage of action or planning in respect of the major policy decisions announced in my previous statement.
Any statement on defence would be incomplete without reference to the strategic basis of policy. As stated last November, the new programme is designed to meet present strategic requirements. I think there will be little argument over the strategic assessments on which our defence policy is based. These accord with the best expert opinion available, both in Australia and overseas.
Briefly, we believe that because of the nuclear deterrent, the outbreak of limited or local wars is more likely than a global or full-scale war. In a country with limited resources such as Australia, which has heavy and continuing commitments for national development, the scale of the defence effort must be determined by priorities. Large sums of money must be found for the wide range of projects aimed at developing our natural resources and expanding our industrial capacity, such as the Snowy Mountains scheme, the improvement of communications and the search for oil. In addition, we must continue our immigration programme. All these measures will contribute to our long term defence strength and capability.
The money and manpower available for defence must be kept in proportion with these other demands on our resources. It is not physically practicable to prepare thoroughly for every possible contingency. We therefore give priority in our preparations to the more likely threat, and the primary aim of the defence programme is to improve the ability of our forces to act swiftly and effectively, in co-operation with allied forces, to meet limited war situations. In addition, of course, all the measures taken to improve our capability to meet limited wars also improve our preparedness for larger-scale war, even though this is not expected, and the forces we are building for participation in limited wars would form our initial contribution in the less likely event of global war.
Another fundamental feature of our national defence which is worth repeating again, because it so directly affects the composition and development of our forces, is that we base our policy on the principle of collective security. In any likely war in the foreseeable future, our interests will most likely be centred in South East Asia, which is our first line of defence. As the Prime Minister has stated: - “ Security in the area must be a collective concept . . . We cannot stand alone; therefore we stand in good company in Seato, in Anzus and in Anzam.” Through our active participation in these arrangements, and the positive role we play in them, in the developmen of joint plans and the exercising of our forces in conjunction with our allies, we are making a significant contribution not only to our own security, but to the security of other like-minded countries in the area.
I come now to the position in the three Services, and shall deal first with the Navy. The major decision announced last November was that the Fleet Air Arm should not be re-equipped when the present aircraft reach the end of their operational life in 1963. I shall briefly recall to honorable members’ minds the reasons for this decision -
The present front-line aircraft of the Fleet Air Arm will be worn out by mid-1963.
The higher-performance, more sophisticated aircraft which would replace them could not operate from the present aircraft carrier, “H.M.A.S. Melbourne”, but would require a more modern and faster carrier.
A replacement carrier of a more modern type, suitable to our requirements and within our budget, is not available from any likely source.
The construction of a new carrier could not be seriously entertained, because of considerations of cost and timing.
In any event, naval aviation is now a complex and costly enterprise, and it is extremely doubtful whether it is possible for a small navy such as the Royal Australian Navy to keep pace with modern developments in this field, without unduly prejudicing other essential defence activities.
These are compelling reasons, and there can be no doubt that in Australia’s circumstances the decision was a sound one.
I said in November that the Government was considering a number of new naval projects which might be commenced in this programme. These included the possible introduction of a submarine force, guided weapon destroyers, modern minesweepers, and other proposals. In view of the complexity and great cost of such units, the Government requires the fullest information before reaching decisions. The Chief of the Naval Staff, with an expert team, has just recently completed a searching investigation in the United Kingdom and the United States of America into all relevant aspects. This will form the basis of proposals for a new Navy programme which, when completed and submitted, will be considered by the Government. An announcement will be made when decisions are reached.
In the meantime, work is proceeding on the construction of four new type anti-submarine frigates in Australian shipyards, two of which will come into service in the present programme. During this period, the carrier and its aircraft will continue in full service in the operational fleet, which also comprises three Daring class ships, two Battle class destroyers, three fast antisubmarine frigates, training and survey ships and miscellaneous small craft. This is a modern and effective naval force, readily available, and, with its emphasis on anti-submarine capability, well suited to meet our present strategic requirements.
I now turn to the Army, and would like to re-state, quite briefly, the main considerations underlying our current policy. As I have said earlier, the type of hostilities assessed as most likely to-day are limited or local wars. These call for quick action by ourselves and our allies, both to prevent such hostilities spreading into a larger conflict, and so that an enemy might not be tempted to think that quick gains could be made, because we lacked the means for an immediate response. In the present strategic situation, therefore, the primary aim must be to provide forces which, by virtue of their training, their equipment, and the means of mobility which they possess, can be made rapidly available for operations. This applies in the first instance to the Regular Forces, which must provide the immediate contribution. But the Citizen Military Forces also, to play an effective part in modern war, must be much more quickly available for operations and better equipped than in the past.
Honorable members will be aware that the national service training scheme was introduced at a time when the strategic situation was very different from that existing to-day. Global war then appeared far more likely than it does now. The scheme played an important part in our defence preparedness, and has provided a pool of some 200,000 men with basic training. It has outlived its military usefulness in present strategic circumstances, and for the reasons which I explained fully in my statement last November, the development of a modern army has required the discontinuance of national service training. The scheme made demands on the man-power, the money and the administrative effort of the Regular Army which prejudiced the building up of the regular combat units and the purchase of modern equipment. Further, the intermingling of national servicemen, who are not liable for overseas service, with volunteer Citizen Military Force members, prevented the ready availability of the C.M.F. as a fighting force in an emergency.
As I announced last November, our objective for the Regular Army is to increase the strength and effectiveness of the combat elements, while reducing the strength of the command, training and administrative organization. This is to be done by -
Increasing the strength of the field force;
Re-organizing it to improve its tactical flexibility in operations;
Raising a logistic support force;
Improving mobility by providing light aircraft, both fixed and rotary wing, and amphibious watercraft.
Providing additional types of modern equipment.
The effect of these moves will be greatly to increase the efficiency of the Army, and, particularly, to improve the ratio of combat to support troops. The strength of the operational forces in the Regular Army will be increased by 33 per cent., with a corresponding reduction in the administrative support forces. When it is recalled that these support forces, in addition to administering the regular forces, perform the same function for the C.M.F. and Cadet Corps, this represents a very satisfactory development.
Insofar as the C.M.F. is concerned, the objective is to raise a C.M.F. of 30,000, all volunteers, with considerably improved availability and operational effectiveness. They will be provided with modern types of equipment for their training, which will be integrated as far as practicable with that of the regular units.
Those responsible for defence preparations are sometimes accused of planning to fight the last war. I think there will be little dissent from the view that our current Army planning and preparations have moved with the times, and that our policy is firmly and correctly based on the real needs of the strategic situation which confronts us to-day.
I would like at this stage to give honorable members a brief outline of the framework of the new Army. The operational units of the Army, both Australian Regular Army and C.M.F., are to be organized on the new pentropic basis. This is designed to increase the efficiency of the Army in conditions of modern war, particularly tropical warfare, which calls for flexibility, mobility and the capacity to disperse and regroup rapidly. A pentropic division contains five strong battle groups. The core of each battle group is an enlarged infantry battalion, to which may be added supporting combat arms and services to enable it to operate independently. The battle group is in effect intermediate in strength between the former battalion and brigade groups.
The field force of the new Army will comprise two pentropic divisions. The first of these will be made up of two regular battle groups and three C.M.F. battle groups, while the second division will comprise five C.M.F. battle groups - that is, a total of eight C.M.F. and two regular battle groups in the two divisions. In addition, one regular battalion group will continue to be stationed in Malaya as part of the Commonwealth Strategic Reserve.
Of the eight C.M.F. battle groups, two will be raised in Queensland, two in New South Wales, two in Victoria, one each in South Australia and Western Australia, and, in addition, Tasmania will contribute a reduced battle group. Within each State, the battalions will be affiliated with a State regiment. Her Majesty has graciously bestowed the Royal Title on each of these regiments - for example, Royal Queensland Regiment, Royal New South Wales Regiment, and similarly for the other States.
A strong and modern Army will be built within this framework, in which the present under-strength C.M.F. units will be re-grouped in cohesive and effective battle formations, to enable them to fulfil their roles of providing follow-up forces to the regular units. This has involved a process of merging and concentration of existing C.M.F. units. Such re-grouping of formations is not new, but what is significant in the present reorganization is its scale, embracing as it does units throughout Australia. This has required a vast amount of investigation and detailed planning, from conferences of senior commanders right down to unit level. I wish to emphasize that there has been nothing arbitrary in this process. A careful and patient study has been made of every C.M.F. centre and its potential, taking into account the present volunteer strength, the number of young men of appropriate age in the district, and other relevant factors. This has frequently involved consultation with C.M.F. unit commanders and local authorities by C.M.F. area commanders. The senior C.M.F. representative in each command has been fully consulted in all cases. The final decision to close or retain a depot has only been given by the Minister for the Army after carefully weighing all factors. The Government- has naturally been reluctant to take any action to the possible detriment of its objective of building a strong and efficient C.M.F. by voluntary enlistment, but on the other hand the use of regular personnel and the expenditure of money, in keeping open uneconomic training depots, could not be allowed to prejudice other aspects of the re-organization. Of a present total of 292 C.M.F. training depots throughout Australia, 54 will be closed and 238 will still: be retained.
I emphasize - and this is important - that no volunteers, either officers or other ranks, will be retired or retrenched from the C.M.F. as a result of these decisions. On the contrary it is the Government’s firm policy to encourage all existing volunteers to continue their service in the nearest unit or sub-unit. Special conditions of attendance at parades and’ annual camps are being devised for this purpose, and will be announced by the Minister for the Army. Likewise, no volunteer for C.M.F. service will be prevented from enlist1ment because some centres have been closed, and the Government will conduct a vigorous recruiting campaign to attract’ new volunteers. Present C.M.F. officers’ for whom regimental or staff appointments in, formed units cannot be found immediately may continue on the active list and be eligible to serve on staff groups which are being expanded. These groups will provide training in both command and staff duties and contribute greatly towards our basis for expansion in the event of war. It will be of interest to honorable members to know that the establishment of the field force - that is the two pentropic divisions - provides for 28 senior- officer appointments of the rank of colonel and above. Of this 28, eight will be Regular Army officers, and twenty will be provided by the C.M.F. This should indicate that opportunities will remain for advancement of C.M.F. officers to the higher ranks.
I would also like to emphasize that the honours and traditions of the units and formations of the Australian Army will not be lost as a result of the re-organization. My colleague, the Minister for the Army, has in hand arrangements for maintaining, as far as possible, territorial and other affiliations and unit identity within the framework of each State regiment. The C.M.F. commanders are being fully consulted on this question.
The present strength of the volunteer C.M.F. is 21,000 against the target of 30,000 to be achieved by the end of the programme. My statements will leave no doubt as to the importance which the Government attaches to building and maintaining a strong and efficient volunteer citizen military force.
With this objective in mind, the Government has made two new and, I think, very important policy decisions -
First, it has approved of increases in pay to the Citizen Military Forces which will bring them into line with the increased rates of pay and allowances recently granted to the Regular Forces. Details will be announced at an early date.
Secondly, the Government has decided” that Commonwealth, public servants who serve in the Citizen Military Forces will be given leave with full pay for the period of annual continuous training and also for the period of one school class or course of instruction each year. At present, Commonwealth public servants serving in the Citizen Military Forces are granted leave and receive the difference between their Service pay and their civil pay. The Government hopes that its practical encouragement of enlistment in the Citizen Military Forces will be widely followed by other employers.
Future training of C.M.F. units in realistic battle methods on an integrated basis with the regular forces, and with new weapons, will provide far greater interest than ever before. An example of this integrated training recently came to my own notice in Tasmania, when a party of C.M.F. field engineers was flown to the Army engineering school at Liverpool for a special course. This is merely one illustration of the extensive programme of integrated Regular Army - C.M.F. training which is being carried out in all Commands. There will be increasing emphasis on such activities, which will do much to stimulate the interest and improve the military knowledge of C.M.F. personnel. My colleague, the Minister for the Army, will give further details.
We are confident that the measures being taken to modernize and strengthen the Army, and to make C.M.F. service up to date and attractive, will result in the achievement of our target figures.
Steady progress is being achieved in the objectives approved for the Army, but the reorganization must be phased and timings related to the cessation of the National Service Training Scheme: on 30th June, 1960. Reductions in headquarters, training’ and administrative units, and re-allotment of personnel to operational units, are already taking place, and will be accelerated after 30th June.
I have already announced the effects of the streamlining of the re-organization on the higher rank structure of the A.R.A. At the top level, this has involved the reduction of the General Officer Commanding, Southern Command, from a lieutenant-general to a major-general’s appointment; Western and Central Commands will be brigadiers instead of major-generals; Tasmania Command will have a colonel instead of a brigadier.
The magnitude of the task of Army reorganization should be understood. It involves a major problem of man-management and, I emphasize, human relations affecting a great number of soldiers. The re-equipment of the Army, on which the expenditure of some £30,000,000 has been planned for the three years of the new programme, is one of the major objectives of the re-organization. The following are proceeding satisfactorily, as I shall show: -
The Regular field force has been equipped ahead of schedule, with the Australian-made F.N. rifle, and general issues to the C.M.F. will commence in July of this year.
Equipment of the Regular Artillery component with 105-mm. howitzers is expected to be completed by July of this year.
A complete new range of field wireless sets, for both A.R.A. and C.M.F. use, has been received.
Two landing ships medium, purchased from the United States, have already arrived in Australia from Japan, and two more are expected shortly. A landing craft mechanized has been ordered from the United States for comparative trials with two similar craft now under construction in Australian shipyards.
Orders have been placed for a new United States general purpose machine gun and a new United States recoilless rifle.
Quantities of other modern weapons, ammunition, armoured vehicles and equipment are being received or are on order.
I stated in November that as many as possible of the Regular Army personnel affected by reductions in head-quarters, training and administrative units would be absorbed in other postings. It must be recognized however that there will be a number of Regular personnel, who for reasons of rank, age or qualifications, cannot be suitably placed. The number is expected to be of the order of 1,600 to 1,700. No serving member wilt be retrenched if a worth-while job can be found for him in the Army. This aspect of the re-organization is the subject of the most detailed and sympathetic examination, and a committee under the chairmanship of Sir John Allison is reviewing the question of the retirement benefits to apply to personnel retrenched as a result of the re-organization. In addition, the facilities of the Services Re-settlement Scheme will be available in locating suitable employment opportunities for such personnel in civilian life.
The Air Force programme is proceeding smoothly and according to plan. Satisfactory progress is being achieved in all the main decisions announced in November.
The order for the purchase of twelve P2V7 Neptune maritime reconnaissance aircraft, to rearm the present Lincoln Squadron, has been placed. An initial provisioning team to purchase the aircraft and its ancillary equipment is at present in the United States. The re-equipped squadron will be located at Townsville, the north Queensland base. We already have a very useful arrangement under which Neptunes of the Royal Australian Air Force undertake a regular exchange of training exercises with Neptunes of the United States Navy based on Honolulu.
A strong technical team from the Bristol and associated companies visited Australia last month to confer on details of the purchase of a Bristol Bloodhound Mark I. surface-to-air guided weapons unit. The technical details of the equipment have now been determined, and an initial provisioning team has left for the United Kingdom. Very satisfactory arrangements have been made for the training of R.A.A.F. personnel and their participation in practice firings of this weapon, both in the United Kingdom and at Woomera.
As regards the purchase of helicopters for joint Army/ Air Force use, an evaluation of types is proceeding, which should be completed about the middle of this year, when an order will be placed.
Three Citizen Air Force squadrons - those at Sydney, Brisbane and Adelaide - assumed their new ground role at the beginning of this month. The remaining two - at Melbourne and Perth - will be re-organized within the next couple of months.
With the Permanent Air Force element released by the changed role of the Citizen Air Force squadrons, it has been possible to establish the fourth permanent fighter squadron. This was formed at Williamtown early in January. As stated previously, this extra squadron will facilitate rotational replacement of the personnel in the two fighter squadrons stationed at Malaya.
The re-arming with the Sidewinder air-to-air missile of the two Sabre squadrons in Malaya has been completed.
The present strength of the R.A.A.F. is 15,721 against a target figure for 30th June of 15,750.
The House is aware that it has been decided to re-equip the R.A.A.F. with a new fighter aircraft, and that provision has been made in the latter part of the programme period for commencement of the acquisition of the new aircraft. We are interested in a number of possible types, some of which have not yet reached a sufficient stage of initial proving or development to enable us to make a final selection. The Air Board has kept in the closest touch, through our overseas staffs, with the companies concerned, and is completely abreast of all technical data available at this stage on characteristics and performance. As I have stated on previous occasions, we are not prepared to gamble on such a costly project, which will affect the relative effectiveness of the Royal Australian Air Force for many years to come. But a choice will be made as soon as the Government is in a position to do so, with confidence that it has all the necessary information on possible types and their suitability for our operational requirements.
It will be apparent from all I have said that a major objective of the Government’s defence policy is to provide our forces with the most modern conventional weapons and equipment available. This has been a continuing process throughout this Government’s period of office, and I shall mention a few facts briefly to show the considerable build-up in the material resources of the Services during the last ten years. The highest expenditure on capital equipment has been for the Air Force; 540 aircraft have been delivered, 400 of them from Australian production. As I have already indicated, an effective force has been provided for the Navy, comprising a carrier and its aircraft, Daring class ships, destroyers, anti-submarine frigates and other craft. Australian shipyards have contributed substantially to the provision of this fleet. A wide range of equipment has been provided for the Army during this period, including tanks, literally hundreds of armoured and other vehicles, communications and engineering equipment, weapons and ammunition.
Modern defence is a very costly business. In addition to the large sums required for new arms, equipment and works, an inescapable expenditure of considerable proportions is necessary for the pay of the forces, their food and clothing, accommodation, and the procurement of maintenance equipment and stores, oil and fuel, and so on. Since 1950-51, some £560,000,000, or 36 per cent., of the total Defence expenditure has been spent on equipment and its maintenance; buildings and works and their maintenance have absorbed £176,000,000, or 11 per cent.; and £839,000,000, or 53 per cent., has been required for pay and allowances of personnel and general services.
All these costs are the price of national security and adequate defence preparedness. Within the lifetime of this Government, defence contributions have been required on a number of occasions on which our preparedness has been tested, and we have been able successfully to meet our commitments. To illustrate, I mention Korea, where we were among the first to answer the call of the United Nations. Also our contribution to the Commonwealth Strategic Reserve in Malaya, in which our forces play a notable part in the anti-terrorist operations, at the request of the Federation Government, and in adding to the security of the area.
In conclusion, honorable members will be aware that £192,800,000 has been provided for the defence vote this financial year. The aim of the defence changes which have been announced is to make the best use of our defence resources. The level of defence necessary to provide for our national security and meet our international obligations must be achieved as efficiently and economically as possible. This requires two things: first, that we keep very clearly in mind the target of providing fighting forces which could deal with situations which might currently threaten us, and secondly, that we eliminate unessential elements which do not contribute directly to this aim.
It would be a mistake to retain a form of organization adapted to a need which has now changed. This has applied particularly to the Army, and the object of the changes which are being introduced is to ensure that the Army as as whole, both the A.R.A. and the C.M.F., is organized, equipped and trained to discharge its role efficiently. All that is being done is designed to this end.
I lay on the table the following paper: -
Defence Review - Ministerial Statement, 29th March, 1960- and move -
That the paper be printed.
Debate (on motion by Senator McKenna) adjourned.
page 307
Bill received from the House of Representatives.
Standing Orders suspended.
Bill (on motion by Senator Paltridge) read a first time.
– I move -
That the bill be now read a second time.
By this bill, it is proposed to extend for a period of one year the term of office of the Commissioner of Taxation, Sir Patrick McGovern. Sir Patrick was first appointed Commissioner of Taxation on 6th May, 1946, for a term of seven years. He was re-appointed for a further term from 6th May, 1953.
Section 5 of the Taxation Administration Act provides that where a person appointed as Commissioner of Taxation is over the age of 58 years at the date of his appointment or re-appointment, as the case may be, his term shall end on the date on which he attains the age of 65 years. Sir Patrick will attain the age of 65 years on 3rd April, 1960, and his present term of office will accordingly come to an end on that date.
The Senate will recall that the Government recently appointed a committee to investigate the taxation laws. This committee is at the beginning of its deliberations and will be looking to the taxation administration for information and other assistance on the matters coming before it. Tn view of his long experience in this field, it is highly desirable that Sir Patrick McGovern should be available for these purposes.
It will also be recalled that, following a review of the taxation administration made by the Government last year, it was decided that the increase in the volume and complexity of administrative duties which has occurred over recent years necessitated some spreading of the load and an additional statutory office of Second Commissioner was created to provide this relief. To ensure the full benefit of this additional office, a major re-organization of administrative functions has been necessary and this will take some time to fully settle down. In these circumstances, it would be inconvenient to have a change in the top administration at this stage. Sir Patrick is willing to continue in office for a period of twelve months and it is considered to be in the interests of the Commonwealth that his period of appointment should be extended accordingly. I commend the bill to honorable senators.
Debate (on motion by Senator McKenna) adjourned.
page 308
Bill received from the House of Representatives.
Standing Orders suspended.
Bill (on motion by Senator Gorton) read a first time.
– I move -
That the bill be now read a second time.
The purpose of this bill is to amend the Wheat Industry Stabilization Act 1958 to provide for the appointment to the Australian Wheat Board of an additional member representing Queensland wheat-growers. Section 7 of the current act, which constitutes the Australian Wheat Board, provides that each mainland State, with the exception of Queensland, shall have two grower representatives on the board. Queensland, which has a relatively small, though valuable, wheat industry, has only one grower member. Following representations from the Queensland Minister for Agriculture and Stock and the Australian Wheat Growers Federation supporting additional Queensland grower representation on the Wheat Board, provision was made in the 1958 act for the appointment of an alternate member for Queensland, who could attend any meeting of the board at which the member concerned should be unable to be present.
However, this form of representation has been found to be not entirely satisfactory since it has placed considerable strain on the single member to attend frequent meetings of the board and carry out other functions concerned with his membership while, at the same time, it has been difficult for the alternate member, by virtue of infrequent attendance at meetings, to obtain a well-balanced knowledge of the board’s business. The Australian Agricultural Council and the Australian Wheat Growers Federation have indicated their support for an additional full-time grower member for Queensland in lieu of the present alternate member. This measure will assist the efficient operation of the Australian Wheat Board and it will give appropriate recognition to the growing importance of Queensland as a State now producing in a normal season a substantial quantity of premium quality wheat for export. I commend the bill to honorable senators.
Debate (on motion by Senator Benn) adjourned.
page 308
Debate resumed from 9th March (vide page 29), on motion by Senator McCallum -
That the following paper: -
Air Agreements with Italy and France - Ministerial Statement - be printed.
– I moved that this paper be printed in order to give the Senate an opportunity to discuss a very important matter. I think that we discuss papers such as this - and possibly read them - too seldom. These are particularly important agreements, although, of course, as the Minister for Civil Aviation (Senator Paltridge) indicated, the final agreements have not yet been drawn up and signed. However, agreement has been arrived at between the respective governments on essential points.
What I say at the beginning will be largely a re-statement of what the Minister told honorable senators on Wednesday, 9th March. It is recorded in “Hansard” of that date at page 28. I shall dwell briefly again on the main features. These are permanent air agreements which will be finally formalized between Italy and Australia and between France and Australia. It should give honorable senators great satisfaction on many grounds that these agreements have been made. One of the results of the second agreement may be actually coming into force as I speak because the Minister told me that the services between Sydney and Noumea would be resumed by the end of this month.
I shall refer first to the Italian agreement, which is less definite than the other because, an honorable senators are aware, up to date there has been no regular service by Italian aircraft between Australia and Italy. It happens that the Italian airline has not yet made final arrangements, but the point is that there has been complete amity and unity of aims between our Minister for Civil Aviation and the corresponding Italian Minister. I should like to recall - because matters of sentiment and feeling between countries do count, particularly in these troubled times - that it is now 100 years since the foundation of the kingdom of Italy, now the Republic of Italy. It was in 1859 that the northern part of Italy was united to the strong small state of Piedmont, sometimes called Sardinia. The union was brought about through the help and agency of the French Empire under Napoleon III. without any direct intervention by Great Britain, but with the full, friendly support of the British public and the British Government of the day. National feeling on the continent of Europe, which at that time was arising and re-shaping States, had the fullest sympathy from the majority of people in the British Empire, particularly of the people of Australia, because that was a time, about eight years after the great gold discoveries, when Australians were beginning to consider themselves a separate people. When we find such names as Solferino bestowed on an Australian town, we realize that the people of that time were in full sympathy with the movement. lt was in 1860, the following year, after the great adventures of Garibaldi, that the southern parts of Italy, the Kingdoms of Naples and Sicily, were united. I think it is a happy augury that now, 100 years later, we are coming to this agreement with Italy. I think I can say, Sir, that with the exception of the period of the Fascist regime in Italy and the consequences that flowed from it, relations between Australia and Italy have always been good. We have here many thousands of citizens whose forebears came from Italy and many thousands who themselves came from Italy. We have all benefited from Italy’s pre-eminence in some of the arts. In music, she has perhaps only one or two rivals in all the nations of the earth. She is also prominent in art and in other forms of culture. Therefore, I welcome most heartily this agreement which, as I have said, is not as fully detailed in the Minister’s statement as is the second agreement. I wish to congratulate Senator Giovanni Bovetti, the Italian Minister in Charge of Civil Aviation, and also Senator Paltridge, our own Minister for Civil Aviation.
I did not know, until the Minister made his statement, that this was our first definite air agreement with France. It is true that for some yeaTS, under a provisional arrangement which was meant to be temporary and to be superseded by a more carefully thought out agreement, the aeroplanes of T.A.I, had a permit to land at Brisbane and Darwin only. That is a matter that has always engaged my attention. I have always thought that it was rather a meagre allowance to make to a great and friendly nation. I did not know what lay behind it, but I have had many conversations with the Minister and with others, and I think I fully understand it at last. An announcement was made last year by an official - not by the Minister - that it had been impossible to negotiate a permanent agreement. The arrangement under which the aeroplanes were allowed to land at Darwin and Brisbane had lapsed, and consequently we would have had no communication, by means of the French line or our own line, with New Caledonia, one of our nearest neighbours and one which I think we can understand much more easily than we can some of our other neighbours.
The press announcement regarding the statement to which I have referred rather gave the impression that agreement was impossible because of the conflicting interests of Qantas Empire Airways
Limited, and the French line, T.A.I. I felt, as I think many citizens felt, that this was not the only, and possibly not the most important, point to be considered. At any rate, that failure to reach an understanding did not last for long. I think it is greatly to the credit of the Minister that he did not despair but immediately proceeded to reopen negotiations. After he had so successfully made agreements at Rome, he went on to Paris, and as a result of his visit we have this paper that has been placed before us. Within a few months we will have completely formalized agreements.
I welcome the outcome, for a number of reasons. First, I think it is good to have this arrangement with the French Republic because, from the point of view of trade, France is to us one of the most valuable countries. I am convinced that, despite the new arrangements that are coming about as a result of the European free trade organization, France will be an even better customer for our wool than she has been in the past. We may suffer some little adversity in respect of other commodities, but I doubt even that, because I feel that the greatly enhanced standard of living and the greatly improved buying capacity of France under the new free trade arrangements will benefit our trade as well as that of other countries.
Secondly, I welcome it because of the strength it will give to what we commonly call the West and sometimes the Free World, that is, those nations which are outside the orbit of either Russia or Communist China and which, I think in their own interests, must remain friends permanently. Thirdly, even if there were no hostility between the West and other countries, it is good for the peace and goodwill of the whole world that these agreements should be made.
I have referred to our association with Italy and to the good relations between our countries. Last week, I gave a little talk on our relations with France. I shall be somewhat more brief on that aspect to-day, but I shall give some indication of the relations between our countries. As a matter of fact, when I spoke last week I think I gave the impression that our good relations with France more or less arose out of the First World War, but of course they go back to the very foundation of our history. As you know, Sir, La Perouse was in Botany Bay at the same time as Governor Phillip. They met on very friendly and amicable terms. A great deal of our coast was explored by French navigators. La Perouse, Baudin and D’Entrecasteaux come to mind, and there were several others. They explored much of our southern coastline and also part of the coast of Tasmania.
I want to refer - I hope that honorable senators will not regard it as a diversion, or, if they do, that they will regard it as a pleasant one - to a very unfortunate impression that has grown up. I was taught in my youth - it got into many of our history books - that our great navigator Flinders was very badly treated by the French. It used to be alleged, and it is to be found even in the Cambridge history, that the French stole his charts, put French names on them and pretended that French explorers had discovered the places that he had discovered. One of our great historians, Professor Sir Ernest Scott, who was Professor of History at Melbourne University for many years, wrote “ The Life of Matthew Flinders, R.N.”. In a book called “La Terre Napoleon “, which is a history of French exploration in the south, the author completely exploded the myth of French illtreatment of Flinders, although he did not set out to do so. His intention was merely to look up the sources and write a history of exploration of the Australian coast. He said that there was not the slightest foundation for any of the statements that had been made about French ill-treatment of Flinders. I shall not go into this matter at great length, but shall simply say that it is quite untrue that there was any real ground for ill-feeling between the French and the British.
Perhaps I may recount briefly this little episode in Flinders’s life. Flinders, one of the greatest men that this country has known, a magnificent navigator and a man of heroic stature, had obtained from the French Government, then under Napoleon, who was, I think, First Consul at the time, a permit to go on a voyage of investigation. Though Flinders was a British naval officer, he was not to be treated as an enemy, whatever the state of relations between France and Britain happened to be at the time. The permit was given for a ship called the “ Investigator “, a most seaworthy ship. When Flinders arrived in Sydney, after a long and arduous voyage around the coast, the “ Investigator “ was not in a fit condition to take him back to England. He embarked on a ship called the “ Porpoise “ which was wrecked. He went back to Sydney, a distance of 700 miles, with some of his crew in an open boat. He got a schooner of 29 tons and set off to take his charts back to England. When he approached the He de France, which is now Mauritius, but was then French territory, he needed water and landed and showed his permit. The governor, Decaen, was a general and possibly was not particularly favorably disposed to British naval officers.
When Flinders sailed from Sydney, incidentally, he did not know that the war between the Emperor Napoleon and the British Government had broken out again, but the Governor of He de France knew the position. He interrogated Flinders and asked him why he was in such a small ship which was obviously unfitted for the service u-on which he had embarked. He also asked why the permit specifically named another ship. Flinders became antagonistic and when the governor - or, according to one account, his wife - invited him to dinner, Flinders, in a hot temper, refused. As a result of that unfortunate experience, Flinders suffered six and a half years in prison. If it was the result of malice - and according to Scott it was not - it was the malice of one person only and not of the French people.
I think that that is the only time in the history of Australia that there has been any reason for believing French hostility to this country existed. Apart from that, as honorable senators know, we have benefited from the small number of French citizens who have been here. Some will say that the founder of our great school of landscape painting was Tom Roberts, or some one else, but many people give the credit to Louis Bouvelot, a French-speaking Swiss, who really introduced us to a new French style of landscape painting. Certainly, whether Bouvelot was the founder or not, our student artists who have painted in Paris have derived a great deal from the Paris schools and particularly from the impressionists, one of the greatest French schools.
I now come back to the actual agreement. It was signed by the two Ministers, on 24th February, 1960, after various attempts at bargaining had broken down in Sydney. When the agreements are finally through the formalities, they will stipulate that the French airline will have the right to land in Sydney on the world flight from Paris, and in addition there will be a separate route from Tahiti to Sydney. The Australian airline, Qantas, will have the right to fly aircraft via India, through Paris, with the right to land in Paris, or Marseilles, as it prefers, on the way to London. It will have the right to fly through New Caledonia and the New Hebrides to the British Solomons and New Guinea, and through Tahiti to North America and London. There is provision also for Australian and French services to Australia and via Tahiti to South America, but that is still in the future. It is only a provision for something which has not yet developed.
The immediate result is that air services are being resumed by both lines between Australia and New Caledonia; and from now on the French line will have the right to go from Sydney and not only from Brisbane. That means the French airline will have the additional right to use our leading airport.
I wish, therefore, to congratulate M. Robert Buron, the French Minister for Transport and Public Works, and our own Minister for Civil Aviation also, for the assiduity, tenacity and tireless industry each of them has shown. We should all welcome both agreements, because of the goodwill that will be engendered, the increased opportunities that will be provided for trade and commerce between us and two great European countries, and because of the possible effect these things will have in bringing good types of immigrants to Australia.
– The Senate is indebted to the Minister for Civil Aviation (Senator Paltridge) for the statement he made on 9th March after the conclusion of the two agreements to which Senator McCallum has addressed himself. In the mad world of these days, it is a good thing to see nations coming together to facilitate international communication, to promote trade and generally to bring the people of different nations together. From the viewpoint of air services also, it is desirable that there should be a choice available to air travellers which will ensure that the competition that will flow from the entry into this country of overseas airlines will stimulate our own services to greater energy. One might reasonably expect a better standard of service all round and a reduction of fares.
Senator Mccallum has reviewed the changes that have been made. The Ministec dealt with them very amply and there is no need for me to advert to them. 1 think I am correct in saying that the agreement does not effect any actual change in what has happened up to date. As I understand it, Queensland and Northern Territories Aerial Services has been making very regular weekly trips through Rome to London, and. no Italian airline has been coming to Australia. As I understand the Minister’s statement, that position has now been, regularized on the basis that while Qantas continues its present activities, the Italians are conceded the right to establish an air link with Australia. The nature of it has not been disclosed in the Minister’s statement; and if he is replying to the debate, he might give us some indication of what the Italians contemplate.
I point out to the Senate that we are at a disadvantage, since the Minister has given us particulars, of the agreements only in the broadest terms. We have no real particulars, and I invite him to say at some stage what is contemplated in relation, to the agreements. Will they presently, after his initialling them with his opposite numbers, in; Italy and France, be ratified, on a government to government basis as a purely executive act between governments? It that is done, is it proposed that the agreements should: be ratified by the Parliament? If they are not to be ratified by the Parliament, will the full text of the agreements be made available at any stage by the Minister? I see no particular act of the Parliament authorizing the entry into these particular agreements. I do not think that any such act is strictly required to enable the Government to enter into such a treaty on a government to government basis; but having regard to the importance of airlines, the success of our own overseas activity and the general air-mindedness of Aus tralians at large, I think it would be appreciated if the Minister would state what is contemplated - whether it is to be merely an executive act or whether we shall have parliamentary ratification and whether, in every case, we shall have full details of the agreements. It appears to me that the position with France has progressed substantially. Whereas we have hitherto had a limited- and. only provisional arrangement with. France, that is now to be translated into an agreement upon a permanent base: The Minister save us only the broadest outline of the activities that Wi be undertaken by France. I do not think he told us whether French aircraft will land in Australia-, but I assume that that detail will be included in the agreement. Senator McCallum referred to the fact that under the provisional agreement, which was operative to the- end of last year, the French had the right to land only in Brisbane and Darwin. How much further than that does the new agreement go?
The Minister said that these agreements will be permanent, but I put it to him that surely they will be terminable under certain conditions. Presumably if either France or Italy were to deny us rights conceded by the agreements-, Australia would have the right to suspend’ the agreement with the offending nation. It may well be that, unilaterally, after a certain time one of the parties to an agreement will suspend it. I should like the Minister to give, if he is able to do so, some details of the agreements, particularly the conditions under which they may be terminated.
Again I say that I welcome the conclusion, on a firm base, of arrangements with two more countries that will enable our overseas airline to enter those countries freely, with corresponding concessions in Australia being granted to them. One faces the position quite frankly that we cannot expect to enjoy air rights over other countries without making some corresponding concessions in our own country. I do not know whether other speakers are to continue the debate, but I hope that if the debate is to end now the Minister will be in a position to add something to- what he has already stated.
– I should like, first, to congratulate the various Ministers concerned on coming to these agreements, whereby, direct, air. travel can be arranged between Australia, and France and Australia and Italy. Only by provisional arrangement has it been, possible hitherto for us. to transport, passengers, by air into or through those countries and: use their facilities.
I shall deal first with the agreement with the French. The main point is that the French give to Australia permission to land at Tahiti,, en route to France, and, permission also- to land at Marseilles, en. route to London, or to terminate a service at Paris. Qantas Empire Airways Limited, will be able to provide a service from Sydney, through Fiji, Tahiti, Honolulu, San Francisco,, and New York, to London, connecting with the Kangaroo route service from Sydney to London, via India and the Middle East. This will mean that Tahiti will be served by Qantas. Empire Airways Limited on a round-the-world route.
Aircraft of French and- American aitlines will cross the Pacific to Australia, landing at Tahiti. As Tahiti is a very important tourist resort, trans-Pacific travellers will be inclined to call there rather than to go from Honolulu, to Fiji, missing Tahiti.. In the absence of an agreement with’ France, competing air services to the South Pacific area would naturally get the major portion of this tourist trade. I understand that the French Government is now building at Tahiti a modern tourist hotel and an aerodrome to take the latest jet-propelled aircraft. I think that in future people coming across the Pacific to Australia will take advantage of the opportunity of having a spell at Tahiti because of its- many tourist attractions. The island itself is about 33 miles long and 15 miles wide and has a population of some 30,000 people. It is attracting large numbers of tourists not only from Europe but also from America; and in future many more people from those countries will spend holidays there. It will be our ambition to encourage those people to come to Australia also and this agreement with France will provide the opportunity.
The agreement provides that Qantas aircraft may land at Marseilles en route to London or terminate a service at Paris. There are thus alternatives. This matter has yet to be examined by the various de partments concerned and I understand; that the Minister will at some- later date decide, at which point the aircraft, will land. We have- not the opportunity of landing at both Marseilles and Paris but will have to elect, whether to land at Marseilles and continue to London or to terminate at Paris without landing at Marseilles.
A third, consideration is that Qantas aircraft will be able to call at New Caledonia and. use the- facilities that are provided, there. The French have now given us the right to travel from Sydney, New Guinea, New Britain, Bougainville, the British Solomons and the New Hebrides, to New Caledonia, and back to Sydney, thus making a complete circuit of the outer perimeter of Australia’. That is of value and importance to Australia. Those honorable senators who remember the last war will remember the attack that was made through that area by the Japanese; and 1 believe it is of the utmost importance that Australian airline companies should be able to make a circuit of the area. It is between 2,000 and 3,000 miles north-east of Australia. It is important to the- defence of Australia that we have the right to make that circuit. If we did not have the present arrangements we would be able to travel only half-way in one direction and half-way in the other. As I have said,, we are now able to make a complete circuit of the area.
From the long-term point of view the importance of Tahiti in the Pacific area network is that it will give us access to South America. Under the agreement with the French, Australia is to have a claim to serve Chile. It should be remembered also that Tahiti is on a direct line across the Pacific to Europe through Mexico. A direct line drawn across the map from Sydney to London passes through Tahiti and Mexico. Those are the main advantages accruing to Australia under the agreement. I understand that in return we are to give the French the right to land their aircraft in Sydney so many times a week. Further, the previous agreement could be terminated immediately. I understand that it was not necessary to give even a month’s notice of intention to terminate the agreement. The present agreement is to be permanent. That will mean that our airline companies will know exactly where they stand and can proceed with their plans for developing air travel from Europe through America to Australia. That traffic is already increasing. In return, the French are to enjoy the right to a round-the-world trip to Sydney together with the right to travel from Tahiti to Sydney once a week.
The Italian agreement is also extremely valuable. At the moment, all services to London on the “ Kangaroo “ route pass through Rome, which, next to London, is probably the most important traffic point in Europe. At the present time there is a service three times a week, but the agreement is only temporary. Under the new agreement, we have the confirmed permanent right to land at Rome. This is of extreme commercial value to Qantas. Under the new agreement there will be a service three times a week from Sydney, through the Middle East and Rome to London. In return, we give the Italians the right to travel through the Middle East to Sydney. The number of such services to land at Sydney has yet to be determined. I understand that the Italian airlines will be competing in the traffic from Italy to Australia with the DC8 jet aircraft and that the service will be introduced in the near future.
Both these agreements are satisfactory commercially to Qantas. They are certainly satisfactory to the Government in that they make possible the establishment of permanent air services between Australia and Italy and between Australia and France. I understand that the previous agreements with Italy were for twelve months only and that they could be cancelled upon one side or the other giving twelve months notice. Now the agreement is to be permanent and we shall know where we stand so far as Italy is concerned. I am confident that these agreements will promote friendship between the nations concerned, that they will help to increase trade and that they will do much towards increasing tourist trade which is so vital to the economic development of Australia.
The development in airfields and aircraft has been rapid over the last decade. Whereas ten years ago we were travelling at speeds of approximately 150 miles an hour and 220 miles an hour in DC3 and DC4 aircraft, to-day we travel by jet aircraft at speeds ranging from 500 to 600 miles an hour. We can confidently expect to travel throughout the world at speeds in excess of 1,000 miles an hour and at heights of up to 50,000 and 60,000 feet within the next ten years. Some idea of the rapid growth of the airline industry may be gained from an examination of statistics relating to distances flown. For instance, in Australia some 63,000,000 kilometres were travelled by aircraft in 1948; and the distance traversed in 1957, some nine years later, had increased to 90,000,000 kilometres. The distance travelled in India increased from 20,000,000 kilometres in 1948 to 38,000,000 kilometres in 1957; and in France the distance travelled was 37,000,000 kilometres in 1948, compared with 102,000,000 kilometres in 1957. According to the same statistics, the distance travelled in America was 702,000,000 kilometres in 1948, compared with 126,000,000,000 kilometres in 1957, whilst in the United Kingdom the increase was from 71,000,000 kilometres in 1948 to 133,000,000 in 1957. In other words, statistics disclose that, in a period of approximately nine years, the travelling capacity of the aircraft industry has doubled, as has the passenger traffic.
We in Australia can certainly look forward to increased air traffic to this continent as well as to increased internal air traffic. But as this agreement has nothing to do with the internal airways industry, I shall not deal further with that point. It is interesting to note that as the cargo and passenger carrying capacity of aircraft has increased it has been necessary to increase their fuel capacity. Ten years ago, the fuel capacity of an aircraft was about 2,000 gallons, but the fuel capacity of a Boeing 707 or a DC8 is about 17,400 imperial gallons, which weighs about 60 tons. The fuel carried at time of take-off by one of those aircraft weighs more than the combined all-up weight of a fully loaded DC6B and a fully loaded DC3.
It is obvious that in the years to come many more migrants will make their homes in Australia, and many tourists will visit this country. It is gratifying that we have at last become conscious of the need to promote the tourist industry. All over the country, hotel accommodation is being improved, and people who visit Australia in the future will be encouraged to speak warmly of this country when they return to their homeland. They will be encouraged to advertise Australia as a good place to visit. Without these agreements it would have been difficult to encourage people to visit Australia. But now our airline will be able to use landing facilities on Tahiti as well as in Italy. A friendlier atmosphere will be created between Australia and Italy and France. The Minister for Civil Aviation is to be congratulated for the part that he has played in these agreements. I also congratulate the Ministers of Italy and France for the parts that they have played in these agreements, which are so important to the three nations concerned.
– 1 am very pleased that the air agreements with Italy and France are being discussed in the Senate because I feel that they represent an important step in civil aviation. Although transport by sea and road still has an important place in communications, without a shadow of a doubt we are in the air age and are becoming more and more dependent on communications by air. Any step to bring about closer liaison and co-operation in the fields of comunications and international transport will have my fullest support.
Not only are agreements such as those we are discussing very important from an economic point of view but they have tremendous international importance. Territorial boundaries between countries, whether they are the result of agreements or turmoil and strife, mean nothing to aircraft. Movement between one continent and another, even over the Poles, is a daily occurrence and is accepted as normal by the peoples of the world. Every move towards agreements between countries must help international understanding, quite apart from the economic importance of such a move.
I understand that for some time past arrangements for reciprocal landing rights, particularly with France, have been renewed annually, but last year Tahiti and New Caledonia were virtually cut off from Australia because there was no agreement with France in respect of reciprocal landing rights. The agreement that has now been entered into between Australia and France will overcome that difficulty.
Permission for Qantas to land in metropolitan France is an important advance in civil aviation because it provides Australians with direct access to a very historical part of Europe. France has great tourist and historical attraction for the people of Australia because so many of us have thoughts of France in the days of our united battles against a common enemy. I feel sure that as a result of the air agreement wilh France many more pilgrimages will be made to the old battle fields by old diggers or their relatives. An added attraction to a flight to Paris is that it may be made by way of India, thus bringing East and West into closer contact. It is gratifying that we should now have landing rights in Tahiti, the New Hebrides and Noumea because Australia is the natural closest visiting and shopping centre to those French possessions. The people of Noumea and other French Pacific possessions traditionally have returned to France to spend long service leave, but Australia must have a very strong attraction to such people and the agreement with France, which will give them direct access by air with Australia, will encourage them to come here more often.
One point is giving me concern and that is how we will handle the extra volume of air-traffic that will flow through Sydney and Melbourne. I understand that at the present time eight international airlines are using the Kingsford-Smith airport at Mascot and that the traffic facilities there are very sorely taxed. Under these new agreements the number of international airlines, including Italian and French airlines, that will be using the airport will be increased to ten. The Italian and French airlines will be using DC8 aircraft, which are much bigger than the Boeing aircraft. The DC8 aircraft needs a large standing area. I believe that we should lay our plans to ensure that our international airport - wherever it is eventually located - will be able to cope as efficiently as do other countries with the greater amount of traffic that will be coming to Australia.
There is some controversy as to whether the Tullamarine airport should be developed as an international airport or whether the Kingsford-Smith airport in Sydney should be extended. Although I am not concerned very much where the international terminal will be located, I believe that from a geographical point of view Melbourne has a greater claim in this respect than Sydney because it is on the apex of a triangle, on which feeder services from Tasmania to the south, South Australia and Western Australia to the west, and Queensland and New South Wales to the north, converge. As the parochialism evinced in the various States withers and we lift our vision to a higher plane, we will become prouder of the Australian nation. Minor matters, such as whether our international airport should be located at Sydney or Melbourne, will not matter. I hope that the Minister for Civil Aviation (Senator Paltridge), who is directing the Government’s policy at this vital time in the history of aviation, will adopt a wide approach to this matter and will fearlessly select as the site for our international airport that which he considers will best serve the .interests of this country in that respect. Then, despite, any criticism that might be made of the decision at the time, travellers by air arriving here from other parts of the world will find1 that our facilities are equal to if not better than any they have experienced elsewhere, and they will have ready access to the north, south and west in this continent.
While we are discussing these airline agreements, I would like to say a few words about the arrangements that have been made for the interchange of the fleets of the three international airlines - British Overseas Airways Corporation, Air India and Qantas. I believe, in view of the very keen competition that exists in the international field, that this is a step forward. The coordination of their operations in this manner will enable each of those airlines to expand and get its full share of the world7s air traffic.
The agreements that have been negotiated with France and Italy, and the interchange arrangement that I have mentioned will tend to lift the standard of international air travel. The speed of aircraft has risen towards the speed of sound, and military aircraft have penetrated the sound barrier. In view of these developments we can expect within the forseeable future to be able to travel round1 the world by air, not in so many days but in a matter of hours. Therefore, as our scientists, technicians and other people engaged in research raise still higher the efficiency displayed in the production of aircraft, the Government’s policy must not lag; it must provide for machinery, such as the agreements we are now discuss- ing, and the necessary ground facilities to enable all branches of the industry to advance simultaneously.
I support the Government’s action in entering into these agreements with France and Italy. I believe that this is a step towards greater unity in the field of civil aviation and that it is also a major step forward in diplomacy.
– The motion for the printing of the ministerial statement on air agreements with Italy and France has given to the Senate an opportunity to debate these twoagreements. I say at once that I am most gratified with the interest that has been displayed in this very, very important matter. In recent years, I remind honorable senators as a matter of interest, Australia has concluded no fewer than fifteen of these agreements, including one with the United Kingdom and one with the United States of America, countries which obviously are vastly important in civil aviation matters. Another one that comes to my mind, which is of great interest also, is the treaty that Australia concluded with Malaya. Australia was the first country to conclude a reciprocal rights agreement with Malaya immediately after that countryestablished itself as a country in its own right.
– In regard to airlines?
– Yes. I can see from the course the debate has taken that in future it would be better if I were to make rather more detailed statements than I have done in the past, although I should say that this is the first occasion on which the Senate has of its own volition decided to debate one of these statements. I hope that this will become the practice henceforth. In this connexion, I give warning that I intend to make a statement quite soon in respect of a further treaty which has been concluded with India.
The Leader of the Opposition (Senator McKenna) asked me to inform him of the process of ratification. It is a process which is effected by executive act. It has never been the custom in the past to ask the Parliament to ratify treaties of this kind, and I have not had it in mind that that would be done in the future, or in respect of these two treaties. The texts of the agreements will, of course, be made available. Indeed, I am delighted, I repeat, that the Senate has shown such interest as to want to see the texts. I shall be delighted to make the texts of these agreements available in the ordinary way.
In respect of the negotiations with Italy we did in fact gain some very important and valuable rights. Under the provisional agreement and, indeed, under the permanent agreement that was proposed, Italy imposed certain conditions in relation to ex-Rome traffic. For example, Qantas could not pick up traffic in Rome for near ports; it could not pick up traffic in Rome for Frankfurt or Cairo. In the terms of our permanent agreement, no imposition is placed upon traffic ex-Rome. Rome being the tourist centre of Europe, that in itself is a most important advance.
Either agreement can be dissolved by one party giving, twelve months’ notice. An. interesting procedure exists for the. settlement of disputes. Each party nominates its own representatives and the two representatives then nominate a chairman. In the case of Italy, if agreement cannot be reached on the third member of the tribunal, he is: appointed by the chairman of the international civil aviation authority. In the case of France, if agreement on the third member is not reached, then he is appointed by the President of the International Court of Justice.
I noted particularly the comments made by Senator O’Byrne about the provision of airports. That is constantly in the mind of the Government. In spite of some local agitation which may or may not spring from parochialism as suggested by Senator O’Byrne, we as Australians can take pride: in our civil aviation facilities. If we have no Idlewild, and if we have not the most luxurious terminal buildings, at least we have ports and: facilities which airlines of all countries are pleased to use.
I have noted with interest the debate that has occurred. The Senate, having shown this interest, can rest assured that I shall not be slow in putting before it from time to time further matters of this nature which are of great importance to civil aviation particularly, and to Australia in the wide sense.
– I moved the motion that the paper be printed in order to inaugurate the debate that has now taken place. I believed at the time that the paper contained something more than the statement made by the Minister for Civil Aviation (Senator Paltridge), but I find now that the paper and the Minister’s statement are identical. Therefore, Mr. President, I ask for leave to withdraw the motion.
Motion - by leave - withdrawn.
Sitting suspended from 5.49 to 8 p.m.
page 317
Address-in-Reply - Presentation to Governor-General.
– I have ascertained that His Excellency the Governor-General will be pleased’ to receive the AddressinReply to his opening Speech at Government House at 4 p.m. on Thursday next. I invite honorable senators to accompany me on the occasion of its presentation.
page 317
Debate resumed from 10th March (vide page 84), on motion by Senator McKenna -
That the following paper: -
Seventh Annual Report of the Australian Atomic Energy Commission, together with financial accounts and the Auditor-General’s report thereon, for the year 1958-59 - be printed.
– I have placed this motion before the Senate for a number of reasons, the first of which is that on 25th August last the Minister for National Development (Senator Spooner) made a statement in this place which I thought was of the greatest importance. The debate was adjourned, and it will be recalled that there was not time before the sessional period ended to debate the many matters that remained on the notice-paper. Unfortunately, this matter of great importance had to be deferred. The second reason for the motion is the fact that recently the Minister, when tabling the latest annual report of the Australian Atomic Energy Commission, made a. statement on the subject of atomic energy in
Australia. The third reason for the motion is that the report is most comprehensive and interesting. In my opinion, that reason, standing alone, would be sufficient to merit some consideration of the matter by this chamber.
Senator Spooner, when speaking on 25th August last, made a statement, which I adopt in its entirety. He said -
Atomic energy is the great new technological development of our age, comparable with the introduction of steam power and of electricity. No industrial nation which is resolved to build a strong economy and a prosperous population can afford to neglect it.
As I see the position - and I speak for the Opposition in this matter - atomic energy, with whatever faults it may have in the matter of economic cost at the moment, is plainly the force of the future. Above all, it is a force that is required in areas where we lack coal, and where water is not available for hydro-electric activity. I think that honorable senators will agree that electricity and power are the inescapable precursors of industrial activity, of the building of towns, of the decentralization of our population and of the development of our very remote areas. On that view, we regard atomic power and its development as of the utmost importance. We think it is essential that Australia should be in the field, as indeed it is, employing its own research workers, maintaining the closest contact with other countries engaged in the development of atomic energy, and all the time building up a mass of scientific knowledge.
I have one point of criticism of the report of the. commission, and I also have one point of criticism of the statement made by the Minister when tabling the report that I have before me. Before coming to those points of criticism, I shall deal very briefly with a number of matters referred to in the report. The document contains an excellent presentation of the subject-matter. It lists the members of the various committees, such as the three advisory committees that help the commission, the Advisory Committee on Uranium Mining, the Scientific Advisory Committee, and the Business Advisory Committee. Having regard to the persons who function as members of those committees, I have great confidence that the commission has at its disposal very able advisers.
Senator Spooner referred to the importance of the research programme of the commission. It was proper that he should do so, because research is primarily the function of the commission in relation to its reactor at Lucas Heights. On looking at the accounts, one finds that in the year which ended in June, 1959, approximately £1,000,000 was spent on buildings. One might expect building activity to be greater at this stage than later on. The sum of £1,500,000 was spent for general purposes, most of which, or about £1,000,000, having been spent on research. The honorable senator pointed out that the reactor at Lucas Heights was designed for two purposes: First, for the research into the compatability of materials to be used in an Australian reactor - of our own materials available in this country; and secondly, to determine how they would function when used on a very large scale. Anybody who has had experience of industry will know that one can, on a small scale, obtain a result that appears to be perfect, but that, when it is sought to apply that result to a wider commercial sphere, one encounters all kinds of unpredictable difficulties. So, the research that the commission is undertaking is, I should say, soundly based, not only to determine the compatability of our materials in reactors, but also to determine how they would stand up under intense radiation.
At page 29 of the report, referring to difficulty in securing the necessary staff, the commission stated -
There was difficulty in attracting research officers of the required ability and even greater difficulty in the recruitment of experimental officers in some sections. Recruitment of technical officers and technical assistants was reasonably satisfactory, but still below the target figure.
It is unfortunate that in a place as well situated, from the view point of personal convenience, as Lucas Heights, there should be difficulty in getting the necessary research workers for this vital project. I suppose that this difficulty represents a condemnation of our lack of foresight down the years, in not training sufficient scientific workers. In this respect, Australia is only now beginning to realize that it has been left behind by many other countries, notably Russia, which spends a vast amount on the recruitment of research workers and apparently has such workers in abundance, with results that are plain to the world. The commission, in its report, very properly points to the need for more research workers. I trust that its plea for them will be heeded by those who are responsible for directing educational facilities in Australia.
Senator Spooner next referred to the fact that the reactor at Lucas Heights, known as Hifar, has been taken up to full power and is working very satisfactorily. I congratulate those who were responsible for embarking on this new venture in Australia and1 who have produced a reactor that is capable of functioning so efficiently. I think that great credit is reflected on all those concerned with a pioneering effort in this important, difficult and even dangerous field, lt is good to know that we have had such close co-operation with the United Kingdom, where there is a comparable reactor, and also to know that there is a free exchange of our personnel and theirs in connexion with the research work.
Senator Spooner referred to the work of commercial value, the production of radio isotopes for use in medicine, in industry, and1 generally through Australia. Hitherto we have imported them, and have not made anything like the use of them that other parts of the world have made. They are invaluable. There is a comment on that by the commission itself at page 23 of its 1 958-59 report. Referring to isotopes, the commission states -
Australian industry still shows some hesitation in adopting radio-isotope techniques to anything like the extent of their use in industrialized countries abroad, but the situation is now showing a definite improvement, with an increase in the use of established techniques in the various industries. Local production of radio-isotopes is scheduled to begin at the end of 19S9 and should stimulate use in industry, research and medicine.
I am delighted that the commission, has been able to go into production and is in the happy position of having its productive capacity more than adequate for Australian demands for some years, as the commission reports at page 25. That saves us the difficulty of transporting these rather dangerous articles across the world. It makes us independent of the rest of the world in relation to them, and is a factor upon which Australia may congratulate itself. We are now independent through the production of our reactor at Lucas Heights which is, in a way, only a test laboratory. It is a very satisfactory aspect of the commission’s activities.
– Will the Leader of the Opposition congratulate the Government too?
– No, I congratulate the commission.
– You are a little hard, are you not?
– No, I am not approaching this in a political way, I am giving credit where it is due. If the honorable senator wants to press me to adopt a political attitude, I shall say two things. The first is this: The Government undoubtedly deserves credit - and I give it credit - for establishing the reactor. It was badly needed. Then, I am prepared to say that I see some signs of laxity in the speech that was made by the Leader of the Government (Senator Spooner) in the matter of speeding up work in relation to the development of atomic energy. I propose to apply a little atomic energy to the Government myself before I conclude.
– If you were the Government, would you speed up atomic energy?
– I shall deal with that matter immediately, but the answer will not be “ yes “ or “ no “. It is not as simple as that.
– The honorable senator is sitting on the fence.
– I am doing nothing of the sort. The Leader of the Government who introduced the commission’s report dealt with that aspect very fully at page 2 of his manuscript statement and I take him to task for this statement -
When we talk of atomic energy, we tend to think of power stations, and in Australia nuclear power is still a long-range goal.
Then he proceeded to tell us -
In all countries, it is further away now than was commonly thought three or four years ago. The principal reason is not because nuclear power has failed to come up to expectations, but because of unexpected developments in other fields.
The first was in relation to coal. He pointed out that most coal-producing countries to-day have surpluses and that the cost of coal has dropped while its availability has been much freer by reason of improved techniques in coal-mining. I think that is indubitable. He indicated that power produced from coal was in a much more competitive position with hydro-electric power or even .atomic power than it was previously. Of course, one cannot rely on that position continuing. We cannot anticipate that there will always be a surplus of coal. He pointed out too that there has been a world surplus of oil and that oil is competing with coal in many uses; and he added -
This easing of fuel difficulties is, of course, welcome. It has delayed the need for large-scale introduction of nuclear power in other countries, but nuclear power will SUU be required eventually.
It is at that point I say to the Government that I see some relaxation in its approach to the development of nuclear power in Australia, and I do not want to see that attitude continue. I want the Government to forget that for the time being coal and oil are in surplus supply and are cheap. We do not control the price of oil in this country.; we do not even control the supply of it. As the honorable senator said in his statement, there can be changes; but developments are going on continuously in relation to producing better reactors, building them far more cheaply and putting them on a basis where they can .operate far more cheaply. The Minister pointed out that the most important ingredient in running costs is fuel utilization.
When I look at ‘this earlier statement of 25th August where he gave a most excellent picture of what has happened around the world, I do not see any signs that the other nations are really stepping short in their programmes. In the statement given to us
Only in August last, the Minister referred to progress in country by country and said -
In the United Kingdom, the nuclear station, Calder Hall, first began to supply electricity to the national grid in 1956.
The Minister was referring to a highly industrialized country where oil is available from overseas and coal is available locally. It is not waiting till the price of coal goes up or the price of oil rises before it goes into nuclear power. The Minister indicated that at Chapel Cross, the station had been duplicated; and he added -
Four other large stations are being built, a fifth has been ordered, and sites for several others selected. .The civilian power programme provides for 5,000 to 6,000 megawatts by the mid-1960’s.
That is mot very far away, .and the Minister was ref erring to the United Kingdom. Then he set out the position in other countries. He said that power was first generated in France from a plutonium producing reactor in 1956, .and other projects were under way. He said that Italy ‘had Three large power reactors under construction or on order scheduled to start operating in 1962-63. That is not very far away. He said also -
The United States has no immediate need for nuclear power, ‘but is making great efforts in research and development. The first large nuclear power station - -Shippingport - was .commissioned at the end of 1957. Four other large stations with an aggregate .capacity of 600 megawatts are due for completion within the next few years ‘by 1963 it is expected that aggregate nuclear capacity will exceed 1,300 megawatts.
Canada has a small 20 megawatt prototype plant under construction and work is expected to start soon on a 200 megawatt .station which it is believed will produce competitive power in many parts of .the .country.
The Minister then dealt with Russia and said -
Russia is attacking the power problem on a broad “front in much the same way as .the United States; .seven .different reactor systems are being developed.
Look at the opportunity for research and testing that provides - =seven reactors of entirely different types. The Minister added in relation to Russia -
A small power station began operating in 1956 and a 400 megawatt station is partly completed. Two other large stations with similar output and four experimental units are believed to be under construction.
I shall not deal with Japan. Germany expects to have about five 100 megawatt stations of various types in operation by 1956. The Minister said that a further 1,000 megawatts may be installed by 1967. There is the picture of activity around the world. I would say that, as Russia has reactors of seven different types and other industrial nations are pressing on fully in the immediate future, we cannot afford to relax. My view of that is affected by what the commission itself said. It directed attention to the need for a sense of urgency in relation to the matter. At page 30, dealing with overseas trends, the commission directed attention to the fact that nuclear power is becoming economically less attractive in the circumstances relating -to coal and oil. It quotes with approval the recent declaration by Etienne Hirsch, President of Euratom, that-
Europe’s 1980 power needs are unaffected by the improved .coal and oil situation; by then Euratom will require as much nuclear capacity as it has conventional capacity to-day - 40,000 MW - and we shall continue to approach the problem wilh a deep sense of urgency.
I suggest that that is the right note and the right approach. The report points out that it is essential to build up a body of skilled scientists and technicians in this field against the developments ahead.
Dealing with the very point raised by Senator Spooner, the report states at page 31- lt must be emphasized, however, that technical developments could entirely change the outlook in a comparatively short time.
There are words that I invite the Government to .consider. I want the Government to feel a sense of real urgency in pressing on with the development of nuclear power and not to relax, saying “ Coal is in abundance -and is cheaper. We have a surplus of oil, which is economical. We can therefore afford to relax in the development of our nuclear potential “.. I say ,on behalf of the Opposition that we differ entirely with an approach that has not a sense of urgency and a realization of the importance to this country of the development of .atomic energy.
The report deals with -many interesting matters. I have no doubt that most honorable senators have taken the opportunity to read the report, and I do not propose to traverse it in detail. Senator Spooner said -
Having fostered a successful uranium mining industry in Australia, the Government is anxious to keep it alive and active in the face of the lull in demand which can be foreseen at the expiration of current contracts. We are giving close attention to this problem.
As I understand the position, practically all of our uranium is exported, most of it to the Combined Development Agency of America and Great Britain, and the balance to the United Kingdom. A time is obviously coming when those contracts will run out. 1 understand that one contract, in fulfilling which Rum Jungle is engaged, will expire in 1962, and the other will expire in 1966. These dates are not very far ahead. The Minister said that the Government was giving close attention *o this problem. Am I right in saying that Rum Jungle is mined out now? At least some of the fields are. I gather from the commission’s report that there are big stockpiles of uranium ore, that mining has ceased, and that a search is being made in the locality now for other fields of uranium that can supply ore to the treatment plant. I understand that the economics of working the field have been calculated on the basis that the capital cost of the plant, equipment and buildings will be recovered in the contract price of the ore that is won.
I ask the Minister: What is, in fact, .contemplated? Is it contemplated that, because there may be a world surplus and we may not be able to export, we shall suspend mining operations, or is it in the mind of the Government that we shall continue mining operations, if necessary stockpiling, or if necessary subsidizing the activity? I invite the Government to give serious attention to pressing on as hard as it can with the recovery of uranium ore, because the commission’s report indicates that by 1980 we shall be using all the capacity that is available in Australia and more. I put it to the Senate that it behoves us not to relax in our search for fresh uranium fields and, above all, not to let them lie idle just because of world conditions that may be quite temporary. We must face up to the fact that there are certain to be startling developments in the perfection of reactor techniques that will perhaps make nuclear power an economic possibility much sooner than we expect it to be. That is the voice of the commission itself, and I hope it will be the policy of the Government.
– What about other forms of power?
– I do not exclude beryllium, plutonium and the rest. I suggest that attention should be directed to all of those fissionable materials that we may have in Australia. We should not confine support to uranium fields alone but should extend it to fields providing any fissionable material. I note from pages 9 and 10 of the commission’s report that last year the commission engaged in a good deal of survey and mapping work. There was activity in the Northern Territory, Queensland, Western Australia, New South Wales and South Australia. I should like the Minister to indicate, if he enters the debate, what is being done in the other two States. In particular, what is happening in Tasmania? Are surveys being made and maps prepared in that State? There is an area on the west coast of Tasmania that is highly metalliferous, producing metals of all kinds. I cannot make any forecast about the presence there of fissionable material, but I should like the Minister to say what has been done to search for uranium or similar metal in Tasmania, or whether any such action is contemplated.
The honorable senator also dealt with ore treatment research, and he mentioned the great difficulties that were being encountered in finding the right process to extract the ultimate reward from the amalgam. I suppose that in a new field such as this it is not surprising to find real difficulties and that one experiment must follow another. If an experiment fails, at least a store of scientific knowledge is being built up in this country, and if the result is no more than the discarding of a possible approach, that is a very distinct advance.
I want to refer to only one other matter before I conclude. I think I have said enough to indicate that I am very appreciative of the excellent work that is being done by the commission and its officers. I hope that the commission will get all the research workers that it needs. I refer now to the commission’s accounts, which are published at pages 40 and 41 of the report. A minor matter is that it is only in effect a statement of expenditure for the year ended June, 1959. It is certified by the Auditor-General; but I say at once I am perfectly certain that the Auditor-General never put his signature to the document in the form in which it is before me. If honorable senators care to look at page 40 of the report they will find near the end of the page two items. One is, “ Purchase of uranium-bearing ores - £71,342 9s. 10d.”. The other is, “ Less amount recovered from the sale of uranium-bearing ores - £71,342 9s. 10d.”. Both amounts are carried over into the totals column. They cancel each other out, and certainly should not be there at all. If one attempts to add the column as shown here, the total of which is £1,525,115 14s. 6d. one will see that actually the true total exceeds that figure by twice the £71,342 9s. lOd. to which 1 have made reference. Quite obviously, the two figures should have appeared in the details column and not in the totals column. But, as I say, that is a very minor matter.
I come now to the report of the AuditorGeneral, which appears on page 39 of the commission’s report. There, the AuditorGeneral says -
In compliance with section 31 (2) of the Atomic Energy Act 1953-58, the Commission has submitted a financial statement in the form approved by the Treasurer.
Then it goes on to certify that it complies with various statutory requirements. He says that the statement is based on proper accounts and records, is in agreement with those accounts and records and shows fairly the financial operations of the commission for the year ended 30th June, 1959. He then makes this very important statement -
The approved form of statement makes no provision for showing the state of affairs of the Commission.
I emphasize, “ makes no provision for showing the state of affairs of the commission “. That is not a statement at large, because, in so certifying, the Auditor-General was looking at his statutory obligation under section 31 (2) of the act, which requires him specifically to report to the Minister that the statement shows truly and fairly the state of affairs of the commission. The Auditor-General has drawn the attention of the Parliament to the fact that the act has not been complied with.
– He has certified that the commission has submitted a financial statement in the form approved by the Treasurer, but surely that does not absolve him from complying with the statute.
– Perhaps the honorable senator did not hear what I said. The Auditor-General’s obligation was to report to the Minister as to whether the accounts showed the state of affairs of the commission. He has done that. The Auditor-General has discharged his statutory duty in pointing out that the commission has not complied with the requirements of the act.
– Is it not his obligation to report the state of affairs of the commission?
– No. Paragraph (b) of the relevant section says that he shall report to the Minister whether the statements are in accordance with the accounts and records and show quite clearly the financial operations and the state of affairs of the commission. His obligation is to report on whether they do or not. He discharges that obligation by directing our attention to the fact that the accounts do not show the state of affairs of the commission. The Government, quite clearly, has brought that upon itself, because the original act simply provides that the commission shall keep accounts in such form as is approved by the Treasurer.
– You did not read the next paragraph on page 39 of the report.
– Because there is not the slightest need for me to do so. It adds nothing to the point I am making; it only detracts from the point I am making.
– It says -
The receipt and expenditure of money and the acquisition and disposal of assets during the year have been in accordance with the Act.
If you turn to page 41, you will see that the Auditor-General has signed a certificate that the statement of net expenditure is correct.
– I follow all that; and if the honorable senator will be patient, I shall explain to him in some detail presently the difference between a statement showing the affairs of the commission and a statement of receipts and expenditure. 1 have indicated that the 1953 act provided that the commission shall keep accounts in such form as is approved by the Treasurer. That provision was repealed in 1958 by this Government, and the obligation then cast upon the commission was that the commission shall keep proper accounts and records in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles.
Now, for the benefit of Senator Scott in particular, I refer to the statement at the back of the report. Honorable senators will find that it is a mere statement of expenditure for one year, showing alongside it comparative figures for the previous financial year. When one is asked to present a statement showing the state of affairs of the commission, it is obvious that at least two things are indicated. The first is that there shall be a balance-sheet showing the commission’s assets and liabilities, its operating capital and all the rest of it. There will be, if not a profit and loss account, then an income and expenditure account. I recognize that this is not a trading concern, that it is really a research institute. Presently, it will be in the commercial field buying and selling uranium, as it has done. It will be producing radio isotopes and getting revenue from their sale, so, to a somewhat limited extent, it will be a revenueearning concern.
But, irrespective of whether it is, this Parliament has indicated that, annually, we should know the state of affairs of the commission. The type of things we want to know are the cost of buildings, the rate of depreciation, the total cost of capital equipment under the various heads, and the rate of depreciation on that equipment. Above all, we want to know what liabilities there are or may be, what investments there are, and what income comes from’ them. As to the income and expenditure account, or profit and loss account, as it is normally termed, we should have items like depreciation available to us. We should be able to see under the heading of each research department, whether it be into mining, ore treatment or types of reactor, exactly what goes into those fields. I would not mind if the expenditure on research were shown in the form of an asset. Accumulated expenditure down a year on a particular form of research is an asset in my opinion. As I have said before, it is the accumulation of experience and of training technicians that constitutes the real asset.
– It is not a very tangible one.
– Not one that can be assessed in terms of immediate pounds, shillings and pence; but I feel that if we establish a research institute with research activities in field after field it is not enough for us to get a proper picture merely to say what is happening in one year and compare that with what happened the preceding year. That does not give a really clear picture of how the undertaking is trending; and I submit that is what Parliament intended when it set out that it wanted to know the state of affairs of the commission. One cannot know the state of affairs of any undertaking unless one knows the assets and liabilities and is able to see at a glance the result of its activities over the whole period of its existence.
– Can one find that out in relation to the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization?
– I am not in a position at the moment to speak to the honorable senator about how the C.S.I.R.O. keeps its accounts; but I should imagine that the C.S.I.R.O. would have no difficulty in telling him what the total expenditure of moneys under its control was on any particular programme of research. I think it could do that with ease.
With nuclear power, Parliament requires at least that the state of affairs of the commission be shown. The AuditorGeneral says that has not been done. I emphasize the matter so that some attention can be given to it and I invite the Minister to consider that particular criticism, so coldly, baldly and mildly made by the Auditor-General who, in giving that certificate, has followed, the exact words of section 31 of the act. He says that the one thing the statements do not show is the state of the affairs of the commission. That is the one blot I see on this report. It is a very powerful criticism and I hope that the Minister will see fit to take steps to ensure that this matter is rectified.
– I commence by acknowledging, with thanks the time and effort that the Leader of the Opposition (Senator McKenna) has put into his study of the report of the Atomic Energy Commission and the statement on the commission’s activities that I made - with some diffidence - thinking it might be a matter of interest to this Senate. The honorable senator made some comments about the form of the commission’s accounts. In reply, I assure him that I will make inquiries from the commission and become better acquainted with the circumstances than I am at the moment. However, I do not want honorable senators to gain the impression that I am not aware of what is involved but it is a complicated matter and I would not like to deal with it offhand.
Recent events have shown that we have a good deal more uranium ore than we thought we had a couple of years ago. Additional deposits have been found at Mary Kathleen and we have hopes - they are not yet realizations - that we will find additional deposits in the Rum Jungle area. That remains to be proved; at this stage we only have an indication.
Having, said that, I will embark upon a few remarks which are perhaps of a rather unusual nature. I have within my portfolio not only the Atomic Energy Commission but also the Joint Coal Board and the Snowy Mountains Authority. I thought there might be merit in giving the Senate a bird’s eye picture of fuel and power in the three different classifications - thermal, hydro-electric and nuclear. I asked the three instrumentalities concerned to give me some notes and I acknowledge with thanks the way they went about their tasks. I hope that I will be able to do justice to their efforts in my condensation of the information supplied, much of which was of an extraordinarily technical and scientific nature. I think many honorable senators will, agree, with me if. I say that much of the information supplied was beyond my comprehension. In some parts of my speech I shall make no attempt to disguise the fact that I am reading from the notes that have been given to me by the scientists.
I think the correct way to approach this matter is to make two points at the beginning: The first is the tremendous importance to Australia of power in its various manifestations. One is rather apt to deal with this subject of power in general terms, but the provision of power has such ramifications that I thought I might traverse some of them. My second point is to emphasize the importance of providing power to the community at an economic rate. Because of the vast sums of money involved, the development of trends in power and the way in which the various types of power are brought into operation will depend almost entirely, in my opinion, on the competitive economics of the three different types of power.
Between 1945-46 and 1957-58 use of electrical energy in Australia increased practically three-fold. Use of electrical energy has been increasing at an average yearly rate of nearly 9 per cent. If you go back over a longer period than that, the increase is even more spectacular. In 1940 electrical energy accounted tor 2 per cent, of the total energy used. To-day, electrical energy in its various forms represents approximately 25 per cent, of all energy used. This growth in the demand for power has great significance to the economy as a whole, even if only because of the great capital investment that is necessary to provide the generating capacity. Here I thought 1 might give a homely example: Canberra at present has a demand foi power that requires generating capacity of about 25,000 kilowatts. It would cost £2,500,000 at present-day values to provide that generating capacity. That means that it would cost more than £50 a head for every man, woman and child in Canberra to provide the plant and machinery to generate Canberra’s power requirements. Similar examples could be quoted for a number of places, but the one I have given is a homely one. In a large industrial area, of course, where the demand for power for industry is so much greater than it is here in Canberra, the per capita investment would be greater than it is in Canberra. Also, in certain country areas where there are larger transmission lines, the capital investment again would be greater than in Canberra. However, I have attempted to paint the picture by stating that for Canberra the investment in power plant represents £50 for each member of the community.
We reach a situation where the annual, investment for the provision of generating capacity is by far the largest of all the amounts that are spent by public utilities throughout Australia. Each year we spend on generating capacity for electricity three times the amount we spend on water supply and sewerage; three times the amount we spend on railways; and nearly four times the amount we invest in schools. I think that the people charged with providing electricity carry one of the most responsible and difficult tasks that are placed on the shoulders of any group of people in Australia. Back in 1948-49 governments throughout Australia were investing £21,000,000 a year in the provision of generating capacity. Last year the figure was £118,000,000. The proportion of total public investment in electricity has risen from 15 per cent, to 23 per cent, in the same period.
We must look ahead. Demand for electrical energy has been increasing at the rate of 9 per cent, per annum. Naturally, many deviations occur from the mean from year to year and from State to State, but 9 per cent, has been the overall average. Of course, 9 per cent, means doubling the generating capacity that is available every eight years, which alone illustrates the size of the task. The anticipations are that the demand is going to fall - that it will not remain at the 9 per cent, level, but there will be an 8 per cent, annual increase over the next decade, and a 7 per cent, annual increase in the succeeding decade. Whichever way it is approached, in the foreseeable future a very substantial proportion of our total public investment will be applied to power generation.
I do not need to cover the ground which Senator McKenna covered - I made notes at the time of what he said - in order to underline the importance of this matter. Adequate supplies of cheap power, upon which mechanization depends, must be made available to the manufacturing undertakings. This also applies to the man on the land, who is using more and more power in connection with his farming activities, including irrigation, and to provide ordinary household amenities. We are not far from the stage at which one of the requisites to keep people on the land will be the reticulation of electricity to the farm to be available for all home amenities.
In this great problem there now comes a new challenge - nuclear power. I acknowledge Senator McKenna’s comment on it. Research and development into the possibilities of nuclear power involve very substantial capital investment in the provision of research facilities and the application of scientific data that is available in Australia. I hope it will be acknowledged that while the commission’s report makes it clear that nuclear power is not yet competitive with other forms of power, the development of nuclear power was not as rapid last year as it was a few years ago. Despite these two factors, so much work and research are proceeding that there is ground for the scientists’ view that the gap between the cost of nuclear power and that of other forms of power is being quite appreciably reduced. Against that background, the work of the commission is a very important contribution to general Australian development. I do not think that it should be implied for a moment that the work that is being done by the Atomic Energy Commission is any indication that the Commonwealth is going to step into the field of power generation. I do not support that approach at all, but I do think that, because of the large sums of money that are being expended on research and the need to conserve our scientific staff, it is a good thing that the Commonwealth has undertaken this activity, more particularly as the work is being performed in close co-operation with the electricity undertakings of the States and with the State universities, which are being afforded access to the knowledge that is being obtained as a result of this work.
We get back to the point that power is of such vital importance that decisions are going to be made from year to year upon the economics and the comparative costs of the various types of power. As £118,000,000 is being expended each year to provide generating capacity, the people who are charged with the responsibility of providing power are going to look very carefully at each proposition. As it takes five, six or seven years to build a power station, they must forecast what is going to be the trend. They have to look at thermal power, hydro power and nuclear power and make a decision as to how best to expend the public funds that are entrusted to them.
I want to canvass as quickly as I can some of the characteristics of the various types of power in order to provide the background against which opinions and conclusions concerning nuclear power are formed. Commencing with hydro power - water power - we start from the basis that generally speaking the capital cost per kilowatt to install hydro-electric generating plant is much more than that for thermal power plant. By the time that head works and power stations are installed, the capital cost of hydro power is much greater than the capital cost of thermal power. Of course, this is offset by the fact that, when water storages have been established, the running costs are much cheaper.
– Have you any figures on the matter?
– Yes. I shall come to them as we go along. However, many of these things cannot be expressed in figures that can be used for the purpose of debate. We have to look at the requirements of each State. Tasmania, for instance, has 1 think 100 per cent, water power, because of its water resources; it has no developed coal resources. Tasmania uses this power for base load purposes whereas the mainland States that have hydro-electric power do not use it, by and large, as base load but for what is called the peak load - power that comes in and takes the load at the time of the day when the demand is greatest. For periods of from 10 per cent, to 25 per cent, of the day when the peak load has to be borne, they have the choice of using an efficient hydro-electric scheme or, alternatively, of bringing into action for that limited period an old thermal station which is not good enough to operate for the full period of the day; they can bring it into action to take the peak load but, of course, this is most expensive. Frequently, the old stations have been replaced by new stations. It is a boon and a blessing to be able to use hydro power for a percentage of the day.
In response to an interjection, I said that it was very difficult to make comparisons between the costs of different types of power because in a particular State or on a particular grid it is necessary to make the best use of the resources that are available. However, there are some trends. As the hydro-electric scheme involves so much heavy capital investment, it is very greatly affected by the rates of interest that are chargeable upon the capital investment. Since 1949, the bond rate of interest has increased from 3.1 per cent, to 5 per cent. As interest charges constitute 90 per cent, of the total cost of producing hydro-electric power, this form of power has been prejudiced relatively as a result of the higher interest rates. I should like to repeat, though, the point I made earlier in response to the interjection, that that increase in the rate pales into insignificance compared with the advantage of using hydro-electric power at peak times. Tt is invaluable to have Snowy power come into operation on too of the base load power generated by the New South Wales and Victorian systems. Tt is hard to assess the real value of Snowy power which can be brought in at a cost of a little under Id. per kilowatt hour; as it can be switched on and off in place of the old thermal station it is a great asset.
Another most noticeable feature has been the great increase in the technical efficiency of the thermal stations. These are two circumstances that have caused those charged with the responsibility of producing power to hold back, as it were, their nuclear programmes. At the new power station at Vales Point between Sydney and Newcastle every ton of coal burnt will produce over 40 per cent, more electricity than if it were used in the Bunnerong power station in Sydney - one of the older power stations. That illustrates the extent of this improvement in efficiency.
I go back now to what might sometimes be regarded as my theme song, namely the tremendous improvement in the coal mining industry in Australia, and in particular the New South Wales coal mining industry. Until 1953 coal costs in Australia were rising. The average cost of coal to the New South Wales power stations in 1953 was £4 5s. 2d. a ton. By 1955 it had fallen to £4 0s. 4d. a ton, by 1957 to £3 18s. a ton, and by 1959 to 3s. 10s. a ton. Those are the prices of coal to all power stations throughout the metropolitan and other areas.
The trend now, of course, is not to build a power station at the centre where the power is used, but to put the power station on the coal-field alongside the coal deposits. The latest figure available of the present average cost of coal to stations on coal-fields in New South Wales is £2 10s. a ton. Compare that with a price of £4 5s. a ton back in 1953! In other words using 100 as an index figure for the 1953 cost of coal, the present price to coal-field stations becomes 49, representing approximately a 50 per cent, reduction. It is estimated that this is a reduction of 17 per cent, in the cost of producing electricity. So we have the two great developments - the greater thermal efficiency of powerhouses and the dramatic fall in the price of coal.
– The price of electricity has not come down, has it?
– The cost of producing electricity has come down. We must be a little charitable and remember that the electricity authorities have to face the tremendous task of finding the capital that is needed to build new power houses each year.
Side by side with this we have the development of the petroleum industry. There has been a total expenditure of some £130,000,000 on the erection of oil refineries during the post-war years. An interesting statement by the Joint Coal Board, which came to my notice about six months ago, shows that based on list prices, the cost of black coal per 1,000,000 British thermal units - a measure of heat - was well below the cost of furnace oil in Sydney, Melbourne and Adelaide. In other words on a list price basis coal is cheaper than oil for power-house purposes in Sydney, Melbourne and Adelaide. In Melbourne and Adelaide oil is being used in power houses because of particular reasons associated with those cities, but in New South Wales oil has not been able to compete successfully with coal and so is not used in electricity generation, despite the fact that furnace oil is really a residual product coming at the end of the refinery process.
I have no doubt at all that we will see a development in all forms of power. The demand for power is insatiable and there are so many variations in the type of power that is needed. Differing circumstances create different types of demand. At the present time we are generating in Australia 1,340,000 kilowatts from hydroelectric sources. How much more will be needed? Again it comes back to the demand for different classes of power and to economic factors. As interest charges amount to 90 per cent, of the cost of generating hydro-electric power, rising interest rates on loans since 1949 have had a considerable effect on the economics of this type of generation. The estimate of the total potential of the hydro power available to us varies between 7,000,000 kilowatts and 7,500,000 kilowatts. On that basis we are using at the present time about 20 per cent, of the potential. We still have potential resources of 2,500,000 kilowatts in the Snowy Mountains, 1,800,000 kilowatts in Tasmania, and 1,600,000 kilowatts in various parts of Victoria, New South Wales and Queensland. No one can foretell what the future holds and what types of power will be called upon but even if we are to continue to develop at the rate that we have maintained over the last decade or so, we have still left a sufficient unused potential of hydro-electric power in Australia to last us for another 25 years. That is a rough estimate.
– Does that include the northern rivers?
– That would not include the north of Australia. I take it you mean rivers like the Ord?
– Yes.
– They are not included in this reckoning. There is no population in those areas yet, let alone any need for power. This morning Senator Scott asked me a question which I was not able to answer at the time. I can now tell him that the cost of power produced from the T.I power station in the Snowy Mountains is less than Id. a kilowatt. That power is being fed into the New South Wales grid. There is no doubt that at least the older thermal stations cannot feed peak-load power into New South Wales at that price.
A further little bit of crystal ball gazing is evident in an estimate by the Joint Coal Board. The board estimates that putting on one side whatever variations may occur as a result of movements in general price levels, by 1970 the New South Wales coalmining industry will be supplying coal to power stations on the coalfields of New South Wales at 30s. a ton compared with £2 1 0s. a ton at the present time, an average of £3 10s. a ton for industry generally, and £4 5s. a ton back in 1953. In other words, the cost of coal in 1970 is estimated at a little more than a quarter of the cost of coal in 1953. Putting it another way, by 1970 the 1953 coal price will have been reduced by three-quarters.
– Does that take into consideration anticipated wage increases?
– No, it is based on a constant price level. We must add to that great decrease in the cost of power the further fact that the thermal efficiency of new generating power stations has risen during the last twenty years by more than 40 per cent. Power stations are 40 per cent, more efficient to-day than they were twenty years ago. The price of coal is expected to be only a quarter of what it was in 1953. That is the kind of competition with which nuclear power is now faced.
At the present time, there are about twenty essentially different types of nuclear power plants under development throughout the world, and at least another twenty are being considered. Only two of the plants now in operation were designed primarily for the production of electric power - in other words, many of the plants are a legacy from defence programmes - and a further two or three may be at a stage at which they could be operated. At present, none of the plants could compete economically with modern conventional plants. That is not surprising. Nuclear power is a development of only yesterday, whereas the present stage of development of thermal power is the result of 100 years of experience and knowledge.
The capital cost and the fuel costs of nuclear power stations and reactors vary considerably according to the type of plant and the type of fuel that is used. The Australian Atomic Energy Commission says that if you want to use a rule of thumb to get a general idea, it may be taken that the capital cost of the different types of reactor power stations is roughly one and a half to three times the capital cost of a thermal power station. The cost of uranium fuel roughly corresponds to that of coal - from £2 to £4 a ton. So, even in the geographically remote areas of South Australia and Queensland, and even allowing for the fact that coal is more expensive in those areas than in most other parts of Australia, the lower fuel costs of nuclear power stations would not be nearly sufficient to offset the higher capital cost of building atomic power stations. The estimates indicate that the cost of nuclear power in such areas at the present time would be approximately 50 per cent, higher than would be the cost of ordinary thermal power generation.
I come now to the next logical question, which is: What are the prospects of reducing the margin and producing competitive nuclear power? Let me refer to a few figures which indicate the kind of road on which we are travelling. The contract price for the first two British Electric Authority stations was reported to be £125 sterling per kilowatt. Those two stations comprise two units, each of 150,000 kilowatts, or 300,000 kilowatts in the station. I remind honorable senators that it has been indicated that the Canberra demand would be for 25,000 kilowatts. The last two stations, for which tenders were called recently, are expected to cost between £95 and £100 a kilowatt, so that there may be a fall from about £125 a kilowatt to about £95 on the capital cost.
As a result of research and development, it is proving possible to increase the size of power stations. The capacity of the last two stations to which I have referred, which are expected to cost from £95 to £100 a kilowatt, was originally about 150,000 kilowatts. It is contemplated that this capacity will be increased to 250,000 kilowatts as a result of improved engineering design, although the reactors themselves will be slightly smaller. The British hold the view that, with additional development, the capacity of 250,000 kilowatts can be increased to 300,000 kilowatts, and they also hold the view that the cost of fuel will fall from between £95 and £125 a kilowatt to £90. Let me put the figures in another way. A 300,000 kilowatt station, at a cost of £100 a kilowatt, represents a capital outlay of £30,000,000. Honorable senators will see that in this field we are dealing with real money. A fall of £10 per kilowatt means a reduction of £3,000,000 in the capital cost. Therefore, the research people are playing for very big stakes, and by the same token, very big dividends are paid by successful work.
The present view is that it is unlikely that there will be much improvement on the figures I have given, unless there can be a major change in the design of the fuel element, which is an integral part. Therefore, work is proceeding on this aspect. The United Kingdom people contemplate entering a new field after 1965, and using what is described as a slightly enriched small diameter fuel element consisting of uranium oxide clad with beryllium or stainless steel, in place of the large diameter natural uranium metallic fuel element clad with magnesium alloy. They expect that from this development, they will be able to operate the fuel elements at a much higher temperature, giving greatly improved steam conditions and much greater thermal efficiencies. They expect to obtain a greater amount of heat from the equivalent amount of uranium fuel. The prognostications are that the capital costs of reactor plants will, be reduced by about 20 per cent., and that there will be a higher cost for the uranium fuel; but although the uranium fuel will cost more, it will give very much greater heat efficiencies. There will be more burn-up, which is the term that is used to indicate the amount of heat that can be extracted from a given quantity of fuel.
As I conclude my remarks, I express the view that by 1965 to 1970 on present indications, over-all power costs will be reduced by some 15 to 25 per cent. I have given details of the power stations that have been erected and the work that is actually proceeding in justification of these estimates. I believe that is sufficient to give a description of what is going on, but perhaps I might say this: A greater air of commercial certainty is becoming evident. Previously, those who were making the fuel elements would make them and sell them but were not prepared to give any guarantee of performance. Now they are prepared to sell with a guarantee of performance to a certain level. They are prepared to talk in terms of a guaranteed performance from the fuel element at very much higher levels than were contemplated a few years ago.
I conclude by saying that I am glad to see the interest that is taken in the Atomic Energy Commission’s work. I think we have done well in Australia as a result of this competitive atmosphere between the various fuels. We have a new petroleum industry. We have a much more efficient coal-mining industry. We have the benefit of all the technical advances that have been made in power-house construction; and I really think that the work of the Atomic Energy Commission and the expenditure of about £7,000,000 capital investment we have put into it will keep us in the forefront of work on the new atomic power. I reecho Senator McKenna’s view that it is necessary that we should keep to the fore in that work because of its importance to us.
, - I think it was nineteen days ago that the Minister for National Development (Senator Spooner) made a statement which actually summarized the seventh annual report of the Australian Atomic Energy Commission. To-night he has made another statement, and f wish to congratulate him upon the notes he compiled for his speech tonight. At the moment, I do not know whether I should apply myself to the statement the Minister made nineteen days ago upon the report furnished by the Australian Atomic Energy Commission or to the statement that he made to-night. Certainly, there is a big difference between the two. The information that the Minister gave to the Senate to-night was very interesting, and when I get a copy of “ Hansard “ tomorrow, it will provide a study for me for at least another week or so.
I have always thought that we would not have had the nuclear research station at Lucas Heights during the past six or seven years were it not for the fact that uranium oxide was discovered in Australia a few years ago. I think it is certain that a country that has no deposits of uranium oxide simply could not embark on the costly research work of uranium generally. We were blessed with certain supplies of uranium in Australia. We are fortunate in that regard. Some years ago, I met that happy soul who discovered the samples of uranium at Rum Jungle and received a fairly substantial reward from the Commonwealth Government for making his discovery. He was an interesting character - a seasoned fossicker. I said to him, “ I suppose you will take a trip abroad now that you have thousands of pounds from the Commonwealth Government”. His reply was, “ No, I will keep on fossicking around the Territory “. That, of course, is the spirit of the fossicker.
Rum Jungle has been one of the main producers of uranium in the Commonwealth ever since it was commenced, but I have noticed from this report that the ores are getting weaker so far as uranium oxide is concerned. The report shows that. Another producer of uranium oxide is Mary Kathleen. There the romance of mining is clear once more. That field was discovered by a taxi driver and two or three of his friends. I have been on that field also, and I have noticed the heights where the uranium was discovered. That would be the very last place I, with my limited knowledge of uranium ores, would search for uranium. Apparently, it is found in the least expected places. It is interesting to note that since Mary Kathleen Limited has been mining uranium oxide at Mary Kathleen, it has been exploring in the vicinity of its works. Only last week I learned through the press that further deposits had been discovered. Of course, men who have had any experience of mining at all will say that that is the history of nearly all mining activities. We know it was the case in respect of Mount Isa. They have gone on exploring with their diamond drills around the field and in other localities and have discovered other reposits. I think we also have uranium oxide at Radium Hill. I could not pass on without referring to that so that I could retain my friendship with certain South Australian senators.
To my way of thinking, it would be futile for the Commonwealth Government to proceed with its research at Lucas Heights unless, first of all, we have deposits of uranium oxide in the Commonwealth which will allow us to make ample use of nuclear power, if its use is embarked upon at some time in the distant future. I was going to refer to the costly research work that has been done, but I dare not use the word because, in another ten or twenty years, it may be found that expenditure was very low indeed. However, as I have said, it would be futile to proceed unless we have ample supplies of uranium oxide; because if we have to import oxide, we will be at the mercy of those who are in a position to produce it. It would be futile to continue research work and the production of uranium oxide unless there is a firm intention to use it at some time or other.
I look at the situation in this way: We have certain fuels in the Commonwealth which can be used in industry to advantage. We have considerable deposits of coal in Queensland. It is estimated that deposits at the Blair Athol field alone run into 300,000,000 tons. That is not by any means the only coalfield in Queensland where, 1 suppose, we have some thousands of millions of tons of coal. Every day we read of oil displacing coal as a fuel, especially in the railway services of the States. History shows that new fuels are used on a large scale where they can be conveniently used. The Minister said that nuclear power would have to compete with other fuels and therefore questions of economics would be forever before not only governments but also industrialists of the Commonwealth.
If we are to have nuclear power in the future, where will it be used? I have in mind the fact that we have in Cape York almost unlimited deposits of bauxite awaiting development. If it is to be developed under existing conditions, it must he mined and transported by sea to a place where it can be processed into aluminium and brought to the use of man. A little while ago the Minister said that the order of things in the development of thermal power was being reversed. Instead of carrying coal to power stations, we are now establishing the power stations at the source of coal supply. That appears to be common sense. If Queensland is to be a beneficiary of nuclear power it will be by having a nuclear power station somewhere in the north-west of that State where it can be used in conjunction with mining operations now proceeding throughout that area. It could be used in the treatment of bauxite and in the development of the huge deposits of copper that exist in the north.
Nuclear power would have been fully developed and in use if it were not for the fact that during recent years East-West talks have taken place. We know that the threat of war is not so serious to-day as it was seven or eight years ago when the nuclear research station was established at Lucas Heights. Because of the impending Summit talks, nuclear power development is now on the bit. It is not being speeded up at all. Research work will no doubt be continued but it will be at a slower rate, because we have supplies of fuels to carry us on for ten or fifteen years.
I have no doubt that most senators have examined a booklet dealing with fuel research that was published by the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization and supplied to us after 30th June last year. The very first page deals with the coal research section of the organization and, after listening to the substantial information supplied to us by Senator Spooner, it is rather interesting to read -
Coal, which is Australia’s principal source of energy, is a material of widely varying quality, and deposits which are suitable for specific purposes should not be used indiscriminately.
Available reserves of the most valuable types o» coal are limited and it is essential to widen our knowledge of their properties in order that they may be used to the best advantage.
There we have an indication that coal research is being conducted in the Commonwealth, and I have no doubt that in oilproducing countries innumerable stations are engaged on research into the use of oil. Now that we have power developed from coal, hydro-electric power, and power produced by the use of oil in internal combustion engines, we wonder what place nuclear power will have in the Commonwealth. In the next ten, fifteen or twenty years, will we reach a stage when nuclear power can be used economically?
Research is also being conducted by industry. The Minister spoke about improved plant design. We know that constantly man is attempting to invent new machines to lower costs of production. We have automation and electronics and we are entering another era of industrialization. This is one of the points that concerns me: What of the social side? Are we to concentrate only upon the economic side? Does it not become apparent to us all that these developments will result in the displacement of labour? With automation, electronics, and possibly nuclear power with the revolutions that it will cause in certain industries, particularly the coal-mining industry, we shall face many social problems. While research is being conducted into improved plant design and new forms of fuel, nothing whatever is being done to assess the social effect of these new advances. Honorable senators on this side of the chamber are concerned about the social changes that are taking place as a result of the use of electronics and automation. An expert committee should be established to keep under close observation the changes that are taking place in industry day by day so that when displacement of labour reaches serious proportions we shall have a solution to that side of the problem. At present anything that is being done on the social side is done haphazardly and only because of personal interest. If the people of the Commonwealth are to benefit by the use of nuclear power, full use should be made of it. At the same time, it should1 be used beneficially; and that benefit should be extended to all the people. We have been assured by the Minister that it is not likely that nuclear power will be used in the Commonwealth within the next ten or fifteen years. I agree wholeheartedly with that view, and J feel that if it is used at all it will be used in the outlying parts of the Commonwealth. AVe have some idea of the cost of transporting coal from the coal-mining areas to Darwin, for instance, which is one place where nuclear power perhaps could be used to advantage. As the Minister has stressed to-night, there are many fields in western Queensland and at Cape York where it could be used to the greatest advantage.
– At the outset, I congratulate Senator Spooner, Senator McKenna and Senator Benn upon their very thoughtful contributions. They have discussed the matter in the way in which it should be discussed - free from the taint of party politics. I also pay tribute to the scientists, the research workers and members of the staff of the Atomic Energy Commission. They are a most dedicated group of people. - I had the opportunity, as a member of the Government members’ atomic energy committee, to visit Lucas Heights, where I was most impressed by the devotion with which these men carried out their task. Indeed, the senior scientist told me that one of his greatest problems, when a scientist or research worker engages in a particular piece of research, is to see to it that the person concerned gets normal rest because often these workers will carry on for periods from 24 to 36 hours pursuing the answer to their particular problem.
To-night I wish to deal with a different phase from that mentioned by preceding speakers. I should like to deal with the peaceful application of atomic energy and its by-products. First, I refer to the statement made by Senator Spooner last year in which he said that one aspect of the Lucas Heights programme which is yielding immediate benefits is the encouragement given to the use of isotopes in Australia as a most valuable means of improving efficiency in our industries, promoting health and1 expanding knowledge. The wide use which is being made of radio isotopes in industry, research, health and agriculture in America is rather illuminating. I was interested to learn from page 33 of the seventh annual report of the commission tabled a few days ago that last year 309 inquiries were made and that in the preceding year such inquiries numbered 310.
Some time ago, I asked a question relating to the curing or arresting of cancer. That question was prompted by a statement made by Dr. Kenneth Starr, who said -
A possible cause of cancer with avenues for new treatment, has been revealed in Sydney by a leading expert. He said that calcium deficiency was a possible cause, and, if this were so, infusion of calcium into the body could halt or prevent spread of this disease.
Dr. Starr is head of the New South Wales Cancer Council’s Research Laboratory. He was presenting a paper at the annual scientific meeting of the Royal Australian College of Surgeons, and this was the first major pronouncement on research from an officer of the council. The report of the meeting states -
Dr. Starr said that it had been found that a possible-
I emphasize “possible “ - cause of cancer was calcium deficiency in the body. He said there were still not enough cases to make the work authentic at this stage. It appeared that lack of calcium released or activated latent cancer cells in the body. A drop in calcium content frequently followed an operation. Doctors at the research laboratory had since begun to restore calcium immediately after operations. A significant difference had been found between normal cells and cancerous cells. Dr. Starr said it followed that if calcium loss stimulated cancer calcium might be used to suppress the cancer or to cause it to become latent. It had been discovered after death that 70 per cent, of people aged more than 90 years had had latent harmless cancer for many, many years.
The report goes on -
The head of the cancer clinic at Sydney’s Royal Hospital for Women, Dr. G. Crawford, said later that it would appear that calcium deficiency might be a contributing factor of cancer. He said the deficiency as a possible cause of the disease had been followed for some time.
Here I relate the article to the commission’s report -
A spokesman for the Royal Australian College of Surgeons said at a press conference that radio isotopes of calcium had to be obtained from Harwell, England. “ For the first time in Australia a new isotope, calcium 47, was being used,” he said. The Australian Atomic Energy Commission, which had been most helpful, had undertaken to produce fresh supplies. These were very difficult to get from Lucas Heights Atomic Research station, but supplies probably would be available in December.
That was when the reactor went into full operation. The article to which I have referred is most interesting; and the following is worthy of note -
The scientific experimental evidence showed that human cancer cells were very much more active in climates of diminished concentration of calcium.
So, I submit, that is one use which alone would justify the amount of research being done at Lucas Heights. If this research plays any part in arresting this fearful scourge of cancer it will be well worth while.
To support my argument and a suggestion which I propose submitting to the Government presently, I should like to mention some examples of how radio isotopes have been and are being used successfully in industry. First, is ils use in controlling thickness gauges. For instance, direct transmission or beta gauges have been used to monitor the thickness of such materials as sheet metals and foils, plastic and rubber sheeting, textiles, sheet glass, paper, asbestos sheets, mill-board, abrasive papers, linoleum and so on. This beta method can be applied to any sheet material up to a thickness of 1,200 milligrammes per square centimetre. One abrasive paper manufacturer has used this beta gauge to control the quantities of paper, glue and abrasive material in his manufacturing process.
In the lithographic testing process the thickness of the ink on the rollers must be kept between 4 and 6 microns. As a micron is .000039 of an inch, it means that you are getting down to a very fine flow of ink, which is very important to this industry. Normally this flow of ink is very difficult to measure and involves the interruption of the whole printing process for checking purposes. But by using this modified beta transmission gauge the ink’s thickness can be continuously measured during the operation. This means that the process need not be arrested in order to ensure that the flow of ink is at the desired thickness.
I wondered whether Senator Spooner would mention another use being made of isotopes. This is dealt with in a very interesting publication by Dr. Gregory entitled “ Radio Isotopes “. It is the gauging of snow depths and the flow of water. An interesting thickness gauge reported from the United States is one in which depths of snow are automatically recorded.
This gauge is used extensively in isolated catchment areas where readings from a number of gauges are reported automatically by radio to a central station each day. That means a considerable saving in labour, particularly in areas of difficult access in winter. Another advantage is that this gauge measures accurately the amount of water in the snow layer regardless of its depth. Such gauges may find useful application in the extensive catchment areas of the Snowy Mountains and other similar schemes.
I am illustrating some of the uses that can be made of radio isotopes so that I can support the suggestion that I propose to put to the Government. Take packaging, for instance: A great many things that we buy to-day, such as cigarettes, soap and foodstuffs, are automatically packed. With the use of radio isotopes, using gamma or beta radiation according to the thickness and density of the material, continuous highspeed scanning of packages for completeness of filling is extensively carried out. The apparatus can be made to sort rapidly units above and below specifications. Consequently there is considerable saving by better control of the quantity of material in each unit. Dr. Gregory tells me that with cigarettes in particular, the ray scans the cigarettes for density and tightness and rejects those that do not come up to the required standards. I believe the same thing applies in the packaging of foodstuffs like Weet Bix, Weeties and so on.
Another use made of radio isotopes is in detecting leaks in underground water supplies. The method that is used at present is very expensive. Using isotopes the detection of such leaks is very simple. A solution of sodium 24 bicarbonate, which is completely harmless to humans, is introduced into the section of water main where a leak is suspected. The pipeline is then flushed with clear water and a gamma probe is used, which registers where the leak is, no matter how deep underground it is.
Pest control is another use at which we in Australia, being largely ar. agricultural producing country, should look closely. Weevils in wheat and other grains are probably one of our greatest problems. We could be confronted with this problem in the next twelve months or so if there is any likelihood of a carry-over of wheat. I rang the manager of Co-operative Bulk Handling Limited in Western Australia and asked him whether weevil infestation was bad. He said that it was not, that it was under control, but that the control methods were quite expensive. Weevils and other grain pests can be eliminated by exposure to radiation. The radiation destroys the reproductive functions of the insects. With relatively light doses of radiation not only wheat but other foodstuffs, such as potatoes and onions, can be kept for longer periods by arresting the sprouting process that takes place. The trichinalarvae in pork can be treated by isotopes and the growth of other food-borne parasites can be controlled. While there are still some doubts about the usefulness of radiation in food processing, there is no question whatever of the usefulness of radiation in sterilizing medical supplies. Cheap, rapid and effective sterilization of cotton, gauze, swabs, dressings, sutures and instruments can be carried out on a large scale, even after packaging. Owing to the low density of some of those materials, a large bulk is effectively penetrated by radiation. In comparison heat sterilization is slow and much less effective. Most of the important antibiotics can be sterilized by radiation after sealing in ampules without loss in potency. Lately human bones and aorta for storage in banks have been successfully sterilized by cobalt 60 gamma radiation and subsequently grafted to human patients.
It is interesting to note that the Hifar reactor at Lucas Heights is one of the best in the world for isotope production. With this establishment we are now in a position to produce and use short-life radio isotopes which in the past we could not use because some of them have a life or half life of only fifteen hours. This meant that we could not obtain them from England - they were no longer of any use by the time they got here. With regard to cobalt 60 alone the Lucas Heights reactor will save us about £80,000 a year. Cobalt 60 is used in radio therapy treatment of cancer.
I mentioned earlier the use that is being made in America of radio isotopes. One paper company alone saves more than 193,000 dollars annually with, or.e of the thickness gauges that I mentioned, the cost of which is only 10,000 dollars. In the manufacture of pressure vessels - boilers and similar equipment - the use of isotope radiography brought about an annual saving of 100,000 dollars to a particular company as compared with the cost of ordinary conventional X-rays. A large petroleum company in America, through the use of catalyst circulation meters at an annual cost of 2,400 dollars, is able to produce 2,000,000 dollars worth more of petrol annually with no increase of production costs other than the cost of the meters.
As far back as 1956, the United States Atomic Energy Commission sought information from some 40 users of industrial isotopes on the saving in material, labour, maintenance and lost time and, of course, other possible benefits such as improved research methods. As a result, the total industrial savings were estimated to lie in the range between 295,000,000 dollars and 485,000.000 dollars a year. That was the direct saving. Early in 1959, an American industrialist gave this evidence before the Joint Congressional Committee on Atomic Energy -
In basic industries (steel, paper, rubber, etc.) installations of nucleonic measurement control systems may cost from 15,000 dollars to 250,000 dollars.
That is, the cost of each installation -
With approximately 4,000 such systems now in operation throughout a broad spectrum of American industry, savings are estimated in the neighbourhood of 300,000,000,000 dollars annually in raw materials alone.
That was through the use of radio-isotopes. I thought that that figure must have been a printer’s error, but I checked it and found it to be correct. The statement I have quoted appears in “ Atomic Energy “ of June, 1959.
I should now like to make a suggestion to the Minister for National Development (Senator Spooner). We all recognize the potential uses of radio-isotopes in industry, in agriculture and in medicine. My suggestion is that we should adopt the practice that is being followed in England to-day. The following article appeared in “ Atom “ of September, 1959: -
During 1957/58 nearly 350 company directors and senior executives came to Harwell on fourday courses to learn about the possibilities of using radioisotopes in their businesses. During this time they were given, in as non-technical a manner as possible, an overall picture of how isotopes can be used, what sort of research is being carried out on further possible uses, and generally how isotopes can be of economic benefit to industry.
The introduction of radioisotope techniques into a factory can increase the efficiency of certain operations, can cut out waste by the continuous automatic monitoring of a fast process, or provide research workers with a “ new tool “ in most cases far more sensitive than ordinary physical or chemical methods.
These courses are primarily for persons who have had no training whatever in radioactivity and are intended to stimulate ideas rather than to teach techniques. The courses are invaluable as a meeting ground on which our research workers can make contact with industrialists who have their own special problems to be solved. The informal discussions between staff and delegates are an important part of the courses and delegates are put in touch with specialists about any particular problems on which they would like information regarding the possibility of using isotopes.
Included in the course are lectures on the hazards of using radioactivity materials and the simple precautions required. Visits are paid to research reactors and other places of interest in the Establishment, also to the Wantage Radiation Laboratories where research is being carried out on the possibilities of using the large sources of radiations for purposes such as polymerisation, vulcanisation of rubber, sterilisation, pasteurisation, inhibition of sprouting of potatoes, etc.
I mentioned the inhibition of sprouting of potatoes and onions earlier. The article continues -
Delegates are accommodated at an Oxford College for four nights and brought daily to Harwell by coach. The fee for the course, inclusive of all accommodation, meals, transport and lectures is £40 . . .
I suggest that the Government should have a look at the method that Great Britain is adopting to make people aware of the uses of radio isotopes and consider whether we should adopt a similar system in Australia and endeavour to persuade industrialists and agriculturalists to attend these schools. The use of radio isotopes, particularly in relation to agriculture, is one of the greatest economic factors that we could get out of the amount of money we are spending in this field. Senator Spooner said earlier tonight that a number of years might elapse before nuclear power will be available in Australia. Australia’s largest source of export income is from primary production. It is in the field of agriculture and the production of food that the use of radio isotopes should be most valuable. In most instances, the return on the investment would probably come slowly in the form of increased future production. A study of fertilizers and the mineral uptake of plants, with special reference to Australian conditions would enable the more efficient use of fertilizers and so increase the production ot food.
The study of mineral defects in soils and the introduction of appropriate trace elements would assist in the opening up ot marginal and desert areas for agricultural production. I have in mind areas such as the vast tracts of land in my own State of Western Australia, between Esperance and Ravensthorpe and between Dongara and Yanchep. Australia should take a part in the investigation of radiation as applied to food preservation methods and the control of insect pests, particularly in the food range as I mentioned earlier. It must be remembered that we are situated a long distance from our principal overseas markets. I believe that the loss of food grain in storage due to insect pests is 50 per cent, in some parts of the world. It has been conservatively estimated that an average of 10 per cent, of all grain stored is lost from this cause.
I hope that the Minister will consider introducing the type of school that I have mentioned, and 1 urge any honorable senator who has not been to Lucas Heights to go there at the first opportunity and observe how the people engaged on research are working. I shall conclude on this note: 1 think it should be emphasized that atomic energy is a very great and revolutionary development. It is a development which offers a golden opportunity to Australia’s various industries in both the industrial field and agriculture. With Senator Benn, I shall await with interest the “ Hansard “ report of to-day’s proceedings, because Senator Spooner’s speech contained answers to a lot of the questions that I am sure have been posed to all of us concerning the establishment of nuclear power plants in Australia.
– I have listened with interest to Senator Branson who has gone into some measure of detail about the various uses of radio isotopes and their possible application to agriculture and other branches of industry in Australia. Before proceeding to deal with the report of the Australian Atomic Energy Commission in some detail I should like to refer to the remarks of Senator
Spooner. His was an interesting address. He spoke for 40 minutes and I had hoped that as Minister for National Development -the Australian Atomic Energy Commission being one of the instrumentalities directly under his control - he would deal with the report in greater detail. He gave us an interesting account of power generation in Australia, telling us of the amount of power being generated at the present time, the potential for the future, and the cost of thermal production of power compared with hydro-electric production of power.
Actually the matter under discussion is the report of the Australian Atomic Energy Commission. The report is an interesting one and I think the Government is to be congratulated on the personnel who constitute the various committees of the commission. They are outstanding men in the fields of science and business who give their time willingly and make an efficient contribution to this feature of Australian life. The report is divided into sections which deal with such matters as search for uranium, uranium mining, the market for uranium, the research programme, nuclear power including overseas trends and prospects in Australia, and the international facet.
Dealing first with the search for uranium, the report covers most of the areas in which uranium has been found. There is Radium Hill in South Australia, Mary Kathleen in Queensland, the Adelaide River area embracing the deposits of the United Uranium and South Alligator companies, Rum Jungle, and the field known as Anderson’s Lode in the Mount Isa district. The position does call for a measure of consideration. We are exporting our uranium ore under contract. I think that the ore from the Mary Kathleen field is under contract until the end of 1965, and the ore from Adelaide River to the end of 1962 and 1963. White’s Lode and Dyson’s Lode at Rum Jungle are virtually exhausted. This would suggest that if we continue to mine uranium it will be used in the reactors.. The question then arises whether, when the time comes for Australia to have nuclear power units, we will have deposits of uranium available to us. A certain amount of investigational work is being done. Various types of surveys are being made and maps are being completed; but there is not much individual prospecting. The Government should give serious consideration through bodies such as the Bureau of Mineral Resources and the Australian Atomic Energy Commission, to encourage prospecting for uranium ore deposits of a worthwhile nature and size. Actually, not much inducement exists when you consider the reward that was given to White for the discovery of the Rum Jungle field. He received only £25,000, which is infinitesimal compared with the value of the deposit or with the sum that Walton and his son and others received following the discovery of uranium at Mary Kathleen.
Irrespective of what might be considered the doubtful prospect of marketing uranium oxide at the present time, the Government should offer some really substantial financial reward to the discoverers of uranium deposits. This would act as a stimulus to prospectors. Virtually all deposits of minerals throughout Australia have been discovered by individual prospectors and not by mining companies. That is true of gold, copper and other minerals which have been discovered at Mount Isa, Croydon, Mount Morgan and Mary Kathleen as well as at fields in Western Australia and New South Wales. I am not decrying the role played by the mining companies in providing the know-how, technical advice and the necessary capital to purchase suitable equipment to carry on an enterprise in a big way. However, it is only through the efforts Of the individual who goes out fossicking, as was mentioned by Senator Benn, with hope in his heart, if not in his mind, that further deposits will be discovered. That is why I suggest that we give serious consideration to offering suitable financial rewards.
– What amount would you suggest?
– lt would depend upon the magnitude of the deposit dis covered. I certainly would not leave the figure at £25,000, considering that Walton and his associates, McConochie and others received virtually £1,000,000. I would not hesitate to make the reward £100,000 or even more than that, depending upon the magnitude Of the deposit. That should be a matter for serious consideration. The reward should be commensurate with the proven value of the deposits. The Government should not hesitate to increase the inducement. I would suggest that it act on the generous side and not be parsimonious. I think that White was treated in a parsimonious fashion for his discovery at Rum Jungle.
Credit is due to those who have engaged in uranium mining in Australia. They have done a remarkable job considering that it was a new type of mining. They faced extraordinary difficulties in the extraction of the ore. There were problems but they embarked on research, admittedly with the assistance of overseas research chemists and scientists. They have been eminently successful in the mining and extraction of the ore in Australia. However, very little has been done in Australia about the industrial hazards associated with uranium mining, and this is an aspect, I think, which should have received greater consideration. In the past this problem has received scant attention. It is possible that those who have engaged in mining uranium ore will manifest some ill effects in later life.
– Has anything been detected in these men up to date?
– I do not say that anything has been detected up to the present time, but that is not to say that some ill effects will not manifest themselves in the future. Very little work has been done on the investigation of hazards or likely deleterious effects on health.
– You are referring to radiation from the ore?
– The possibility of that.
– It is known to be cumulative?
– Yes, radiation effects are cumulative. Very little has been done in the way of investigation of the hazards faced by those associated with the handling and processing of ores, and of the deleterious effects that may result.
The report deals in some measure with future prospects, and it indicates that the market for uranium is not a particularly attractive one. There is a measure of overproduction of uranium throughout the world. It is not visualized that we will have atomic reactors in this country in the near future. The commission, in its report, refers to the possibility of atomic reactors being used in northern Queensland and the Northern Territory by 1970, and of reactors being in use in practically all States by 1980. Therefore, I think we have a responsibility to provide the reserves of ore that will be necessary when we decide to embark on the use of atomic energy. It is all very well for Senator Spooner to compare favorably, as he did to-night, the cost of generation of power by the use of coal or hydro-electricity with that of the cost of generation by means of nuclear power, and to say that that favorable position could continue until 1970. The interesting point is that other countries of the world which class themselves as progressive, are not ceasing in their efforts to develop nuclear energy and atomic power. It has been said that not much is being done in this field in some countries. Let us take as an example, Canada, a country with a population of not so many more millions than Australia. Canada has spent nearly 1,000,000,000 dollars on atomic investigation. We have spent this year, on plant construction, investigational work and administration, merely £2,500,000. In England and in the United States of America, almost unlimited funds are available for research. In the United States, of course, a large proportion of the expenditure is for war purposes. In Canada, the expenditure on research has been directed towards the peaceful uses of atomic energy. I take it that the scientists in England, Canada, the United States and Russia are not nincompoops when it comes to assessing the possibilities of nuclear energy for peace-time uses. If those countries are prepared to spend almost unlimited amounts on research, we too should face our responsibilities and spend comparatively large sums, irrespective of how favorably we may be placed from the point of view of black and brown coal deposits and the production of power from hydro-electric energy.
The questions may be asked: What research is being done and how much is being spent? What facilities are available, and what trained personnel have we? The commission has stated in its report that it has had difficulty in obtaining trained personnel suitable for research purposes, and that it has attempted to meet its needs by offering undergraduates facilities to acquire degrees. It has offered post-graduate scholarships.I think that the Government has a responsibility to go much further than that. Scientists are not necessarily made at university level. Some of the moulding has to take place at pre-university level.
Despite the almost unlimited revenue that this Government has at its disposal, and despite the fact that this year it will spend more than £1,600,000,000, it takes absolutely no interest in primary or secondary education. If it did so, it would surely appreciate that the States have failed in the field of education. The Government is continuing with Labour’s idea of Commonwealth scholarships, but it has been comparatively parsimonious in this respect. Although it has liberalized somewhat the financial conditions associated with the scholarships, the number of scholarships is practically identical with that of ten years ago. When we consider that the number of boys and girls now embarking on university careers is very much greater than it was eight or ten years ago, I think that honorable senators, most of whom seem to be reasonable people, will agree that the attitude of the Government to university education, in the matter of Commonwealth scholarships, is little short of disgraceful. The scientists and technical men who are so necessary in the field of nuclear research, are fashioned in no small measure in the secondary schools, having been encouraged, if necessary, in the primary schools. If we are to face the scientific and technological needs of this country, it is incumbent on the Government to take an immediate interest in primary and secondary education.
We in Australia are ourselves somewhat to blame for our lack of scientists, in that we have never offered suitable financial rewards to people engaged in the fields of scientific endeavour. We offer medical practitioners a not unreasonable return. Lawyers seem to be able to provide adequately for themselves. Dentists have not been neglecting themselves in recent years.
An investigation of incomes which was made in Victoria recently, indicated that while doctors, dentists and lawyers earned the highest incomes, scientists and engineers were very far behind. Is it any wonder that few parents encourage their children to embark on a science course at a university, and that few children wish to do so?
Although the age in which we live is a scientific and technological one, the percentage of children embarking on science courses at universities is practically no different from that of 1939, when the endeavours of engineers and scientists were not so well recognized and when they did not play such a great part in world affairs. We should offer young people the facilities to undertake science courses. If necessary, there should be a discriminatory allowance, in connexion with Commonwealth scholarships, to be payable to those embarking on the study of mathematics, science and engineering. In that way, a greater number of people might be prepared to undertake science or engineering courses.
Senator Branson referred to the use of radio isotopes in industry. I think that their scope is relatively unlimited. As has been mentioned, they may be used to determine the thickness of paper, or locate faults in welds; they can detect faults in metals; they can follow the flow of underground water and determine where leaks are occurring in underground pipes. I understand that the Shell people have a 39-mile underground pipe and that blockages in it are located by feeding in radio isotopes.
Debate interrupted.
page 338
The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Sir
Alister McMullin). - Order! In conformity with the sessional order relating to the adjournment of the Senate, I formally put the question -
That the Senate do now adjourn.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Senate adjourned at 10.30 p.m.
Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 29 March 1960, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1960/19600329_senate_23_s17/>.