Senate
22 May 1963

24th Parliament · 1st Session

  1. Senate
  2. 24th Parliament
  3. 1963

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Sir Alister McMullin) took the chair at 3 p.m., and read prayers.

page 607

QUESTION

SHIPPING

Senator ARNOLD:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Shipping and Transport whether it is necessary for overseas ships to obtain a permit to carry goods, particularly oil, around our coast. If it is necessary for them to do so, are such permits given freely? What is the object of the permit system? Is the Government taking all possible steps to tighten up the granting of these permits in order to protect Australian trade?

Senator PALTRIDGE:
Minister for Civil Aviation · WESTERN AUSTRALIA · LP

– This system, which has long been in vogue in Australian waters, is laid down in the Navigation Act. Where an Australian ship is available and is able to lift coastal cargo, that ship is employed and no permit is issued to a ship flying a foreign flag. Where, in relation to any type of cargo, no Australian ship is available to lift that cargo from point to point on the Australian coast, a permit is granted upon application being made to the Department of Shipping and Transport. As far as I am aware, the system has not been altered for very many years. I speak from memory when I say that it goes back to 1921. I am sure Senator Arnold would remember that as well as I do.

It can be said with truth that ships of foreign registry are not permitted to enter the coasting trade when Australian ships are available. When a particular type of ship is not on the Australian register, a continuing permit is granted. That applies in the case of some, if not all, of the tankers which are engaged on the Australian coast, the reason being that no tankers on the Australian registry are available to lift the cargo.

page 607

QUESTION

EXPORT OF FAUNA

Senator LAUGHT:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– Has the Minister for Customs and Excise seen the photograph and report which were published in yesterday’s “ Sydney Morning Herald “ about the shipment of Australian birds and animals from the Sydney zoo to the London zoo? Can the Minister inform the Senate of the criteria under which Australian birds and animals are allowed to be exported? Can he assure the Senate that the shipment referred to met those criteria?

Senator HENTY:
Minister for Customs and Excise · TASMANIA · LP

– I did see the photograph and the report of the shipment which was being made by the Sydney zoo to, I think, the Kensington Gardens zoo in London. I can assure the honorable senator that the shipment in every way satisfies the requirements and regulations which govern the export of Australian fauna. For commercial purposes, of course, the export of Australian fauna is absolutely prohibited and has been since 1960. It is possible to obtain permits to ship on a zoo-to-zoo basis or for scientific purposes. The zoo-to-zoo basis is designed by the Government to meet cases in which a zoo with surplus stock may ship it abroad to a zoo which has not entered into commercial trading. 1 emphasize the condition that the recipient zoo has not entered into commercial trading. Apparently there has been a misunderstanding among some of the controllers of zoos in Australia who have been purchasing Australian fauna from commercial trappers in Australia to fulfil overseas orders. That is not permissible. The position is that if, as in this case, the animals have been bred in captivity and are surplus to the requirements of the zoo they may be exported; but if they have been purchased from trappers or other commercial sources in Australia they may not be sent overseas.

page 607

QUESTION

FLOOD DAMAGE

Senator COOKE:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I ask the Minister representing the Treasurer whether he has noted the concern and sympathy which have been expressed by members on both sides of the chamber and the Prime Minister in connexion with the floods that have devastated New South Wales. Is the Minister aware that immediate relief is being afforded to flood victims by public subscription throughout Australia? Is the Minister able to inform the Senate whether the Treasurer has stated that donations made by public subscription for flood relief will be deductible for income tax purposes? If such a decision has not been made, will the

Minister take early action to see that contributions in -excess of £1 to funds established for the relief of victims of this national disaster will be deductible for taxation purposes?

Senator PALTRIDGE:
LP

– I am not able to say whether the Treasurer has made a statement to the effect indicated by the honorable senator. The usual practice in connexion with the relief of disaster is that an application is made to the Commonwealth, generally by the State government concerned, for the relief of personal hardship. If the request meets the criteria laid down, the Commonwealth contributes to the personal relief of the persons who have suffered loss. In some cases, I believe - indeed I have one in mind - donations to these relief funds are made deductible for income tax purposes. I am not sure what the situation is in respect of the New South Wales flood. I shall find out and let the honorable senator know.

page 608

QUESTION

ALUMINIUM

Senator SCOTT:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I ask the Minister for National Development whether it is a fact that the Minister for Territories has recently resumed an aluminium lease in the Northern Territory which was granted to the British Aluminium Company Limited. Is it a fact that the British aluminium company, in collaboration with the Reynolds Metal Company of the United States of America, offered to spend immediately approximately £1,500,000 on the development of this lease? Can the Minister advise why a proposition such as this was refused by the Australian Minister for Territories?

Senator SPOONER:
Minister for National Development · NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– Senator Scott’s question relates to the first of the two deposits of bauxite at Gove. Those deposits were first located in 1952 by a company in which the Commonwealth had a one-half interest and the British Aluminium Company Limited had a one-half interest. So the whereabouts of the deposits have been known for over ten years. They are a very valuable natural resource. The No. 1 Gove deposit, as we call it, is estimated to contain well over 100,000,000 tons of bauxite, which is sufficient to found a big industry. The deposits have been in the hands of the British Aluminium Company

Limited in conjunction, first,’ with the Commonwealth Government, then in conjunction with Consolidated Zinc Proprietary Limited, then in conjunction with the Reynolds Metal Company. Although this proposal was put forward it was aimed first at exporting the raw bauxite and we did not feel satisfied that this represented a sufficiently large and quick development of such big resources. We thought the interests of the Commonwealth would be served best by cancelling the. arrangements which had been in existence for so long and allowing the ownership to revert to the Commonwealth, leaving the Commonwealth to see whether it could make better arrangements than those proposed to it.

page 608

QUESTION

PUBLIC SERVICE

Senator SANDFORD:
VICTORIA

– My question is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. Is it a fact that the Commonwealth Public Service Board immediately dismisses any employee found to be diabetic, no matter how suitable the work of the person concerned may be? Is the Minister aware that the New South Wales Public Service Board continues to employ such persons provided it has been given medical advice that the employee is properly stabilized? If the first part of the question is correct, and having regard to the position in New South Wales, will the Minister have consideration given to this matter - if it has not already been considered - and recommend that the New South Wales procedure be adopted by the Commonwealth Public Service Board?

Senator Sir WILLIAM SPOONER:

– I wish I were better informed on the matter to which the honorable senator has referred and I ask that his question be put on the notice-paper. However, even though I lack exact knowledge on this matter, I think I can appropriately take the risk of saying no to the first part of the honorable senator’s question. Without making any inquiry, I just do not believe it is true that a person found to be suffering from diabetes is forthwith dismissed from the Commonwealth Public Service. I know there are arrangements by the Commonwealth Public Service, as by every large employer, for applicants for employment to undergo medical tests. However, I shall get the details if the honorable senator will put his question on notice.

page 609

QUESTION

DECIMAL CURRENCY

Senator McKELLAR:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I ask the Minister representing the Treasurer whether his attention has been directed to an advertisement in the “ Sydney Morning Herald “ to-day by a cash register company stating -

As agents for the . . . machines we are authorised to convert all postwar models - 15 years and under - Cost to be compensated by the Government Pro Rata basis.

Has the Government given such an undertaking to such firms as this, to operate when decimal currency is adopted?

Senator PALTRIDGE:
LP

– I have not seen the advertisement and I am very interested to have my attention directed to it. The Government has made no firm decision regarding compensation for conversion of cash registers or similar machines of any type. If the honorable senator will make the copy of the advertisement available to me 1 shall be pleased to discuss it with the Treasurer.

page 609

QUESTION

CIVIL AVIATION

Senator MARRIOTT:
TASMANIA

– My question is addressed to the Minister for Civil Aviation, ls it a fact that the United Kingdom’s first short-haul jet airliner - the B.A.C. Ill - to replace the Viscount aircraft, is to commence flying next month much in advance of comparable aircraft of rival companies and countries? Was this aircraft considered when a decision was being made as to what jet liners would be permitted to be purchased by Australian civil airlines to replace the present prop-jet aircraft now in use?

Senator PALTRIDGE:
LP

– The B.A.C. Ill was not considered as a front-line contender when the airlines recently made their decision to re-equip with the Boeing 727 aircraft of American manufacture. The principal British aircraft which was then on the market and would have been available at the time the re-equipment would take place was the De Havilland Trident. That aircraft was considered to be the main contender with the Boeing 727. The B.A.C. Ill, being a somewhat smaller aircraft, did not fall into the precise field of either the Trident or the Boeing 727, and although it was assessed it was not ordered by the airlines.

page 609

QUESTION

FREEDOM FROM HUNGER CAMPAIGN

Senator FITZGERALD:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. Is the Minister aware that the Freedom from Hunger campaign is to close this week-end and that we, in this part of the democratic world, know that more than one-half of the Asian people, our near neighbours, are suffering from hunger and malnutrition? Will the Minister arrange with the governments of the United States of America and Canada and our own Government - the governments of the three countries which have the largest surpluses of wheat - to send, with the least possible delay, a large quantity of these surpluses to the world’s hungry people? Finally, does the Minister not believe that such a gesture to assist the world’s hungry people would help to create respect and friendship between ourselves and the needy nations?

Senator Sir WILLIAM SPOONER:

– The

Commonwealth Government is already supporting this appeal very substantially. Over and above the Commonwealth’s recognition of contributions to the campaign as allowable deductions for income tax purposes, an appreciable cash contribution is made towards meeting the administrative expenses of the appeal. I do not think we would be prepared, against that background, to adopt the honorable senator’s proposal.

page 609

QUESTION

INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS

Senator VINCENT:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for External Affairs, and it relates to the current conference of African nations at Addis Ababa. Can the Minister inform the Senate what nations are participating in this conference? Is it true that this conference is considering a closer form of union of African nations? Is Australia” represented as a spectator nation at this most important conference? When the conference has concluded will the

Minister consider making a full report ofits proceedings to the Senate?

Senator GORTON:
Minister for the Navy · VICTORIA · LP

– This question relates to the nuances of a conference that is being held and the possibilities that may come out of it. I think that rather than answer the question on the spur of the moment I should ask the honorable senator to put it on the notice-paper so that a considered reply can be given to him.

page 610

QUESTION

CIVIL AVIATION

Senator MCCLELLAND:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is directed to the Minister for Civil Aviation. Is the Minister aware that during the recent floods on the north coast of New South Wales local civil defence authorities sought a Royal Australian Air Force Hercules aircraft to fly to the flooded areas urgently needed rescue equipment, but that because of the inadequacy of the runway at Casino the Hercules aircraft could not land at that aerodrome and the rescue equipment had to be transported by road? Has the Minister noted that the Prime Minister was in Casino on Monday last and that he there expressed the opinion that something must be done to mitigate flood damage in future? In view of the Prime Minister’s statement, will the Minister take up the right honorable gentleman’s suggestion and have the runway facilities at Casino aerodrome developed in such a way as to enable large Air Force planes to land at that aerodrome in times of flood emergency?

Senator PALTRIDGE:
LP

– The aerodrome at Casino has been constructed to provide for civil aircraft standards and to cater for the civil aircraft which fly in and out of the airport. I am not too sure of the particular type of aircraft which services the airport, but I fancy that it is a Friendship aircraft. The honorable senator has asked whether the airstrip could be lengthened in order to provide for landings by Hercules aircraft in flood periods. I put it to him that, from a civil aviation point of view, such an undertaking could not possibly be justified on the basis of meeting relief requirements. It is not a normal function of the Department of Civil Aviation to provide airports which will cater for large aircraft in circumstances such as those to which the honorable sena tor-has referred. I should think that the civil authorities who were carrying out the relief operations might have been better advised to explore the possibility of using a smaller type of aircraft since they must have known in advance that the airport could not possibly be used by a Hercules aircraft.

page 610

QUESTION

EXPORT OF FAUNA

Senator LAUGHT:

– My question, which is addressed to the Minister for Customs and Excise, is further to the question I asked him earlier to-day concerning the export of Australian fauna. Has the Minister a list of zoos overseas which are recognized by his department as genuine, non-commercial trading zoos?

Senator HENTY:
LP

– We are in the midst of compiling a list at the present time. During the course of our investigations of zoos overseas we have found a number which are really commercial trading zoos. I have asked the department to check carefully throughout the countries in which we have customs representatives, trade commissioners and other representatives, for the purpose of compiling a list of accredited zoos which do not indulge in commercial trading. We have not yet completed the list, but as soon as that is done I shall be. glad to let the honorable senator have a copy of it.

page 610

QUESTION

ROYAL AUSTRALIAN NAVY

Senator CANT:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I address a question to the Minister for the Navy. Was the Government’s decision to purchase three Charles F. Adams class destroyers influenced by the fact that they would be armed with Tartar ground-to-air missiles? Is it a fact that Tartar missiles will not now be available to arm the destroyers when they are commissioned? Was it known, at the time the destroyers were ordered, that the Tartar missile had not been tested and would not be available? Does this mean that the destroyers will be armed with conventional weapons? Is Australia equipped to manufacture the type of conventional weapons required? If so, will they be manufactured in Australia, thus providing employment for Australian workmen?

Senator GORTON:
LP

– The three Charles F. Adams class destroyers ordered from the United States of America are to be equipped with Tartar guided missiles. At the time of ordering, the destroyers were to be equipped with them, and the fact that they were to be so equipped was an important element in deciding to order these particular ships. It is not a fact that the Tartar missiles will not be available for the Charles F. Adams destroyers ordered by Australia, nor is it a fact that the Tartar missile had not been tested at the time the order was placed by Australia for the ships. I noticed a report in a newspaper to the effect that what I have just said was not true. I do not know the basis of that report, other than the possibility that there is an improved type of Tartar missile coming in which may be substituted for the one on order; but the one on order has been tested and is available. It is possible that it may be improved on, but not certain. Therefore, the part of the honorable senator’s question which asked whether the ships will be armed with conventional weapons instead of missiles does not call for an answer, though they will, of course, have the S-in. guns which are always a part of the equipment of this type of vessel.

page 611

QUESTION

WHEAT

Senator SCOTT:

– Has the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry seen a statement to the effect that the West Australian wheat-growers this year will be increasing their acreage by about 11 or 12 per cent.? Can the Minister advise me of the latest position regarding the wheat stabilization scheme? Is a scheme in force, and if not, when will a new scheme be announced?

Senator WADE:
Minister for Health · VICTORIA · CP

– Answering the last part of the question first, I inform the honorable senator that there is a wheat stabilization scheme in force at the present time which will not expire until September of this year. The Minister for Primary Industry has had two or three conferences with the Australian Wheat-growers Federation, but at this time the only information I can give the honorable senator is that the talks are progressing with the objective of completing a new agreement.

page 611

QUESTION

SEARCH FOR OIL

Senator O’BYRNE:
TASMANIA

– My question is directed to the Minister for National Development. I refer to an article in the Sydney “ Daily Telegraph “ of to-day’s date headed “Why Burmah left N.G. Hunt”. It states -

The Burmah Oil Co. Ltd. has explained why it let lapse the option held over gas deposits held in Papua by Oil Search Ltd.

After discussions with the Commonwealth Government-

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! The honorable senator must ask his question.

Senator O’BYRNE:

– Is it a fact that the Burmah Oil Company Limited has left Papua and allowed its options to lapse? Can the Minister explain to the Senate what discussions the company had in explaining that it could not raise the capital necessary to set up a plant for gas utilization or transportation of its resources in New Guinea? Where is the well situated in which the Burmah Oil Company Limited was interested? Does this mean that the utilization of gas resources existing in Papua will not be persevered with at all? Does the Commonwealth Government intend to do anything about these resources? Does Oil Search Limited intend to develop the gas resources on its lease? How long can oil companies hold leases containing reserves of gas or oil without developing them?

Senator Sir WILLIAM SPOONER:

– I

I have not had the advantage of seeing the article in this morning’s press, but the circumstances are well known to me. In brief, the story runs something like this: As most honorable senators know Oil Search Limited has been searching for oil in New Guinea for many years. It found evidence of large gas deposits, but did not drill to define those deposits exactly. Endeavouring to find a use for these gas reserves the company made arrangements with Burmah Oil Company Limited, and Burmah Oil Company Limited and other oil companies carried out a feasibility test of the possibilities of using the gas in various industries in New Guinea. They came to the conclusion that the very heavy capital investment involved would not make this an attractive proposition. One of the first parts of the proposal was that some very large sums of money were to be spent to prove whether the gas was actually there in the volume expected. I think that Burmah Oil Company Limited and Oil Search Limited between them spent considerable sums of money on this investigation and devoted much time to seeing whether the discovery could be developed into a feasible commercial proposition. I think that that answers the question. The well concerned is about 100 miles from the coast-line. As to that part of the question about the holding of leases, that matter comes under the mining ordinances of New Guinea.

page 612

QUESTION

PUBLIC SERVICE

Senator CAVANAGH:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– Has the Minister representing the the Prime Minister seen a circular distributed to members of the Senate to-day from The Australian Council of Salaried and Professional Associations? I invite the Minister to comment on the following paragraph: -

There is a rapidly increasing awareness among white-collar workers to-day, that the Federal Government, through its Commonwealth Public Service Board, Department of Labour and National Service and Treasury and thence through the Commissions and Public Service Boards of the States is conducting, in co-operation with the trading banks and other employers, a real offensive against white-collar salaries.

Senator Sir WILLIAM SPOONER:

– I am sorry to say that I have not seen the circular to which Senator Cavanagh refers. However, I shall give him an answer without having seen the circular. I remind him that Commonwealth public servants - I assume that the circular relates to them - will have their case before the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission within the next week or so - I think on 29th May. I speak from memory when 1 say that I think the Government has already stated that it will not make any representations to the commission. This will be a straight case of the associations concerned making representations to the commission, and the commission giving its finding in accordance with the principles to which, I understand, all political parties adhere. We all believe in recourse to arbitration in the settlement of these matters. In those circumstances, I should not think that any honorable senator on either side of the chamber would be influenced by representations such as those mentioned by Senator Cavanagh.

page 612

QUESTION

TAXATION

Senator MARRIOTT:

– I direct a question to the Minister representing the Treasurer. In view of the fact that, as the Minister for Civil Aviation informed me yesterday, civil airline companies are to charge concession fares for full-time university students travelling on vacation, will the Minister, in this Budget-forming period, request the Treasurer to include in the 1963-64 Budget a provision for the cost of university text-books and fees to be allowable deductions for income tax purposes when a student earns a taxable income or receives a livingawayfromhome allowance?

Senator PALTRIDGE:
LP

– The question involves a matter of policy and is of a type that is considered at Budget time when the whole field of taxation and possible concessions are under review. I have no doubt that even if this matter has not been brought to the notice of the Treasurer prior to to-day it will come up for consideration at Budget time.

page 612

QUESTION

FLOOD RELIEF

Senator MURPHY:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I ask the Leader of the Government in the Senate: Has the Government taken any action to assist the people affected by the floods in the coastal rivers districts of New South Wales? If so, what are the nature and extent of that action?

Senator Sir WILLIAM SPOONER:

– I take the risk of answering Senator Murphy without first verifying my information. I feel quite certain that in this case, as in other cases, the Commonwealth is making funds available in accordance with the procedure that is well established in relation to disaster relief. I think the formula is that the Commonwealth provides £1 for each £1 the State provides, and that the State has an organization for the distribution of those funds.

page 612

QUESTION

AID TO INDONESIA

Senator BROWN:
QUEENSLAND

– I direct a question to the Minister for the Navy. Yesterday, in answer to an interesting question by Senator Wood, the Minister stated that aid for

Indonesia was directed towards helping her to build roads, provide civil aviation facilities and develop in other fields. He also mentioned the Colombo Plan. I ask the Minister whether it is possible to assess this aid in terms of money. I know he cannot give us the exact figure, but can he give the Senate an idea in round figures of what it is costing Australia to aid Indonesia?

Senator GORTON:
LP

– I am sure Senator Brown understands that the facts which I cited yesterday in reply to a question asked by Senator Wood were only examples of the technical aid that is being extended to Indonesia. There arc other fields in which technical aid is being extended. The point I really wished to make was that technical aid rather than commodity aid was being extended to Indonesia and, as far as possible, to other countries in the area.

I should not like to state off the cuff in round figures just what proportion of the sum of more than £5,000,000 that is allocated annually to the Colombo Plan is being applied specifically to the assistance of Indonesia. Other factors enter into the picture, including the training in Australia of Indonesian students, the cost of which is charged against the Colombo Plan. However, it is possible to assess quite accurately how much would be expended during a given financial year on these projects. I shall have the figures extracted from the Estimates, in which they would appear, and let the honorable senator have them.

page 613

QUESTION

CIVIL AVIATION

Senator COOKE:

– Does the Minister for Civil Aviation recollect that on about the ninth day of this month an Electra aircraft, after proceeding 345 miles out over the Great Australian Bight on its way to Western Australia, had to return to Adelaide as a result of meteorological reports of adverse weather conditions at Perth, Kalgoorlie and Adelaide? Is it a fact that the aircraft had to return to Adelaide to refuel as the alternative aerodrome at which it would have had to land in the event of its being unable to land at these airports was at Mangalore in Victoria? Has the Minister anything to report to the Senate in relation to alternative aerodromes that would be available to these turbo-prop aircraft and the jet aircraft that we hope, and which we are likely, to get on the Western Australian route? Has the Department of Civil Aviation sorted out alternative aerodromes to provide a better arrangement than that which seems to exist at the present time?

Senator PALTRIDGE:
LP

– I am familiar with the incident to which the honorable senator refers. Indeed, I understand that he was a passenger on the aircraft concerned.

Senator Cooke:

– That is so.

Senator PALTRIDGE:

– I understand that certain honorable senators and certain members of another place also were passengers on that aircraft. This matter was brought to my notice some time ago by Senator Branson when he addressed a question to me in this place.

Senator Marriott:

– The question is on the notice-paper.

Senator PALTRIDGE:

– I am having inquiries made about the circumstances surrounding the whole incident. When the matter was’ reported to me, it was stated that the Kalgoorlie airport could not be used and that the pilot, upon being questioned whether Meekatharra aerodrome could be used, said, “ No, we cannot use Meekatharra because there is no compressed air there “. The pilot’s statement about the availability of compressed air at Meekatharra was not correct. Compressed air was available at Meekatharra if it had been decided that the aircraft should proceed to that airport. I acknowledge at once that that was an unlikely alternative.

As I said, I am having an inquiry made into the whole of the circumstances surrounding the incident and, having been reminded that a question about it appears on the notice-paper, I shall let the Senate know the facts as soon as I have them.

page 613

QUESTION

ALUMINIUM

Senator MURPHY:

asked the Minister for National Development, upon notice -

  1. To what extent is the aluminium industry in Australia owned or controlled by companies or persons other than persons resident in Australia or companies owned and controlled by Australian residents?
  2. Which are the principal companies or persons, and what is the extent of their ownership or control of (a) sources of raw material, (b) the existing or proposed refineries, and (c) the manufacturing section of the industry?
Senator Sir WILLIAM SPOONER:

– The reply to the honorable senator’s question is as follows: -

  1. At present there are two integrated groups in the Australian aluminium industry - the Comalco Industries Proprietary Limited group and the Alcoa of Australia Proprietary Limited group. Comalco Industries Proprietary Limited is owned 50 per cent. each by Kaiser Aluminium and Chemical Corporation of Oakland, United States of America, and Conzinc Riotinto of Australia Limited, which is 90 per cent. owned by the Rio Tinto-Zinc Corporation Limited of the United Kingdom and the remaining 10 per cent. by public shareholders in Australia, New Zealand and elsewhere. Alcoa of Australia Proprietary Limited is 51 per cent, owned by Aluminum Company of America and the remaining 49 per cent. by Australian companies, viz. Western Mining Corporation Limited, Broken Hill South Limited and North Broken Hill Limited.

  2. There are three stages in the production of aluminium: (i) the mining of bauxite; (ii) the extraction of alumina from bauxite; and (iii) the reduction of alumina into aluminium -

    1. There are three main bauxite deposits in Australia - Weipa in Queensland, Darling Ranges in Western Australia, and Gove in the Northern Territory.

At Weipa, Commonwealth Aluminium Corporation . Proprietary Limited, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Comalco Industries Proprietary Limited, has already commenced the mining of bauxite for export and for use in the group’s existing and proposed alumina plants. Another company, Aluminium Limited, is prospecting for bauxite in areas adjacent to the Commonwealth Aluminium Corporation Proprietary Limited deposit. It is a subsidiary of Aluminium Limited of Canada.

In the Darling Ranges, Alcoa of Australia Proprietary Limited is to mine bauxite for processing at Kwinana.

At Gove the Government has “approved the development of the Gove Perimeter bauxite deposit by Gove Bauxite Corporation, which will be associated with the Pechiney Company of France. The Minister for Territories has recently announced that the Government has terminated British Aluminium Company Limited’s lease over the central portion of the Gove bauxite deposit and that the Government is prepared to consider any reasonable proposals put forward for development of the area;

  1. Comalco Aluminium (Bell Bay) Limited; 66) controlled by Comalco Industries Proprietary Limited and 33 per cent. controlled by the Tasmanian Government, operates an alumina plant at Bell Bay, Tasmania. Alcoa of Australia Proprietary Limited is building an alumina plant at Kwinana, Western Australia, which should be in operation by the end of this year. An announcement was made in April that Comalco Industries Proprietary Limited intends to construct an alumina plant at Gladstone, Queensland.
  2. Comalco Aluminium (Bell Bay) Limited operates an aluminium reduction plant at Bell Bay. Alcoa of Australia Proprietary Limited brought the first stages of its reduction plant at Point Henry, Victoria, into operation in April.

In the fabricating side of the industry, the main company is Australian Aluminium Company Limited, which it has been announced is to become a wholly-owned subsidiary of Aluminium Limited of Canada. The other main company is Comalco Industries Proprietary Limited and its various subsidiaries and associated companies. There is also a number of other smaller independent companies engaged in the fabricating of aluminium products. If more detailed information is wanted about this section of the aluminium industry, I suggest that the honorable senator should contact the Department of Trade.

page 614

QUESTION

STATES GRANTS

Senator COLE:
TASMANIA

asked the Minister repre senting the Treasurer, upon notice -

  1. Is it a fact that the Commonwealth Grants Commission, in computing the education cost factor in its grants to claimant States, takes the total number of school children in New South Wales, the base State, to determine the per capita cost?
  2. If so, would it not be a truer indication of the per capita cost if the number of children taken in the survey was limited to children attendingState schools, thus allowing a more favorable factor for the claimant States?
Senator PALTRIDGE:
LP

– The answer to the honorable senator’s questions is as follows: - 1 and 2. No. In determining the amounts of the grants which it recommends for payment to the claimant States, the Commonwealth Grants Commission compares the actual expenditure on social services in each claimant State with amounts arrived at by multiplying the mean population of each claimant State by the simple average of the net per capita expenditure on social services in the standard States (at present New South Wales and Victoria) and increasing those amounts by percentage allowances. The commission has not made calculations on the basis of the number of school children in any category but upon the number of the total population. ‘‘These percentage allowances (al present 14 per cent, for Western Australia and IT per cent, for Tasmania) are designed to permit the citizens of claimant States to enjoy levels of social services somewhat comparable with those provided in the standard States by recognizing and allowing for any differential difficulties in the claimant States in the provision of similar services. The whole of the factors which are taken into account in determining the percentage allowance for difficulties in the claimant States have not been detailed in reports of the commission, but mention has been made by the commission of additional costs arising from “ dispersion of population “ and overhead costs in relation to the smaller populations of the claimant States. The question of a percentage allowance for the relatively greater proportion of school children in the claimant States attending State schools is at the present time being considered by the commission.

page 615

QUESTION

COMMONWEALTH SUPERANNUATION FUND

Senator HENDRICKSON:
VICTORIA

asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice -

  1. Has the Superannuation Board about £82,000,000 invested in various governmental and other instrumentalities, of which only £23,000,000 is invested in Commonwealth Government securities?
  2. Will the Government instruct the board to release some of this money for loans to contributors and former contributors at low interest rates for home-building and other urgent purposes, particularly in view of the fact that many large private business firms are able to borrow en satisfactory terms from the Superannuation Fund resources?
  3. Will the Government authorize an increase in the value of the superannuation unit to 25s. to those former ‘contributors who have less than fourteeen units?
  4. In view of the plight of some widows of former contributors, who are financially embarrassed because of the serious decline in the purchasing power of their pensions, will the Government authorize an additional payment to those widows whose superannuation pension rate debars them from obtaining social service benefits?
Senator PALTRIDGE:
LP

– The Treasurer has supplied the following information: -

  1. At 30th June, 1962, the Superannuation Board’s investments amounted to £91,300,000 of which £25,000,000 was in Commonwealth Government securities.
  2. The money in the Superannuation Fund belongs to the contributors to the fund and the responsibility for its investment is placed by statute on the Superannuation Board. Within the limit provided by the Superannuation Act, the board is free to exercise its own judgment in the matter of investments and is not subject to direction by the Government. 3 and 4. It is not customary to provide a statement of Government policy in answer to questions. However, the honorable senator may be assured that the position of superannuation pensioners is well known to the Government and, in accordance with past practice, will be carefully reviewed during the forthcoming Budget discussions.

page 615

QUESTION

COMMONWEALTH EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSATION

Senator COHEN:
VICTORIA

asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice -

  1. How many applications for compensation under the Commonwealth Employees Compensation Act were determined by the Commissioner for Employees Compensation or by his delegate in each of the years 1960, 1961 and 1962?
  2. How many of such applications were - (a) applications by dependants in respect of death of the employee from injury arising out of or in the course of his employment; (W applications by employees for compensation for injury arising out of or in the course of their employment; (c) applications for weekly payments of compensation during incapacity; and (d) applications for lump sum compensation for injuries specified in the Third Schedule to the act?
  3. How many of such applications in each of the categories (a) to (d) in 2 above were (a) granted, (b) granted in part, and (c) refused?
  4. In how many of such cases was the determination made (a) by the Treasurer, and (b) by the Treasurer’s delegate under section 7 (lj of the act?
  5. How many of such applications were (a) applications for compensation to employees in “ heart “ cases, and (b) applications by dependants of deceased employees in “ heart “ cases?
  6. What was the total cost to the Commonwealth of all amounts paid as compensation under the act in each of those years?
Senator PALTRIDGE:
LP

– The Treasurer has furnished the following reply: -

I regret that the records maintained in respect of compensation claims and determinations do not enable me to answer the question in full. It would be necessary to examine and to study every individual file to give the information in the form in which it is sought. However, the honorable senator’s inquiry may be met substantially by the informtaion that is available as follows: -

Compensation records are compiled in respect of financial and not calendar years. The numbers of determinations made in each year are not recorded, but the numbers of claims in respect of which liability was accepted and compensation paid during the period from 1959-60 to 1961-62 were as follows: -

2 and 3. Records are not kept of the particulars sought but the following table indicates the amount of compensation paid in respect of claims under various sections of the act: -

  1. The statutory authority to make determinations under the Commonwealth Employees Compensation Act is not held by the Treasurer but is exercised by the Commissioner for Employees Compensation and his delegates. During the period under review all determinations were made by the delegates of the commissioner under delegations granted in accordance with section 7 (1) of the act.
  2. Records are not available to answer this question as claims are not classified in such a manner.
  3. See table furnished in respect of questions 2 and 3.

page 616

QUESTION

DECIMAL CURRENCY

Senator BREEN:
VICTORIA

asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice -

  1. In discussions regarding the change to decimal currency has the adoption of the florin as a unit been considered?
  2. Would its adoption as a unit enable (a) the present 2s. coins to be retained, (b) other coins to retain their shape, the shilling being fifty cents and so on, and (c) easy conversion of pounds to florins, the addition of a “ nought “ only being necessary, e.g. £75 becoming 750 florins?
Senator PALTRIDGE:
LP

– The Treasurer has furnished the following reply to the honorable senator’s question: - 1 and 2. The florin was not recommended by the Decimal Currency Committee, nor adopted by the Government, primarily because it was considered that this would have involved too great a reduction in the major unit. If the major unit were the equivalent of a florin, the minor unit would be roughly the same as a farthing, which would be undesirably low. It is not correct to say that, under this system, coins other than the two shillings would retain their shape, since, as is the case with the l0s.-cent system, no coin below the equivalent of the present sixpence would correspond exactly with a new decimal coin. While conversion from present pounds to florins would be comparatively easy, as the honorable senator has said, the Decimal Currency Committee pointed to the ready associability between existing: shillings and the major unit in a l0s.-cent system, e.g. 17s. will be equivalent to 1.70 new units. In addition, under a system based on the florin, monetary machines would require a higher capacity than would be the case under a decimal system with 10s. as the major unit.

page 616

QUESTION

BROADCASTING

“Any Questions” Programme.

Senator ORMONDE:
through Senator O’Byrne

asked the Minister representing the Postmaster-General, upon notice -

Does the Australian Broadcasting Commission’s decision to censor the previously uncensored “ Any Questions “ programme conform with Government policy? If so, what standards and principles are followed by these self-appointed censors of Australian entertainment?

Senator WADE:
CP

– The PostmasterGeneral has supplied the following reply to the honorable senator’s question: -

The Australian Broadcasting Commission has made no decision to censor this programme.

page 617

QUESTION

COMMONWEALTH TRADING BANK LOANS

Senator COLE:

asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice -

Is it a fact that the central bank has directed all Commonwealth Trading Banks to limit temporary loans to six months, including those made to applicants for war service homes, whose applications to the War Service Homes Division have been approved but in respect of which finance has not yet been made available?

Senator PALTRIDGE:
LP

– The Treasurer has supplied the following answer: -

The Reserve Bank has not given directions to any trading bank concerning the provision of shortterm finance to applicants for war service homes assistance or to any other applicants. In October, 1961, the Reserve Bank restored to the trading banks general discretion as to the classes of lending they could undertake and asked them, among other things, to continue the preferential treatment being given to housing. There has been no change in (his policy.

page 617

QUESTION

INCOME TAX

Senator MURPHY:

asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice -

  1. What has the Government done about the suggestion made on 12th August, 1960, by the late Mr. Justice Fullagar in his judgment in the case of Stuckey v. Iliff, decided by the High Court of Australia and reported in Commonwealth Law Reports, volume 105, page 164 et seq., in which he said, at page 171 -

The provisions of Pt. VH. of the act (Income Tax and Social Services Contribution Assessment) are notoriously confused and difficult, and it would, 1 think, be a good thing if they were subjected to revision by Parliament in the near future.?

  1. When does the Government intend to introduce remedial legislation?
Senator PALTRIDGE:
LP

– The Treasurer has furnished the following reply: -

  1. The provisions of Part VII. of the Income Tax and Social Services Contribution Assessment Act were the subject ot consideration by the Commonwealth Committee on Taxation. The committee recommended that Part VII. should bc revised and in particular that section 247 be amended to give the courts the power when imposing a penalty to allow an offender “ time to pay “.
  2. There is amending legislation presently before the Parliament to amend section 247 on the lines suggested by the committee. It will be appreciated that the revision of the remainder of Part VII. is a most complex task and it is expected that the examination will be prolonged. 1 can assure me honorable senator, however, that the matter has not been overlooked.

page 617

DEFENCE REVIEW

Ministerial Statement

Senator PALTRIDGE:
Minister for Civil Aviation · Western Australia · LP

– by leave - I propose to make a statement on behalf of the Prime Minister (Sir Robert Menzies). Where the first person singular pronoun occurs it refers to the Prime Minister and not to me. The statement is as follows: -

May I begin with some general observations of no great novelty, but the recollection of which is essential to a useful review of Australian defence. Every defence programme must, in its nature, be flexible. As international strategic considerations change, so we must be ready to change our own defence arrangements. Every measure we adopt is so adopted with knowledge of the appreciations put before us by our expert military and diplomatic advisers. In other words, the condition of an effective defence programme is that it should be based upon as accurate an assessment as can be made of the probable sources and nature of the apprehended attack, the area of possible conflict and the nature of the operations, and the nature and extent of the co-operation we may expect from and give to the United Nations in general and our allies in particular. Plainly, most of these elements are not static; hence the importance, of being ready to accept changes when their need arises.

Again, there are internal and equipment factors which, whatever new proposals are adopted, will affect the rate of increase in defence expenditure. For example -

Naval vessels have to be designed, laid down, built and equipped over a substantial period of time;

Aircraft cannot be bought out of existing stocks, and their domestic production, having regard to their enormous complexity, cannot be encompassed except over a period of years;

The Army cannot in time of peace be strengthened numerically and in terms of equipment and training very suddenly.

I give these illustrations for this reason. I will be giving some new figures for our anticipated defence votes. They will indicate substantial increases; but, because of the time factors which I have referred to, those increases will be smaller in the earlier part of the programme than in the later. In brief, no government in Australia should announce a dramatic increase in defence expenditure for 1963-64 just for the sake of doing so. All new proposals must be phased over the necessary period of time.

In October last, my colleague, the Minister for Defence (Mr. Townley), whose continued absence through ill health we all regret so deeply, announced a new three-year defence programme covering the years 1962-63 to 1964-65. He emphasized that the programme was not static, and that adjustments would be made as new circumstances developed.

In January of this year, following a review of the naval programme we announced some additional measures for strengthening the Royal Australian Navy.

I will not repeat these two announcements in detail, as copies of them are available to honorable members. But it may be helpful for an understanding of the financial quantum of our new measures if I now set out the financial involvement of those earlier announcements. Based on a continuance of the approvals given before our current review, the annual expenditures were estimated to be as follows: -

These figures give a total, necessarily approximate in the case of future years, of £1,313,000,000 over six years- £651,000,000 in the first three years, and £662,000,000 in the second three years.

We have now completed a further comprehensive review of developments in SouthEast Asia. We have noted the uncertainties in Laos, the acute problems in South Viet Nam, the conflicts which exist over the creation of the new Federation of Malaysia, and events in and concerning West New Guinea. It certainly cannot be said that we have entered a period of stability in the area of immediate strategic concern to Australia. We have made our review in the light of our treaty arrangements, but particularly in reference to the security of our own country and of the Territories of Papua and New Guinea. We will defend these territories as if they were part of our mainland; there must be no mistaken ideas about that.

We have decided that there should be a further progressive increase in our military capability and preparedness. I will take the three Services in order.

It will be recalled that in January we announced two large naval projects; the purchase of a third guided missile destroyer and the procurement of four “Oberon “ class submarines. We have now approved of provision for fitting the Ikara antisubmarine missile, which is under development in Australia - with United States of America co-operation - into the Type XII. frigates and the guided missile destroyers. This will be a most significant improvement. We have also approved of the building in Australia of a 15,000-ton escort maintenance ship. We have reviewed our 1959 decision that fixed-wing naval aviation should cease in 1963. After recent reappraisals of the wing-fatigue life of the Venoms and Gannets, and reports of the very low wastage and accident rate, we have decided that fixed-wing flying is to continue until the Venoms and Gannets reach the end of their service life. This will be about 1967 when the position can be reviewed. These aircraft will, of course, be used in conjunction with the Westland Wessex helicopters already under delivery. The personnel strength of the Royal Australian Navy will be increased from the present approved total of 13,900 to about 14,300.

Last year it was decided to increase the permanent Army strength from 21,000 to 24,500 by June, 1965. We- have now approved of a further increase to 28,000. The order of battle of the permanent field forces will be expanded by the formation of a third regular battle group. This will add considerably to the flexibility of our forces and their ability to operate in a variety of circumstances. The Regular Army Reserve will be reconstituted to ensure that its members are medically fit, up to date in their training, and ready. There will also be an increase in the strength of the Pacific Islands Regiment, which includes Australian officers and some senior Australian Non-Commissioned Officers. The present strength of the Pacific Islands Regiment, is about 700. This will be doubled as soon as possible, consistently with adequate training and equipment. Further developments will then be considered.

No major change is at present proposed in the organization of the Citizen Military Forces, but its target strength of 32,500 will be increased to 35,000. Major purchases of new equipment for the C.M.F. have now been approved.

The procurement of modern equipment is, of course, essential. Current expenditure in this field is running at the annual rate of about £11,000,000. We have now approved as an objective the provision of the equipment and reserves needed by the Regular Army and C.M.F. components of a complete pentropic division of five battle groups with appropriate combat support and logistic units. To meet this, expenditure on Army equipment, which has been running at about £11,000,000 annually, will rise to £14,000,000 in the coming financial year, and to £17,500,000 in the succeeding years. The items will cover the whole range of weapons and ammunition, engineering and technical stores, radar and radio, vehicles and landing craft. There will be additional purchases for the Army light aircraft squadron. These are separate from the purchases under the Air Force programme, which I shall mention later.

The increasing Army strength will require a considerable expansion of the construction programme. It is provisionally estimated that, the Army vote, this year £68,000,000, will rise to £87,500,000 in 1964-65 and to £97,000,000 by 1967-68. But I will return to the general financial figures later on.

We have approved of a number of important new projects for the Air Force. A major feature of the re-equipment programme has been the introduction of the Dassault Mirage III. jet fighter to replace the Avon Sabre. The Mirage has an advanced supersonic performance, and is regarded as the best fighter available in the world for our purposes. As honorable senators know, orders have already been placed for 60 of these aircraft. The first, from French production, has already been handed over to the Royal Australian Air Force and is undergoing tests and trials. Deliveries of the remainder, which will contain increasing quantities of locally assembled and constructed components, will commence late this year. We recently secured an option on a further order of 40 Mirages. We have decided to take this up, thus bringing the total to 100. At the same time, since the effective employment of fighter aircraft depends more than ever before on adequate ground control of their movements and operations, we have approved the purchase of two new control and reporting units. One of them is to be at Brookvale in New South Wales and the other is to be mobile.

Tactical air transport support for the armed forces has also received attention. We give it a high priority. Last October, we approved of the purchase of eight heavylift helicopters and twelve fixed-wing short take-off and landing aircraft, subject to R.A.A.F. evaluation and selection. It has been found that a suitable type of heavylift helicopter is not at present available. We have therefore decided to purchase a further eight Bell Iroquois utility helicopters in addition to the sixteen already approved, and to purchase eighteen Caribou Mark 1 fixed-wing aircraft, which have a proved capability as a short take-off and landing aircraft in South-East Asian conditions. The introduction of both of these types will complement, in the tactical field, the strategic mobility provided by the Hercules C130 transports.

In addition to the current extensive programme of airfield works and development in such places as Darwin, Amberley, Williamtown, East Sale and Townsville, we have now approved of major and extensive improvements to the airfield at Boram, near Wewak, in New Guinea. This will have great value for defence purposes, for civil aviation, and for the general development of the Territory. Overall, the new projects for the Air Force will require an increase in personnel strength from the present target of 16,440 to something of the order of 18,300. It will be observed that I have so far not spoken of the problem of the re-equipment of the strike-reconnaissance force. This is an important matter. The Canberra is by no means obsolete; it is still being used by overseas air forces, including those of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. But we are giving close consideration to the future. There are, of course, great financial problems, but there are vital questions as to the availability of suitable types to meet our requirements. Having regard to our special geographic circumstances, we must consider range, the capacity to perform both reconnaissance and attack, and the ability to use existing runways and services. An “ on-the-spot “ evaluation by a team of qualified experts is necessary, as in the selection of the Mirage. Such a team will be sent overseas at an early date, under the Chief of the Air Staff, to investigate and report. The Government will then consider the matter further. Meanwhile, the figures I shall give do not include anything under this heading.

I now turn to the total programme figures, putting in parallel columns, for clarity, the figures I quoted earlier, on the existing programme, and the new figures based upon the announcements I have just made, but without anticipating or estimating the cost of a strike-reconnaissance replacement -

This means that, beginning in 1963-64, the average increase in the defence vote over a period of five years will be of the order of £41,000,000 a year, leaving out of account a Canberra replacement, and assumina. of course, that no additional proposals are approved during that period. The effect of these decisions, when they are carried out, will be to establish a fully equipped, fully modern, fully supported pentropic division. We will have an air force able to provide a measure of strategic and tactical mobility, and with a hundred supersonic fighters, properly controlled, to provide air protection. We will have a relatively small but modern navy equipped to defend our shores, and to seek out and destroy the submarines on which an enemy is likely to rely in order to deny us that command of the seas without which the overseas employment and support of a division is impossible.

Such forces will provide a significant and welcome addition to any allied effort required in our area of strategic concern. But they will do more in that they will provide a capacity for independent action to meet the initial shock of any emergency with which we may in the future find ourselves faced.

The increases I have announced will impose substantial additional burdens upon the Budget in a period in which the need for national developmental expenditures will be great and growing; greater in proportion than may be the case of older and more developed countries. But we feel that such burdens will be cheerfully accepted by our people. They are, of course, not solely financial burdens. The improvement of the nation’s defences will require much public co-operation, by those who join the forces and, in the case of citizens who join the C.M.F. and the reserves, by those who employ them. We look for this cooperation with complete confidence. I, lay on the table the following paper: -

Defence Review - Statement by the Prime Minister, dated 22nd May, 1963.

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN (Queensland) [4.12]. - I move -

Thar the paper be printed. 1 ask for leave to make my remarks on this paper at a later stage.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 620

QUESTION

ENCOURAGEMENT OF AUSTRALIAN PRODUCTIONS FOR TELEVISION

Senator VINCENT:
Western Australia

– by leave - I move -

That the time for the bringing up of the report of the Select Committee on the Encouragement of Australian Productions for Television be extended until 31st October, 1963.

The prescribed time for this select committee to present its report expires on 30th June next. It is customary to set this date for the bringing up of reports for all select committees, it being the end of a financial year. It is somewhat of a formality in respect of all select committee reports and bears little relation, perhaps, to the actual time required by the committee to complete its investigations and prepare its report, or perhaps to the nature and scope of the investigation itself.

This committee has already taken evidence twice in Sydney, once in Melbourne and once in Brisbane. The committee has yet to conclude its hearings in Melbourne and Sydney, and it has also to hear evidence in Adelaide, Perth, Hobart and Canberra.

I should like to mention the scope of the inquiry in order to give the Senate a picture of the variety of interests which are concerned in this investigation! The committee has heard evidence from a great variety of interests and parties. For example, we have heard evidence from the commercial television stations, the Australian Broadcasting Control Board, the Australian Broadcasting Commission, and interested partiesin the Australian theatre - professional, semi-professional and amateur. We have had representatives of the Churches giving their views on television. We have had the views of the film producers in Australia, and we have heard from representatives of universities and schools. We have heard evidence from psychologists, dramatists, script-writers, actors, producers and stage directors. We have had evidence from social workers, and a good deal of evidence from private individuals.

I have mentioned the variety of evidence which the committee has received because much of it has presented differing views in relation to television. Some of the evidence, of course, has conflicted with other evidence. A wide variety of questions must be considered by the committee before it can reach a conclusion. In that regard, I mention that the committee is most eager to complete its considerations and to present its report, but it does not feel that it can possibly do so before the end of the year. It may not be possible to do so even then, but the committee will do everything it can to complete the taking of evidence and to formulate its views before the conclusion of the Budget session. I therefore ask that the Senate agree to the extension of time to which I have referred.

Senator McCLELLAND:
New South Wales

– I have pleasure in seconding the motion that has been proposed by Senator Vincent. As he has said, this committee was appointed by the Senate towards the end of last year. Its members are: Senator Vincent, who is the chairman, and Senators Wright, Hannan and DrakeBrockman from the Government side of the chamber, and Senators Cohen, Cant and myself from the Opposition side. The terms of reference of the committee are wide, thus necessitating the taking of a considerable volume of evidence.

It is beyond doubt, Mr. Deputy President, that there is public interest in the work of the committee. Wherever it has sat there has always been in attendance a large number of members of the public. In addition, the proceedings of the committee have received wide press publicity and consistently have been mentioned in television news bulletins. As a result of the sittings of the committee, and particularly those in Sydney, I am sure it is fair to say that each member of it has received numerous inquiries from members of the general public and has had numerous representations made to him. As Senator Vincent has stated, to date the committee has sat on seventeen days. I understand that the transcript of evidence runs into some 2,000 foolscap pages.

Evidence has come forward from all sections of the community. To date, about 70 people have volunteered to give evidence. These people have ranged from a television company proprietor to television station managers, entrepreneurs, actors, writers, artists, members of the trade union movement and, of course, members of the public, as well as representatives of advertising agencies educationists and representatives of the various Church organizations throughout Australia. Sittings have been held in Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane. As Senator Vincent stated, the committee proposes to return to Sydney and Melbourne to complete the taking of evidence in those two cities. Next week, the committee intends to sit in Adelaide, and in the following week it will be engaged for the whole of the week in Perth.

Of course, one cannot comment at this stage on the evidence that has been presented to the committee, except to say, as

Senator Vincent said, that a large number of suggestions about the establishment of a television industry in Australia has been put forward. Because of the many suggestions which have been made by practically every person who has come forward to give evidence, a great deal of midnight oil will have to be burnt by the members of the committee before they can present their report by 31st October, which is the date proposed in Senator Vincent’s motion. Much deliberation and consideration will be needed, having regard to the views which have been put forward by many sections of the community.

The committee has been valuably assisted in its deliberations by the secretary, Mr. Bradshaw, and his assistant, Mr. Nicholls, both of whom are officers of the Senate. Having regard to the national importance of the work being done by the committee and so that the valuable work which the committee has- done so far may be carried to effective finality, I have much pleasure in supporting Senator Vincent’s motion.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 622

PERSONAL EXPLANATION

Senator HANNAN:
VICTORIA

– Mr. Deputy President, 1 ask for leave to make a statement on the ground that I have been misrepresented.

Leave granted.

Senator HANNAN:

– 1 claim that I was misrepresented because of an omission from a statement which appeared in the Melbourne “ Sun News-Pictorial “ newspaper this morning, in a column on page 20, entitled “ Labour Says “. On Thursday last, in the Senate, I had occasion to criticize the influence of Communists and communism on many members of the Australian Labour Party and on Labour policy. I therefore was very surprised this morning to see that a portion of a paragraph of my speech had been dragged out of context by a Labour propagandist and used to ridicule that proposition. The actual words printed by the newspaper were correct so far as they went.

Let me read to the Senate the statement that the column printed, and let me point out what it omitted. I said, on Thursday last- 1 have never been one to take the line that the Australian Labour Parly is next door to communism. I regard that proposition as being defamatory of a great political party.

Those words were correctly reported. The very next words which follow were omitted. They are -

The only objection which I have taken in the past, which f take to-day and which 1 shall take in the future, is that in very many instances the nexus between members of the Labour Party and communism is so strong that it appears that members of the Labour Party are doing the work of Communists and communism.

I think that the printing of the first part of the paragraph and the omission of the second part gives a wholly false impression of what was said in this chamber. I believe that the printing of the statement in that fashion was grossly dishonest. 1 hope that the newspaper concerned, although it printed accurately and fairly what I said, will now, out of a sense of fair play and decency, correct the impression which the partial reporting may have given.

page 622

PAPUA AND NEW GUINEA BILL 1963

Second Reading

Debate resumed from Tuesday, 21st May, 1963 (vide page 606), on motion by Senator Paltridge -

That the bill be now read a second time.

Senator CORMACK:
Victoria

.- Last night the Senate was debating the Papua and New Guinea Bill 1963. 1 am fortified to-day, in following Senator Dittmer, by the statement that Senator Paltridge read to the Senate this afternoon. lt related to remarks made by the Prime Minister (Sir Robert Menzies) in another place to-day on the defence posture of Australia, in which he made a clear and almost definitive statement regarding the defence of New Guinea. I shall return to that matter later in my remarks.

If I may say so, we heard last night three very interesting speeches from Senator McKenna, who resumed the debate on behalf of the Opposition, Senator Benn and Senator Dittmer. Each of them had a different quality. As one would expect of Senator McKenna, his was a speech that was fair and critical based upon the sense of humanity which he bears unreservedly towards the indigenous people of New Guinea. Senator Benn’s speech took the form of a forthright and strong criticism of what he described as the impertinence of the United Nations visiting mission in relation to the comments that it had made about New Guinea, the people of New Guinea, and the Administration, and criticism as to what it suggested Australia should do in the future. Senator Dittmer, on the other hand, I felt, found himself caught up in the peculiar problem in which he always finds himself. The learned senator has been trained in scientific disciplines. He has been trained in his profession to obey the fundamental law of the scientific disciplines which is to make deductions from observed facts. Reading the “ Hansard “ report of the speech which the honorable senator made for an hour last night confirmed the recollection of it which I had this morning when I walked to Parliament House. The honorable senator has become involved in this curious problem of being unable to make a clear distinction between the deductions that must be made from observed facts - the facts which he has observed in New Guinea - and the ideological approach which he sometimes feels he must sustain in front of his colleagues. That is a great pity, because he has a definite capacity - if I may say so without any suggestion of patronage - to make a useful contribution when he lets his mind operate on the basis on which it has been trained to operate and not in the manner in which he used it last night.

Moreover, I think that the three differing qualities of those contributions from the Labour Party benches side-step the problem with which we are faced in Australia as to New Guinea. It is a problem that the whole parliament is attempting to solve. I suggest that one of the reasons why the Parliament as a whole, and perhaps the Senate in particular, finds itself confronted by this problem is that we do not seem to be able to make a distinction between what I shall describe as the wide view of the problem and what I shall describe as the provincial view. I use the word “ provincial “ in no rude sense. The wide view is that the members of Parliament must see New Guinea in relation to the wider problem as it affects Australia and as it affects the capacity of the Territory to exist if we withdraw. On the other hand, the provincial view tends to exist inside the Parliament because many members of the Parliament from time to time journey through Papua and New Guinea and become involved, first, in the views of those indigenes who may be described, most unwisely, as the “ elite “ type of indigenes. They also become involved in the problems of the European and Australian people and the administrators who live there. These groups have different concepts in relation to New Guinea. None of them sees New Guinea in the same light or in the same perspective as any of the others Therefore, it becomes the function of the Parliament to take the wide view and to ensure that it is not unduly clouded by what I describe as the provincial view.

One of the problems that I have found is that of social viability. That word “ viability “ is normally used in an economic sense. You cannot have viability without social overtones. I agree with Senator Wright and Senator Vincent and not with Senator McKenna and Senator Dittmer, that there do not exist in New Guinea even the beginnings or the origins of social viability. Certainly at the present time there exists no nucleus of economic viability.

When any one is confronted with problems of this nature I suggest that he go back, as it were, to some basic principle and constantly examine the conflicting points of view that arise from time to time in relation to that basic principle. By an odd chance, in 1944 my views on Papua and New Guinea were coloured by an adventitious meeting that I had when I was walking along the beach at Saidor on the north-east coast of New Guinea one afternoon. I met a Lieutenant-Colonel of the Australian Army. If the Senate will bear with me I should like to give this short personal reminiscence, because I think it has a strong bearing on the problem. I asked the colonel what he was doing there, in effect challenging him for being there, because in my book he should not have been there. I was the senior Australian Army officer in that place and we were taking the place of the American troops around the perimeter. He informed me in his rather gracious way that he was only an imitation colonel, that he belonged to the research directorate of the Australian Army. That was a section of the Army set up by the then Department of Territories, under the Curtin Labour Administration, and the Australian Army in order to discover what pattern of development should take place in New Guinea on the cessation of hostilities.

I remember that night sitting on the beach with this charming man who turned out to be a scientist and anthropologist, and looking out across the Vitiaz straits. I asked him about the problem we would be faced with in New Guinea when the war was over. He said, “You must see yourself in much the same position as a Roman legionary of the army of Julius Caesar or Claudius Caesar in Britain in the first century. He would have regarded your ancestors and my ancestors in much the same sort of way as you see the indigenous people of this island. There is just as great a cultural gap existing between you and the people of this island as there was existing between the Roman legionary and the people of Britain and Ireland. But it is not going to take 2,000 or 1,500 years to bring these people up to the level that we are on in 1944. You have to realize that a great part of the brain of these people is not developed. They have been living in complete isolation for perhaps 10,000 years, and they have no capacity to bridge this cultural gap that exists between you and them unless you can develop that portion of their brain which has been unused for 10,000 years but which is still capable of being developed.” Naturally, I asked him, “ How long is this going to take? “ He said, “ It depends upon how much effort you put into it “. That is certainly not the short-term view, it is the long-term view.

That is what I meant by saying that the problem at the moment is a problem of social viability, because you cannot construct a modern society unless you have people with the capacity to learn to operate a modern society. We think that the people in these islands must develop into a modern society, but I am left with a rather uneasy impression that a view exists, particularly amongst a large section of the administration in New Guinea and members of the Australian Labour Party, that our job is to get out as soon as we can and leave the people to sink or swim as best they can. That would be to turn our face on a moral responsibility that we cannot escape. That lends point to Senator Wright’s statement last night that he fears that, In the provisions of the bill we are discussing we are hastening too fast, and he doubts whether the undeveloped portion of the minds of the 2,000,000 people who live in the Territory is at the stage where they can assume the responsibilities or even the modes of government pf a modern society.

When it comes to economic problems, I do not think there can be much discussion about the matter at all, because the figures show quite clearly that not enough money is being generated in New Guinea and there is not enough capacity there to generate capital to enable the people to provide the economic sinews to sustain themselves as a society, that is more than a basic society. Of course, that is the reason why the taxpayers of the Commonwealth are pouring in about £20,000,000 this year over and above the capacity of the Territory to provide some of its own resources.

Therefore, we have this situation. There is an attempt to drive the Parliament of Australia and the Government to hasten the development of the area. In my opinion, the development cannot be hastened. This is a matter of slow development. So, as members of the Parliament, we must ask, “ What are we to do?”. Are we to get out and give the job away, or are we to stay there and see this thing through? I shall come to that in a moment.

I want to make clear, before I step to the next stage, that this pressure is being generated against the Commonwealth Government by the United Nations. I shall do this by quoting to the Senate the remarks made by the distinguished and dedicated Minister for Territories (Mr. Hasluck), in his second-reading speech on this bill in another place. This must be repeated and it must be remembered. He said -

It seems to me that colonialism reaches its utmost depth when a parent authority, disregarding the wishes of a dependent people, decides and declares exactly what should happen to them. Yet, by a queer paradox, this is precisely the course which is being advocated in the world to-day by so many of those governments and those critics who cry out most loudly against colonialism. I suggest the paternalism of the colonial powers of the past is a mild self-interest compared with the active and arrogant disregard of the will of dependent peoples that appears in the new imperialism that is at work in so many parts of the world to-day.

That arrogant imperialism, of course, at work in the Territory of Papua and New Guinea, is operating through a United Nations medium with which we are involved at the present moment, exacerbated, whipped and spurred by what we now call the Foot report.

I want to take a few moments to discuss the Foot mission and report.

Senator Wood:

– We have been pressurized!

Senator CORMACK:

– Yes. This mission was led by Sir Hugh Foot, who was a member of the British Colonial Service but is now a career servant of the United Nations. I say career servant, because I believe that this man is starting to carve out a second career for himself in the United Nations, and the question of Papua and New Guinea was an opportunity that he refused to pass by. Senator Vincent, when discussing the Foot report last night, mentioned briefly that Foot, although a man of undoubted intellectual courage and physical bravery, wherever he has been - whether or not this has been adventitious, I do not know - in Trans-Jordan, Cyprus, Nigeria, Jamaica, where he has himself been in positions of responsibility, and where he has speeded up the development of self-government, has left nothing but a trail of rapine, arson and corruption behind him. I suggest that if he is to make a second career in Papua and New Guinea within the United Nations he is setting up the conditions which he has set up in other parts of the world.

Senator McClelland:

– Are you suggesting that this careerism of which you speak has coloured his findings at all?

Senator CORMACK:

– Yes, I am. He was accompanied by a Dr. Carlos Salamanca, from Bolivia. That is charming representation to have on a mission of this nature, from a country where, without any trouble, one can find cold-eyed men looking along machine-guns at workers in the emerald pits and tin mines. Another of Foot’s confreres was Mr. Ashok Balkrishna Bhadkamkar, from India. He is a man who speaks about self-government and how it should be hastened in Papua and New Guinea. I have not seen anything in any of the proceedings and reports of the United Nations about the two divisions that his government keeps in Assam on the necks of the Nagas on the north-east frontier.

There was also an American, Mr. Delmas H. Nucker, who leaves me with the impression that he has that very valuable quality of Americans - what -might be called the New England conscience - which always sees in a very special sort of way the problems of colonies in the light of the thirteen successful revolutionary colonies of the continental United States of America, and imagines that any colony can become another United States of America as long as it gets 100 years free from the yoke of the colonial overlord. Unfortunately, I cannot forbear from remarking that had the United States of America kept that remarkable attitude out of the problems of the emerging peoples of the world, the problems in Africa, which involves the world at the present moment, would not exist.

I am not finished with the Foot report. I am just saying that these are the men who came out, went over these islands and this mainland, and flew over these mountains, where many of us walked with packs on our backs twenty years ago. Those men came to certain conclusions. After they had spoken to very many senior administrators in the Territory, including the chief Administrator, Sir Donald Cleland, they came down to Canberra, discussed this matter with the Minister for Territories, and then proceeded to New York. They presented what we call the Foot report. I went to the library, and I recommend that honorable senators, who have time at their disposal, go there and do as I did, that is, get out the verbatim report of the proceedings of the Trusteeship Council, when the Foot report was presented. Sir Hugh Foot, in a rather engaging way, when addressing the council, said -

Sometimes when one is faced with a new problem, one is baffled, depressed and alarmed. But as we approached the end of our exacting journey, it was as if the mists had lifted. We found we could see the right road ahead and in the end, speaking for myself, I became increasingly excited that what had at first seemed dark and obscure suddenly became clear and apparent.

Later, when presenting his report, he went on to say -

It may be presumptuous to say that we could see the way ahead so confidently after only being there two months.

This man suddenly saw the mists roll away. The problems that have baffled the Australian people for the last twenty years and which have been the constant preoccupation of the Administration and the dedicated men of the Territory became perfectly clear to Sir Hugh Foot. After two months the mists rolled by.

There is no mystery about how the mists rolled by. Here in Canberra Sir Hugh Foot was told two things by the Minister for Territories. He was told that the Commonwealth of Australia proposed to invite the World Bank to come out to New Guinea to conduct an economic investigation of the Territory. Then he was told - he knew this - that a select committee had been set up by the Legislative Council to investigate the possibility of giving an increased measure of self-government to the indigenous people of Papua and New Guinea. He was given the detail’s of those two proposals. Then he flew back to New York, the mists suddenly rolled away and the mountain tops became clear.

During the proceedings before the United Nations ..Trusteeship Council, questions were addressed to Mr. McCarthy, Australia’s special representative. Also present were the Australian Ambassador to the United Nations and two indigenous representatives of New Guinea who accompanied Mr. McCarthy. They appeared before the Trusteeship Council and were cross-examined after they had heard this magnificent opening statement by Sir Hugh Foot. The ideological interests of Mr. Carlos Salamanca became quite apparent. It seems to me that the only pragmatist there was a Minister or a member of the Chinese People’s Republic. He said that the Commonwealth of Australia was doing a good job. The Indian representative, with the subtlety of the Indian mind, tried to cross-examine the indigenous representatives, one of whom unfortunately could speak only pidgin and the second of whom was imperfectly understood. Mr. McCarthy would try to make the position quite clear. Five simultaneous translations were being given by five different interpreters. After the probing of the Indian representative, all that remained was more confusion.

As honorable senators can imagine, the Russian representative could only mutter “ Buka, Buka, Buka! “ Of course, he was referring to the tax riots that occurred in New Britain. That was his sole interest. He realized that was a wound which might be opened, explored, and made bloody and suppurating. He angered Sir Hugh Foot to such an extent that Foot bought into the discussion. The Russian, with characteristic singleness of mind, ceased to talk about Papua and New Guinea but spent ten minutes in taking Foot to pieces and in spreading the pieces out all over the floor of the Trusteeship Council chamber to be examined by all the other representatives.

The French had a representative at that meeting of the council. He mad* a magnificent speech which he commenced by making the normal French complaint about French being one of the official languages and the documents being printed only in English. In a speech that would make the roof of the Palais Bourbon ring, he made an impassioned appeal for the documents to be produced in French. It was almost like a speech from one of Moliere’s comedies. He did say - I thought with some wisdom - in his final peroration that the problem of New Guinea was to be found in the problem of tempo, say, allegro or allegretto. Then I imagine that, like one of General de Gaulle’s Anglo-Saxons, he retired from the council to the arms of his mistress, because he never appeared again.

That is just a short sketch of the manner in which the affairs of these people in New Guinea are being conducted. The truth of the matter is that the people at the United Nations are not interested in the people of New Guinea.

Senator Mattner:

– They never have been.

Senator CORMACK:

– They never have been, as the honorable senator has said. They are interested in things, ideas and power; they have forgotten the people of New Guinea. We in this Parliament must constantly bear in mind that we are dealing with people and not with things. I have noted that in the other place there are a few modern Jeffersons in the Australian Labour Party who are now drawing up the constitution of New Guinea very much as though they were looking at a continental United States as it will be over the next seven years. Seven years seems to be the time they have set in which to establish this new nation of Papua and New Guinea.

I am beginning to get a little desperate. Do we intend to say, “ We will force this along in the next seven years “? Sir Hugh Foot says that by 1967 we should give these people full self-government. Do we intend to give them self-government within the next four years, or do we intend to say that we have accepted a moral responsibility towards these people and that we propose to take our time in giving them selfgovernment? Do we intend to get out or to stay in? As I mentioned earlier, I was heartened when the Minister for Civil Aviation read the statement which the Prime Minister delivered in another place this afternoon and in which he referred to an enlarged defence vote. He fortified me and I believe other honorable senators when he read this sentence -

We will defend these territories as if they were part of our mainland. There must be no mistaken ideas about that.

If that is so, if that is the will of the Parliament and the people of Australia - I believe it is the will of the people - let us approach this whole problem ti the basis that we propose to take our time to help these people to reach the degree of independence to which they are entitled and that we do not intend to throw them into the whirlpool of world politics. We will accept the blame if anybody is to be blamed. If I may change the metaphor, let us not throw these people into the fires of the ideological struggles that are occurring at New York.

Much can be said about the clauses of the bill, but that can be left to the committee stage. I do not wish to take up the time of the Senate now by canvassing the problems that are inherent and apparent in the clauses of the measure. I hope my friends on the other side of the Senate, and on this side, will accept the proposition that there is no half-way house in relation to this problem. We cannot have a half solution. We must either spend a lot of money within the next three years and then get out and leave these people as prey to the new colonialists and new imperialists who live to the west of them, or we must stay in the country and help them to achieve that measure of independence which they as human beings are entitled to expect from us.

Senator COHEN:
Victoria

.- This is an important debate. I have heard a number of very interesting contributions to it. Last night I thought I had heard the worst that could be said about the bill when I listened to Senator Wright make what seemed to me to be a direct attack upon some of its implications. He said that the bill went too far and that in this respect it was premature and ill-advised. He went even further and said that it was unreasonable on the part of the Government to entrust the legislative power to a majority of those people who, he thinks, do not themselves make any claim at the present time to be fitted for acceptance of that responsibility. I thought that Senator Wright was turning his back on history when he made that kind of approach to this very great problem. But I had not heard the worst until I heard Senator Cormack within the last half-hour. I would scarcely have thought that we would have heard in this chamber, on a subject as important as this, a statement from a responsible senator to the effect that, in a conversation which he had in New Guinea in 1944 with a senior army officer, they had together contemplated infinity and had decided that there were some 2,000 years to go before these people would be ready for self-government.

Senator Wright:

– You lose the whole significance of Senator Cormack’s remarks.

Senator COHEN:

– I shall come to their significance. I listened to Senator Wright at great length last night. Senator Cormack pursued a lively trail, scattering occasional bouquets upon the Government with whose policy he seemed nevertheless to be in ultimate disagreement. He also left a trail of smears on the authors of the Foot report. He went to a great deal of trouble to identify the shortcomings of Sir Hugh Foot and all the other distinguished members of the visiting mission - Dr. Carlos Salamanca of Bolivia, Mr. Ashok Balkrishna Bhadkamkar of India and Mr. Delmas H. Nucker of the United States of America. He got himself into a position in which he could do nothing but blackguard those members of the visiting mission and yet, at the same time, say, “ I am not opposed to the Foot report “. If he were not opposed, ultimately, to the principle of the Foot report, what was the point of inviting senators to listen to a series of insinuations and insults against members of the Foot mission whose report received the unanimous approval of the United Nations Trusteeship Council and whose recommendation was passed through the General Assembly of the United Nations without dissent? What was the point of the smears except to make us feel that here were people, including those of long experience in colonial administration, who had no real interest in the problems of New Guinea? Of course, the honorable senator is entitled to his view. He expressed it strongly and, I thought, without much discretion or without appropriate reservations. He is fundamentally in conflict with the Government on this matter. I invite honorable senators to note that both Senator Wright and Senator Cormack do not accept the Government’s thinking on this report and recommendations contained in the bill.

Ultimately, the point at issue between the Opposition and the Government is that the bill does not go far enough. We regard the bill as a welcome advance. It is a notable step forward in the history of the political emancipation of the people of Papua and New Guinea, but it does not go far enough because it fails to take advantage of the opportunity offered by the presentation of the Foot report to move into a new and imaginative era of development. The point at issue between Senator Cormack and Senator Wright, on the one hand, and the Government on the other hand, as I understand it, is that the Government has been led by the Foot mission into making ill-advised amendments in order to attempt to meet world opinion and in order to meet the wishes of the Labour Opposition in this Parliament. That, it seems to me, is the implicit criticism by the two Government senators of the Government’s proposals. For my part, I want to be heard in strong opposition to the point of view that they have expressed. I believe it is retrograde and backward looking, and that it will serve no real purpose in attempting to decide what should be done.

What real contribution was made by Senator Cormack to the solution of this problem? He certainly engaged in an interesting and lively discussion of his own point of view but what did he state as an alternative? He put it as though the choice ere between pouring out a great deal of money now and within the next three years and then leaving the indigenous people of the Territory to their own’ devices, on the one hand, and on the other hand, staying on, as he put it, with a full sense of responsibility, helping these people to achieve a measure of independence. Does he envisage that it will be ten years, twenty years, 50 years or 2,000 years before these people will be ready to look after themselves and manage their own affairs? If he is not thinking in terms such as that, what is the relevance of telling us anecdotes about it taking the native people 2,000 years to develop sufficiently to be ready for self-government?

Senator Cormack:

– I did not say that it would take 2,000 years.

Senator COHEN:

– I understood you to be citing for serious consideration the views of the army officer in 1944 that it would take 2,000 years.

Senator Cormack:

– Nonsense!

Senatro COHEN. - That was my understanding of what you said. I shall be guided by the “ Hansard “ report. It was certainly the tenor of what the honorable senator put. I stand ready to be corrected. I shall be interested to read the report.

The bill does make a number of very important advances. First of all, it accepts the principle of the common roll for elections in the Territory. It is a principle that was not conceded by the Minister in 1961, except in very general terms when the previous bill was being debated in the Parliament. This is a principle that the Government has now accepted because it is inevitable that that must be the basis upon which all future elections and all the future political life of the Territory shall be determined.

Secondly, the bill proposes, importantly, the enlargement of the Legislative Council and the renaming of it as the “ House of Assembly “. We suggest that it should be named the “ House of Representatives “. The bill proposes the enlargement of the numbers to 44 members to be elected on a common roll, ten Europeans from reserved electorates for non-indigenous inhabitants and ten government appointees. For the first time, it provides for a majority of the indigenous inhabitants in the Legislative

Council. That principle is supported by the Opposition because it represents a notable advance. Up to date, there have been only six elected indigenous members on the Legislative Council for the Territory.

Senator Vincent:

– And six appointed members.

Senator COHEN:

– That may be so. But we are talking about the principle of election and the principle of democracy.

Senator Vincent:

– That means twelve indigenous people out of 29.

Senator COHEN:

– Out of 37! I accept that interjection for what it is worth. So far, as I say, the principle is supported by the Opposition. It is welcome. The Opposition, in the spirit of the much criticized Foot report - so much criticized by Senator Cormack in the speech that he has just concluded-

Senator Wright:

– Senator Benn was critical. ^

Senator COHEN:

– I am putting a point of view in opposition to that put by Senator Cormack. We accept the implication of the Foot report which is that the time is ripe to have a representative parliament in the Territory. The suggestion in the Foot report is that it should be a parliament of about 100 members. It will be seen from the amendments that will be moved in the committee stage that what we have in mind, in order to avoid inconvenience to the Government, is doubling the 44 single member electorates so that, administratively, it should not be difficult to have 88 indigenous elected members rather than 44. We are proposing, consistent with the desire of many of those who gave evidence before the select committee in the Territory and consistent with the view of the select committee, that the ten reserved electorates for European members elected on the common role, should be retained. We are proposing the elimination of the government appointed members. So, in our view there should be a representative parliament of 88 indigenous members and ten European members, the whole 98 to be elected on the common roll. We suggest that that is more consistent with the thinking of the Foot report, of the United Nations Trusteeship Council and of the General Assembly than the proposals contained in the bill, welcome though it is as a start.

Senator Scott:

– Is it consistent with the general views of the Labour Party over the past few years?

Senator COHEN:

– You are putting it too broadly. It is entirely consistent with the view we put that these people should be helped to reach responsible government at the earliest possible opportunity. We can have our legitimate differences as to whether a stage has been reached where you can take this, that or the next step; but a truly representative parliament in the Territory has been part, of the policy of the Labour Party for years, based on the belief that we have a sacred duty as trustees to help these people to reach the state where they can govern themselves. We believe that when the situation is right for imaginative advances for moving into new areas of development much more rapidly than we have in the past, that opportunity must be grasped. That is the spirit which will animate what will be put forward at the committee stage. The Government proposes to enlarge the Administrator’s Council to eleven members, including the Administrator. We take the view that the ten members other than the Administrator should not only be elected members of the new parliament but should themselves be elected by the new parliament. That is a matter that will be discussed again in committee, and I do not want to say any more about it now.

Senator Kendall:

– Has the honorable senator any suggestion as to where the ministry should come from?

Senator COHEN:

– The Administrator’s Council ought really in time to be the ministry, but it will not be that under the Government’s proposal. It is to be an advisory council to the Administrator. I wanted to put this position to the Senate because it emphasizes the difference in approach to this bill between the two parties. The difference is on whether we should be content to accept what is provided for in the bill - that is, 44 elected indigenous members elected by voters on the common roll, ten non-indigenous members elected for reserved electorates by voters on the common roll and ten members to be appointed - or whether we should move to this larger parliament-type institution that the Foot committee had in mind and which was endorsed by the United Nations.

Ultimately, it is a question of whether you believe there are sufficient indigenous people capable of being parliamentary representatives or whether you think 44 is virtually straining the position to the limit, as has been suggested during the debate here and as implicit in the Legislative Council committee report on New Guinea. We take the view that was amply demonstrated in the Foot report, that there are many capable leaders among the indigenous people. They are described in the visiting mission’s report as capable, conscientious and articulate. That is good enough for me. That is the description given by a responsible group of people who set out to investigate the position of people in the Territory.

Senator Wright:

– The Legislative Council’s select committee said there were not more than 100 of the indigenes capable of such activity.

Senator COHEN:

– It is true that the select committee said there are not more than 100 indigenes capable of being parliamentary representatives, and that is why Senator Wright thinks 44 is too many. We do not accept that.

Senator O’Byrne:

– They said the same thing about the village councils - that there were not enough luluais to run them.

Senator COHEN:

– Yes, but the Foot report stressed that there were many indigenous people trained in local government who would be well qualified to take responsibility as representatives in this enlarged body, the House of Assembly. After all, they do not all have to be Winston Churchills and great parliamentarians the very moment they are elected to the House of Assembly.. They simply need to be representatives who are trusted by their own people to put their point of view, and not some other point of view, before the parliament of New Guinea.

Senator Vincent:

– If you are right why did the select committee make such a silly statement?

Senator COHEN:

– I do not know. I am not responsible for what the select committee said. One has to pay great respect to what the select committee said. The United Nations Trusteeship Council paid great respect to it, but it also said that it was not satisfied with the select committee’s approach.

Senator Vincent:

– It gave a reason.

Senator COHEN:

– It did ascribe reasons.

Senator Vincent:

– I am asking you to give reasons.

Senator COHEN:

– Thank you, Senator Vincent, for keeping on making my speech for me. The position is that the select committee interviewed some hundreds of people, and apparently all those people gave very sophisticated replies to the committee’s inquiries. They gave good reasons why they did not think it was a good idea at this stage to have more than a certain number of indigenous representatives. Some of them laid their souls baTe and said: “We really do not feel we are able to do the job yet. We would like you to continue to help us.” That is as far as it goes. The important thing is that we should be available to help them and continue to be available to help them, whatever form of government they may have in the years ahead. That is a primary principle because whatever happens we must maintain binding and friendly relations with the people of Papua and New Guinea. Ultimately they must have selfdetermination. This may result in selfgovernment or they may want to remain attached to us in some way or other. Whatever the future holds, from our point of view it can only be good if constructive relationships exist between us and the people of Papua and New Guinea.

As I was saying in reply to Senator Vincent, the select committee interviewed a lot of people and it got a lot of replies. It is rather a question of how you interpret those replies. If the select committee wants to say, “ We do not think there are 100 people qualified to represent the people of New Guinea in the Parliament “, it is entitled to that view. No such hesitation was expressed by the visiting mission in its report to the United Nations. It considered all these things and heard the arguments. It had the views of the Legislative Council. It had the views of the Minister, expressed to it at a number of conferences he had with the mission during its visit. The mission said, “ We know the Minister’s attitude and we appreciate, as he does, the importance of seeing that whatever steps are taken have the goodwill and the approval of the people of the Territory “. Having said that, and having paid a tribute - as I and every other responsible senator do - to the intregity of the Minister and the devoted work he has put into dealing with this problem, as well as to the integrity and splendid service of the Administration and its officers in the field, the mission said: “ Nevertheless, political progress has not been rapid enough. We think the time has come to have a new kind of parliament.”

After all, let us be clear as to what is involved in this bill? It does not grant self-government to the people of Papua and New Guinea. It does not grant them responsible government. It enlarges the legislative chamber substantially to make it a representative type of body in which the indigenous people for the first time will have a majority. That is what this bill does. It retains the various vetoes that were provided for in the original bill. Of the total membership of 64 proposed by this bill, twenty are likely to be Europeans. If they can get one-third of the indigenous people to vote with them on some issues they could provide an effective stop to legislation with which they did not agree. Then there is to be a right of veto to be exercised by the Administrator, and finally the reservation of some matters for the assent of the Governor-General. That means that such matters will be referred to this Government in Canberra.

Let us not run away with the idea that what is proposed in this bill will have the effect of handing over New Guinea finally and without reservation to the indigenous population. What is being done is a sensible advance and is in the right direction. It is swimming with the stream of history. The Opposition’s complaint with the provisions of the bill is that the Government has not seized the historical opportunity to do something a little more imaginative. That is the ultimate difference between what the Opposition suggests and what the Government proposes on this important matter.

In the course of the debate matters of very real importance have been referred to. The Leader of the Opposition (Senator McKenna) mentioned some of the problems posed by the fact that for the first time there will be an Australian trust territory with a border common to West New Guinea. He dealt, if I may say so, very adequately with this problem and with the possible implications of the transfer of power from the Dutch. We all know, and it is very obvious from the debates before the United Nations on this very issue, that the Government of Indonesia will be watching closely events in Papua and New Guinea. In practical terms of self-interest, and apart altogether from questions of principle, Australia has more to gain than lose by stepping up the pace of development and progress in the political sphere, no less than in the economic and sociological spheres.

It is my view that no avoidable opportunity should be provided to anybody, be he friendly, neutral or hostile, to castigate Australia for any reluctance to measure up to the standards laid down by the organized international community. There should, indeed, be substantial and compelling reasons for declining to accept the recommendations of the visiting mission, especially as those recommendations have the support of the organs of the United Nations. The Government has shown that it is ultimately willing to accept in principle the recommendation of the United Nations, and that, I suggest, is really a complete answer to the arguments advanced by Senator Wright and, more especially, by Senator Cormack.

Senator Cormack cast some aspersions on Mr. Salamanca, of Bolivia, but he did not mention that in the debate on this matter before the United Nations the Australian representative, Mr. Mclntyre, said that he had taken particular note of the remarks of the Bolivian representative, who had been a member of the 1962 visiting mission, and was grateful to him for having referred to the very real difficulties of various kinds which Australia was encountering. Surely that is a friendly reference to a member of the visiting mission and indicates that, whatever the position he had taken about the matter, he had appreciated the difficulties Australia was experiencing. Mr. Salamanca made it very clear-

Senator Paltridge:

– That does not make a case for agreeing with his conclusions.

Senator COHEN:

– His conclusions were that he was very glad that Australia had accepted the basic principles of the Foot report.

Senator Paltridge:

– Yes, and he went on to recommend certain action that was subsequently refused by the Australian Government.

Senator COHEN:

– It is perfectly true that the mission regarded its recommendation as threefold. The first prong of the recommendation contemplated a full economic survey by the World Bank. I understand that that is accepted by the Government.

Senator Paltridge:

– Oddly, there was no provision for finding out how the economic survey turned out.

Senator COHEN:

– The proposal of the visiting mission was that there should be a full economic survey of the Territory, and I understand that the Commonwealth Government is co-operating in that regard.

Senator Paltridge:

– I do not wish to interrupt a very interesting speech, but I merely point out to the honorable senator that although the visiting mission had recommended an economic survey, having already been advised by our own Minister that that was his intention, it did not say anything at all about waiting for the results of the economic survey.

Senator COHEN:

– The visiting mission said it did not want to anticipate what would result from such a survey, but that it wanted to sketch the difficulties that would arise in the various aspects of the economy. The mission went through various matters, such as land tenure and cash crop problems, which had been discovered but which remained unsolved, and took the view that an overall survey of the economic potential and future of the Territory should be made. It made that recommendation and said, “ We go no further “.

Another part of the three-pronged recommendation of the visiting mission proposed a stepping up in the programme of higher education. It is not a matter about which anybody can be proud that higher education in New Guinea is almost .nonexistent. It is encouraging to note that the Government has set up a special committee of inquiry to investigate the problem of tertiary education. That is good news, but we must not forget that we virtually have no tertiary education in the Territory, even in a limited form. The Foot mission recommended that a tertiary education programme should not only be planned but also be put into force immediately by a scheme to produce at least 100 graduates a year for the Territory. These graduates would then be equipped to take a leading part in the future political life of the community.

Senator Vincent:

– They have to be given secondary education first, do they not?

Senator COHEN:

– Of course, and that is to be” pushed ahead, also. I am one of several honorable senators who have visited the Territory within the last few months, and I know that the people there are crying out for mon education. It was put to me again and again by responsible-minded leaders lacking formal education that what they need is education for their people and for themselves. They said, “ Give us that and we will be able to do the job “. So many people took that general attitude about their own needs that it seemed to me to be a No. 1 priority for the Territory. It is also a subject that figured prominently in the report of the United Nations visiting mission.

The third part of the recommendation was that there should be immediate preparations for the election of a representative parliament. I have said what I want to say about that’, but I should not like to conclude without a reference to the debates of the United Nations. We will find there various interesting contributions that were made by friendly nations. I regret that I have not time to go through them all. In this connexion I exclude the much tougher line taken by the Soviet Government and other Communist governments which criticized the system of trusteeship as such. I do not regard them as having made any contribution to the solution of this problem and, consequently, I put them to one side. I am dealing with the attitude of the Burmese delegate, the Indonesian delegate and delegates from countries of Europe, who were not hostile to this country but who regarded the pace of advancement as having been too slow.

The substance and the spirit of the discussions was: “ We welcome the indication by the Australian Government that it is prepared to move forward at a somewhat smarter pace than previously, but we say that there needs to be a rapid expansion in the future. It is not enough to look for gradual development. There must be a much more imaginative and bold programme for the move forward.”

Senator Hannaford:

– You recognize that it costs a lot of money.

Senator COHEN:

– Of course it costs a lot of money.

Senator Hannaford:

– Can we afford to devote more of our resources to it?

Senator COHEN:

– I do not know what the alternative is. I do not know how long you think it will take us to do the job. If you intend to contribute to the debate, no doubt you will tell us what you think in that respect. We all understand that the development of the Territory costs a great deal of money. We are all responsible, I hope. We realize that this work cannot be done in a day, but I am prepared to accept the spirit which moved the United Nations in its consideration of these problems. Once you accept the spirit, Mr. Deputy President, you can then begin to recognize the difficulties, and after all, that makes the problem a formidable challenge.

The report of the Foot mission emphasized the real difficulties. It may be of no consolation to Senator Hannaford when 1 say that I do not know how much this work will cost, but we are dealing at the moment with a bill which proposes a constitutional alteration. We are dealing with an attempt to enlarge a representative parliamentary-type institution in the Territory of Papua and New Guinea, and that is all we are dealing with. The other recommendations follow, as part of a pattern, for anybody who has the vision to see the pattern as a whole. The Foot mission stated, in paragraph 128 of its report -

Yet, while these opportunities open up, we find in some quarters a tendency not to urge the need for progress and speed and initiative but rather a tendency to emphasize the remaining difficulties and disadvantages. There is sometimes an emphasis on what should not be done rather than on what should be done. Sometimes it has appeared that the drive of the first decade and a half may be lost, that the spirit of pioneering enterprise may be slackening, that there is a section amongst Australians and New Guineans too who doubt the declared objective and wish to take refuge in a negative or defensive attitude. We think that that would be the gravest error. We strongly believe that to fail to go forward with increasing momentum now would be to jeopardize all the results of the good work of past years.

I commend that approach to the Senate.

Senator LILLICO:
Tasmania

– May I say at the outset that I have listened to this debate with a good deal of interest. I think it must be agreed that most of the speeches which have been delivered from both sides of the chamber on this important HU have been of a high standard. They have been interesting and informative. They have been delivered by honorable senators who, in the main, have a proper conception of the great difficulty that confronts this country in achieving the task it has set out to perform in the Terri< tory of Papua and New Guinea. In my opinion, this is a unique experiment. We propose, at long last, in the years ahead eventually to bring a system of self-govern* ment, of self-determination, to a native people. The difficulties are great.

It has been stated during the debate that there are more than 500 separate language! in the Territory. We have set out to develop the Territory economically, so that it may support a system of selfgovernment. We have set out to impose democracy and to condition the people of the two areas of the Territory to govern themselves. When we come to think of it, Sir, if we exclude the Anglo-Saxon countries and a few countries of western Europe, the system of democracy that we have in this country is a fairly rare quantity. In fact, we have evolved it over a thousand years. It has taken an evolution of a thousand years to bring us to the stage of government that we have attained in this country. Therefore, the task of bringing the people of Papua and New Guinea to the stage where they will be able to operate successfully a democratic form of government is fraught with tremendous difficulties.

Of course, there are several schools of thought on this subject. There are those, including Senator Cohen who has just spoken, who say that we are not proceeding fast enough. There are others who say that we are proceeding too fast. But however that may be, it behoves this Government to keep in step with the people of the Territory and to appreciate their needs, wants and aspirations. The Government has done that. It has been conceded that this Government, and the government which preceded it, have done a remarkably good job in New Guinea. The Foot report acknowledges that fact. Through the efforts of the officers and administrators who have gone to the Territory, we have built up prestige for Australian administration, a kindly feeling towards the Australian people and an attitude conducive to amicable relations and co-operation which is somewhat rare in the world.

I was interested to read a speech delivered in another place by a man who has claimed that he was in New Guinea before the war, during the war and after the war. He is a member of the Opposition. He concedes that this Government has done a good job in conditioning the people of the Territory to embark upon their own government at some time in the distant future. But there is still a tremendous amount of work to do. I agree with Senator Wright that the second-reading speech delivered by the Minister for Territories (Mr. Hasluck) was splendid and would grace any parliament in the Commonwealth. In a passage towards the end of the speech, the Minister gave expression to sentiments which I consider to be correct. He said -

Self-government there is not a matter of clauses in a bill. . . .

Senator Cohen dealt at some length with the composition of the proposed House of Assembly. In fact, he devoted most of his speech to that subject. I say that we must look much further than that. There are certainly other vital factors which have to be taken into account in deciding on the system of government which, for the time being, should operate in the Territory.

The Minister said -

Self-government there is not a matter of clauses in a bill, but presents itself in the practical tasks of training more indigenous teachers, clerks, magistrates, potential parliamentary candidates, local government officers, medical officers, agricultural officers . . .

Then he went on to say something which, to my mind, is very vital indeed. He continued -

Behind it all is the even tougher problem of making the country viable economically so that it can support the rising standard of living of its people and finance its services.

We heard it said in this chamber last night that colonialism was* dead, but I suggest that we should look further to the west of the Territory we are discussing now. I again quote the Minister. In introducing this measure he said -

I suggest the paternalism of the colonial powers of the past is a mild self-interest compared with the active and arrogant disregard of the will of dependent peoples that appears in the new imperialism that is at work in so many parts of the world to-day. lt seems to me that colonialism is a completely outworn term. 1 have no doubt that in the past native- peoples have been exploited, but many parts of the world would not have been developed to anything like their present stage without this exploitation. We have one example of what can happen. I have mentioned a country to the west of New Guinea. It absolved itself from colonialism. It got rid of the Dutch. It thought that it could embark upon its own destiny by -getting rid of the people who were exploiting it. Incidentally, that exploitation had built up the country to the stage of development it had then reached. The leaders thought that if they got rid of the Dutch everything would be al! right and their country could progress; but they have reached the position where their economy is in a chaotic state. They are suffering from rising inflation. Their overseas markets have fallen. It may be that their leader, like so many dictators throughout history, will turn his country’s efforts outwards to distract the attention of his people from the economic problems that really confront them.

If v»e proceed too fast along the road to self-government for Papua and New Guinea without building up the economic strength of the country, there may be trouble. The people may obtain a reasonable measure of self-government, or even a complete measure of self-government, and then find their economy in as chaotic a condition as that of the country further west. We could defeat the very purpose we set out to achieve. The economic strength of Papua and New Guinea should bc built up commensurate with the measure of self-government that is achieved by the country.

Senator Dittmer last night referred to the machinations of communism. He said that communism was already there. If we grant these people a substantial measure of selfgovernment, or full self-government, and side by side with that self-government the economic development of the country does not proceed in equal strength, we will open the door to that ism which thrives on economic distress and on conditions that exist under those circumstances.

I agree entirely with the final statement of the Minister who said -

Behind it all is the even tougher problem of making the country viable economically so that it can support the rising standard’ of living of its people and finance its services.

That is much more important than the question whether the House of Assembly should have 44 or 88 members. Without economic viability the house we are trying to build can crash to the ground.

During this discussion reference has been made to the select committee of the Legislative Council for Papua and New Guinea and to the report of the Foot committee. There has been much discussion on whether the Foot report is correct and should have been adhered to, or whether the Government was right in adhering, in the main, to the report of the select committee of the Legislative Council. In this regard the introductory remarks of the Minister for Territories seem to have great significance. He said -

The select committee - and this is the point I want to stress - had under notice the suggestions made in the report of the visiting mission and two of the indigenous members of the select committee attended sessions of the United Nations in New York, at which the work of the visiting mission was discussed. The select committee of the Legislative Council worked for several months inquiring and discussing suggestions of various kinds with hundreds of leaders. . . .

The point I make is that the members of the select committee of the Legislative Council had the Foot committee’s report under observation. Some of the indigenous members went to the United Nations and heard the Foot report discussed. Notwithstanding this they made the report which they did. Surely it is a report from the people themselves, as it comes from their own legislative authority.

Sitting suspended from 5.45 to 8 p.m.

Senator LILLICO:

– Before the suspension I had said that since Australia assumed control of the Territory of Papua and New Guinea it set out to perfect eventually a system of self-government, to develop the Territory industrially and commercially, and to educate the people in the tenets of democracy. These people are trying to bridge a gap of 1,000 years between them and ourselves, and this should be done within a few generations. It should not be done quickly or without due consideration to every step that is taken. That gap of 1,000 years pertains not only to government but also to industrial and commercial development. It is necessary that both facets be developed together. For that reason legislation of the National Parliament must give slow and gradual effect to the achievement of these objectives. It must gradually concede to the people, as they become fitted for it, a system of government similar to that which we enjoy.

As the Minister said, the Government is well aware that there will be increasing pressure internationally to hasten the achievement of self-government in Papua and New Guinea. We appreciate, in literal and practical terms, that year by year there will be changes in the Territory. There has been agitation. In the United Nations and elsewhere we have heard the expression of world opinion that the process should be speeded up. But some of the people who express that point of view do not themselves enjoy the benefits of democracy.

In the legislatin that is brought before this Parliament, the Government does well to consider its own feelings in the matter and particularly the feelings of the people of the Territory, and it would do well to ignore some of the criticism that has been levelled at the Administration of the Territory - I repeat - by people who have not themselves learned the way of democracy. The Opposition seems to attribute tremendous importance to the size of the legislature that will be established. The amendment that the Opposition proposes to bring forward at the committee stage would just about double the representation.

Senator Aylett:

– Nothing like double.

Senator LILLICO:

– The Opposition should know its own amendment. A very considerable increase of representation is proposed. Why such store should be set upon the size of the parliament proposed is beyond my comprehension. Success in these matters is not governed by the size of a legislature. I call to mind that Hitler had a very large parliament which was little more than a sounding board for the views that he expressed. Furthermore, there is a very large parliament in Moscow, but its legislative power is problematical. The Minister, in relation to the size of the parliament, said -

For comparison, in this House we have a total membership of 122 covering a population of approximately 10,500,000.

Senator McClelland:

– Plus the Senate.

Senator LILLICO:

– Oh, yes, plus the Senate. The Minister said that if the same scale were applied to New Guinea, the proposed parliament would have a membership of no fewer than 270 members. New Zealand with a single house, has a parliament of 70 members to represent 2,500,000 people. The select committee of the Legislative Council for Papua and New Guinea reported that scarcely 100 of the indigenous people were capable of carrying out the duties of legislative councillors.

Senator O’Byrne:

– If you were in New Guinea, you would not get a job.

Senator LILLICO:

– -I think that I would get a job just as readily as would Senator O’Byrne. In my opinion, nothing vital hinges on the size of the legislature. With Senator Wright and others I share misgivings about this measure. Only to-day the Prime Minister (Sir Robert Menzies), in a defence statement, referred to the unstable conditions that pertain in the strategic area to the north of Australia. We must look at this legislation against the background that for the first time we share a border with a power with expansionist objectives. We have a common frontier which has not been clearly defined. That is not a reason why we should hasten along the road towards self-government for the Territory of Papua and New Guinea.

I support the measure. I share the misgivings that have been expressed. I cannot see how conditions that pertain in the strategic areas to the north of us can be adduced, as they have been adduced by some newspapers, as a reason for hastening along the road towards self-government for the Territory.

Senator Aylett:

– Do you oppose the bill?

Senator Hannaford:

– He has just said that he supports it.

Senator LILLICO:

– Senator Aylett does not listen. The honorable senator has not listened during all the years he has sat in this chamber. Because of the strategic position in which New Guinea is placed, I believe that we should proceed more cautiously than ever before along the path I have indicated. The misgivings that have been expressed are not to be unduly criticized. I believe they were well grounded.

I express the hope - I believe it is common to us all - that this legislation will achieve what it sets out to achieve. The relationship that exists between Australia and the Territory is most commendable; I believe it sets a standard for the rest of the world in dealing with native peoples. I hope that this legislation will take us further along the road towards a better and fuller understanding of the people of the Territory. All the indications are that they will work in close co-operation with the Australians because of - the good feeling, the good spirit, the good fellowship that has been built up between the two peoples. I support the bill.

Senator WILLESEE:
Western Australia

– I congratulate Senator Lillico upon his speech. I think it was a great speech. It was one of the greatest eighteenth century speeches I have heard for years. The bill now before us must be scrutinized much more closely than most bills which come before us. Generally speaking, legislation that comes before the Senate must stand up to scrutiny by the Australian people. Sometimes we have an obligation to a State government, and at other times, in relation to such matters as trade, we have to satisfy other nations with which we have entered into certain commitments. Senator Lillico and this Government have failed to understand that this measure and the activity that will follow in the next two or three years - not within several generations, as Senator Lillico has suggested - must stand up to the scrutiny of the important nations of the world. To-day Australia is one of the last of the trustee countries of the world. The spotlight moves from one part of the world to another. Like the beam of light that comes from a lighthouse, it does not shine on the whole world at once. Its glare is concentrated upon one part of the world at a time. As it moves from Western Samoa to places like Rhodesia, South Africa, Malaya and Indonesia, it must inevitably rest on New Guinea.

The Senate should not get a wrong idea about the Opposition’s attitude. The Opposition welcomes the bill with open arms. All that we on this side of the chamber say is that we would have welcomed it more warmly five, eight or ten years ago. We believe that the attitude of this Government towards Papua and New Guinea is just about that far behind the times. We welcome the fact that the measure is a forward step. The amendments that we shall move are not designed to retard the progress of Papua and New Guinea for one second. Every one of them is designed to speed up the process of development in the trust territory and in what may be termed as our colony. I suppose all terms are relative. I visited Papua and New Guinea a few weeks after the Prime Minister (Sir Robert Menzies) returned from overseas and I recall very clearly his statement about self-government for New Guinea -

Now that i have returned from overseas my attitude towards Papua and New Guinea is that i want it sooner rather than later.

Any person who has been overseas becomes a greater and more intelligent Australian, because he is able to picture Australia in the scene of world affairs. When the Prime Minister travels overseas he, as Australia’s representative, has the tremendous advantage of meeting the great heads of the other nations.

I always listen very attentively to statements that are made by the Prime Minister or senior Ministers of the Government when they return to Australia from overseas. I was greatly impressed by that statement which he made as soon as he stepped off his aircraft in Sydney. It had a marked effect in New Guinea. It started a haemorrhage of capital from New Guinea, particularly on the part of Chinese traders. They are very realistic people and they realized that when the Prime Minister of the country which was acting as trustee of the Territory spoke like that something was doing.

I was interested to hear Senator Lillico say that several generations would pass before these people would be ready for self-government. In the very next sentence he contradicted that statement by saying, “ We are aware of the outside pressures “. The situtation would be ideal if we were able to say that we would give complete independence to these people when we were satisfied that they could carry on, which would be when we regarded every person in the Territory as having reached the necessary standard. The fact is that events are moving so rapidly, as a result of both genuine activity and the activity of those who are not genuinely interested but who seek to cause embarrassment, that we will not have sufficient time in which to reach that ideal situation.

Reference has been made in another place, and I think in the Senate, to what has happened in the Congo. It has been stated that if we walked out of New Guinea we would thereby create another Congo. That is just so much rot. In the Congo the Belgians had not done nearly as well as we have already done in New Guinea. The hatred and bitterness that existed when the Belgians left the Congo will not be found in New Guinea if we play our part properly. The inhabitants of the Congo, a country which once exported food, now carry ration cards about with them. The situation in New Guinea is rather more like that which obtained in India before she attained independence. Much criticism was offered when it happened, but one of the greatest things that any British government has done was the action of the Attlee Government about fifteen years ago in saying that it proposed to give independence to India, Pakistan, Ceylon and Burma. Even though honorable senators who now sit opposite criticized the action of the British Government, it is obvious that Mr. Attlee was approximately a decade ahead of world thinking. What would have been the situation to-day if Britain had tried to stay in India? I dismiss any reference to the Congo. I largely dismiss references to Pakistan and India, too, because the delicate transference of power in those two countries was probably the best of such operations that we have seen since the end of the last war.

I suggest that Senator Lillico should have a good look at the western border of this land mass in which we are so interested to-night. The Dutch established a rather good parliamentary system in West New Guinea and they spoke about giving it a go for ten years. They invited everybody to see what would flow from it. But within three years the Dutch did not have an opportunity to proceed any further with the plan about which they had talked so much. If I were living in New Guinea to-day with my wife and family and had my capital invested there, I would spend every moment I could by discussing and examining the situation that has arisen in Rhodesia. The Government of the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland was destroyed by a declaration of the British Government - the final clause of the relevant legislation as yet to be passed - only ten years after the British Government itself had set up the federation. The only excuse that the British Government has is that the natives were not led quickly enough towards self-determination and taking a place in their own society. Sixty or 70 years ago Lobengula was a barbaric chief, and the only opposition to him came from those whom he later murdered.

I should look at that very intently because the action of the British Government in respect of Rhodesia means that, in its opinion, the white people in these places are completely expendable. Most of them were Britishers who had been encouraged to go to Rhodesia by the British Government. More than that, it means that the black man, too, is expendable, because if ever there was a benefit to the people of Nyasaland it was in the federation which comprised the two Rhodesias and Nyasaland. But by a deliberate act of policy the British Government, recognizing outside pressures, said, “This federation can no longer continue”. There was no demand from the white population of Rhodesia; there was no demand from the black people of Rhodesia; the only demand came from a few extremists whom the British Government considered fit to be gaoled, and from pressures from other parts of the world. Members of the British Government, whatever else they might be, are realists and they decided to take this action. If I were a white man in New Guinea to-day I should be examining that position because there are certain inevitabilities which none of us likes in this situation which you cannot possibly-

Senator Wright:

– There is no analogy whatever in the situation of the two countries.

Senator WILLESEE:

– There is Perry Mason butting in again. Senator Wright was trying to tell us to do away with the veto. It was one of his big bluffs. He did not even do his homework on it. He did not read what we intended to do about it. The honorable senator should try his bluff on the Liberal Party, not on me. There is a complete analogy in this situation, Senator Wright does not see an analogy between the situation in New Guinea and the situation in a federation which was the only country in the world which was trying to set up a partnership between the white man and the black man. I should hate to appear in court on a traffic charge and have Mr. Reg Wright, the lawyer from Tasmania, to defend me.

The amendments proposed by the Opposition did not Imply abdication in New Guinea as has been suggested by Government supporters. What Government supporters are saying, in the final analysis, is that the people of New Guinea can look after themselves only under the tutelage of Australia. What arrogance that is. Any school teacher will tell you that, in the final analysis, the only real education a person acquires is what he learns by doing. It does not matter how much formal education you have or whether you are a tradesman or a professional man, you finally learn by doing. There are other ways of bringing New Guinea to self-government than by providing that it shall be administered by Australia until the day on which the people of that Territory are finally qualified to govern themselves. When the Liberal Government finally decided that it was time for Australia to move out of New Guinea you would find Judge Wright dissenting. In his view, it would not be quite ready for self-government because some native in the highlands, round Mount Hagen, would not be quite ready for the take-over. This attitude completely ignores modern history and must result in trouble, not only for the New Guinea people, but also for ourselves. 1 sincerely trust that if the amendments proposed by the Opposition are accepted we shall lay down a political framework on the basis of which the people of New Guinea will be able to reach independence and, without turmoil, set up their own parliament, which is so important for these newly-developed countries. This does not mean that, even if we walk out of New Guinea, we are deserting it. After all, we give Colombo plan aid to other Asian powers. We have a great number of Indonesians in Australia pursuing educational courses. In passing, I deplore the snide attacks which have been made on Indonesia under the cove- of this debate. If senators want to attack Indonesia let them have a full-blooded debate on the subject in which the pros and cons can be discussed. This is not the appropriate occas on for the sort of attack that some honorable senators have made on Indonesia without examining the other side of the picture. There is another side of the picture in view of the way in which the Government has dealt with that situation. We should be proud of the medical services which we have established and of the basic social structure we have erected in New Guinea. We should not be proud of the educational structure there because we have failed in that respect.

Senator Lillico talked about something that was completely mysterious to me. He said that economic progress should go hand in glove with political progress and that, somehow or other, when the exports and imports of New Guinea reached a certain figure an additional member should be elected to the parliament. I suggest that we cannot help New Guinea economically to-day except by providing the knowhow. Would any member of the Senate advise a friend to take his wife and family to New Guinea and invest his capital there to-day? Of course not. Honorable senators opposite would not put their own capital into New Guinea. With their conservative attitude, they might try to resist this development but they know that some day their capital would be in jeopardy. They know that they cannot guarantee that in three, five, ten or twenty years their children will be able to reap the benefit of such investment.

Senator Lillico spoke about the economic situation. The best thing that we can do on the economic side is to throw responsibility on to the New Guinea people as quickly as we can, and then help them from afar. The day must come when we finally move out of New Guinea and when that day comes there will be no reason why we should not give the same aid to New Guinea as we have given to Indonesia, Burma and the other Colombo plan countries. New Guinea could then join the British Commonwealth of Nations if it wanted to just as Western Samoa has done in the last year or two. In New Guinea we have a great deal of goodwill. All that the Opposition is trying to do in proposing its amendments is to face up to the inevitabilities of modern history and see that goodwill is not destroyed. I say, completely without offence, that the Government is dilatory in its approach to this matter, lt is far too slow. It has not realized that there is a quickening tempo in the situation in some of the countries I have named. The Government is completely ignoring world trends.

The situation in New Guinea was examined by a United Nations mission. The mission, after consideration of ail factors, recommended certain improvements which the Opposition will deal with in committee rather than at this stage. A committee was set up under Dr. Gunther to examine the same ground and the same facts that the United Nations mission had already examined. If you were representing an independent country at the United Nations, would you not be suspicious when the reports of people skilled in this kind of investigation are set aside and other investigators are appointed to make a report. I deplore Senator Vincent’s snide attack on Sir Hugh Foot and the attack made upon him by Senator Cormack. Here was a man of experience whose investigations had covered a certain amount of ground in regard to certain questions. Suddenly, Dr. Gunther is appointed to lead a committee in New Guinea to go over the same ground and the same questions. Dr. Gunther is a man for whom I have the highest regard, I think that he has done a tremendously good job in New Guinea. I have too much respect for his ability and energy to say that he would have to travel through the Territory to find out what was going on. I should have had far more respect for this report had it come as a completely departmental report over the signature of Dr. Gunther or Sir Donald Cleland. I would expect the Administration to know what is going on in New Guinea. If any honorable senator here were representing an independent nation at the United Nations he would have a suspicion that it was a petulant action on the part of the New Guinea Legislative Council to set up this committee to try to build up an argument against the report of the United Nations mission. After the United Nations mission had recommended that the new representative body be called the House of Representatives the committee appointed by the Legislative Council went to the extent of saying that it ought to be called the House of Assembly. I agree with the Leader of the Opposition that it is not much good belonging to the United Nations and paying lip service to it unless you try to discipline yourselves to the requirements of the world councils. We complain about what some of the bigger nations do. If we do not set the example ourselves how can we point the finger of scorn at them? There should be a good reason if we move away from what the United Nations mission recommended. The white people’s contact with coloured people in this world often has not been a good one, but we can lead these people in New Guinea to representative government - the gravamen and core of democracy - and that is what the amendments are designed to do.

Senator Lillico said it would take generations before we could do it. Does not the honorable senator realize that we will not ha’ve generations? Of course, it would be ideal to have all that time. That applies to any job. But time will not be given to us in this case. The genuine people of the world will demand action and the mischievous nations will take full advantage of the situation.

Reference has been made to the building up of a small elite. One of the things I fear is the building up of an 61ite of member one men in Papua and New Guinea. If the Government builds up this small 61ite the members of the elite will become identified with the Administration. They will not be true representatives of the people because it will be completely impossible for them to comb their electorates as we know the term in Australia. With this type of representation we will build up a hierarchy. Do not think that because you have friendly Papuans and New Guinea leaders now they will continue to be friendly if the members of this small elite become identified with the Administration. The moment the agitators get among the people and they see that this arrangement is not going to work to their benefit there will be the age-old strife of man against man.

If you let animosity build up between black and white you will be running into the very problem that has been experienced in many parts of the world since the end of World War II. You will start the very thing you should avoid. Since 1951 five indigenous persons have been elected to the Legislative Council. How many of them have held their seats? None, because they became identified in the people’s minds with the Administration. They were not able to look after the electorate.

Some day, political parties will develop in New Guinea. They are inevitable. Never mind what the theorists say. Put five people on the most honest committee in the world and three will think one way and two the other. What are wanted in this situation are political parties developing along natural lines. A place like Papua and New Guinea has everything in the way of terrain - highlands, lowlands, poor country, rich country. Political parties could develop along regional lines. There could be parties representing the highlands and parties representing the lowlands. Parties could develop along industrial lines, representing for instance the cocoa-grower against the fisherman working on the coast. These things would not be bad. After all, that situation has developed in Australia. I only hope the agricultural people in New Guinea get better representation than the agriculturalists do in Australia from the Australian Country Party. But that is the type of thing that might develop.

One thing I find inherent in the bill is the certainty that we do not want to develop a pro-Administration complex and an anti-Administration complex. At the committee stage, which will be a long one, these matters will be discussed. The Government is trying to set up an Administrator’s Council which will be advisory to the Administration and only reflect the wishes of the Administration whereas it should be developing an Administrator’s Council which will be a liaison between the Parliament and the Administrator. I see the seeds of that situation in this bill. If there is established a parliament of the size the Opposition requires in order to obtain true representation of the people, you will get the voice of Papua and New Guinea coming through the House of Assembly and not a pale reflection of the Government in Canberra. What the Government proposes will be analogous to shouting into a pipe. The voice might come back changed, but it will be the same voice.

What are we trying to gain through this bill? We welcome it because it is a move from the stodginess of the past, and that is worth while. But what worries me is how much the Government has closed its eyes to history. The Opposition wants a fully representative council in the Territory. I want to be confident that when I hear the voice of the council in Port Moresby I will be hearing the voice of the people of Papua and New Guinea and not a pale echo of the Administration’s voice. Iwant to see this as the broad framework on which the final independence will be established, but I do not use the word “ final “ in the sense in which it was used in Senator Lillico’s speech, in which the honorable senator spoke of generations.

The honorable senator can have no idea how quickly things can happen. In the case of Indonesia, the Dutch thought they had ten years in West New Guinea - but they had only three. When the ultimate happens and all the multifarious duties are thrown on these people - who will not be prepared for them completely - I do not want to see a new parliament or a new political situation thrust upon them. I want to see our proposals stand up in the light cast on them by the United Nations organization.

This Government likes to pay only lip service to the United Nations but the fact is that that organization is the seed of lasting peace. If you are not willing to bow down to some superior organization you might as well not belong to the United Nations at all. I want to see the situation in Papua and New Guinea stand up to the scrutiny of the United Nations so that genuine people on the Security Council and in the General Assembly can appraise it, and those who want to cause mischief on the Security Council and in the Assembly will be stymied.

Above all, we want to avoid the regionalism that has become so apparent in countries that have gained their freedom over the past few years. We have seen the terrible happenings when the Congo was handed over. The people of Katanga said: “We are the wealthy part of the Congo. We will not pour our wealth into the rest of the country “. They had not been trained in the political sense to realize that this was an opportunity to take part in a federation. We saw it in Sumatra and Indonesia. The Sumatrans said, “ We are the wealthy, and we are not going to throw our wealth into Djakarta “. So there was a long and distressing war in Indonesia which caused bloodshed over many years.

These are the things we want to deal with when we move the Opposition’s amendments later to-night. I have not dealt with them fully and neither have many of my colleagues because our amendments are specific. They provide for things that the Government could well do. Overhanging the whole situation is the fact that the Government is ignoring the realities. Members of the Government have gone into their ivory tower. They believe they are masters of destiny. They have not learnt that no nation to-day is immune from the powers and influences of other countries. Although independence is not mentioned in this bill we ought to produce a measure that we can look back upon, along the vista of future years, and see Papua and New Guinea with everything that independence means to Australia. We want to sec it standing free and independent as a friend of ours and a member of the Commonwealth of Nations, though still getting aid from the Australian people. If we can do that we will be doing the best for the people of New Guinea and Papua. We will see them facing up to responsibilities which will fall upon them. We will be doing the best for Australia and the best for peace in the Pacific.

Senator MATTNER:
South Australia

– The bill that we are discussing to-night introduces amendments to the Papua and New Guinea Act 1949-1960, and seeks to assist the political development of the Territory. I pause for a while to say that the bill deals with humans. If I could offer any word against what has been said by members of the Opposition it is that I do not think they have realized that we are dealing with human beings and not chattels to be disposed of at the whim of some other nation.

How can we help these people? That is the whole crux of the bill - nothing else. I shall refer to the inhabitants of Papua and New Guinea as Territorians, and I hope that in doing so I shall not be misunderstood. I shall refer to the European population of the Territory and the Australians as “ expatriates “ so that they may be distinguished.

In dealing with the bill before us we have three aids that can help us to form a reasonably sound opinion. The first aid is the report that was made by the United Nations Visiting Mission to the Trust Territory of New Guinea in 1962. I shall call that the “ Foot report “. The second aid that we have comes from the interim reports of the select committee of the Legislative Council for Papua and New Guinea. This committee was appointed to inquire into and report upon the political development of the Territory. I join issue with Senator Willesee on what he said about Dr. Gunther and others. Who better, in my opinion, could report on this subject than those gentlemen who have lived there and have seen all the conditions? Senator Willesee readily admits that these people have first-hand knowledge and are the experts, but he prefers to throw away their advice and to take the fleeting advice given by four members of a visiting mission who spent only a few weeks in the Territory. I shall deal with that mission in a moment. I prefer to accept the opinion of Dr. Gunther.

Senator Marriott:

– He is a dedicated man.

Senator MATTNER:

– Exactly. I do not wish to reflect in any way upon the ability of Sir Hugh Foot. It was my pleasure to meet him and to discuss problems with him. On this mission he was accompanied by a Bolivian, an Indian and an American, and he had to reconcile their views. Perhaps he even had to subjugate his own views so that he could submit a unanimous report. For my part, I am quite happy to accept the recommendations put forward by Dr. Gunther and his team.

The third aid that we have is perhaps the greatest of all - our own personal knowledge of the Territory and its people, a knowledge formed by visits to the Territory and actual experience. I think it has been agreed by every one who has spoken in this debate that the Territorians have a right to choose their own future. That is not denied by honorable senators on either side of the chamber. That can perhaps be called selfdetermination.

What is the future that we have in our mind’s eye for the people of Papua and New Guinea? That is the question that I pose for myself after visiting their country and seeing its rather difficult conditions, of which I shall not speak. Is the future that we envisage for them the future that these people desire or aspire to? These people have hundreds of years of tradition behind them. If we assist them by giving them better health standards, better education, civic mindedness and economic progress, how do we do this without submerging the present codes of moral law, their own education and land tenure, and perhaps their own family or group government? Those are questions that we set ourselves to solve.

Are the reforms proposed by the bill acceptable to the Territorians and the expatriates? I ask this question because I have recently seen in other parts of the world - chiefly in Africa - the result of independence having come perhaps too quickly to the emerging people. When independence came to West Africa the expatriates, as I call them, left the country -r-not because they wanted to, and perhaps not because the emerging people wanted them to do so. One of the sets of conditions that developed in nearly all the emerging countries of West Africa arose because the expatriates left far too soon. There were reasons for that, but I shall not discuss them to-night. All 1 say is that it seems to be most unfortunate that these things happen.

I am led to believe that it is the blending of the expatriates’ wisdom and knowledge with the latent power of those seeking independence that creates a virile and dedicated outlook for the emerging people. 1 believe Senator Cormack gave a clear picture of this latent intellectual power that the Territorians have. Do we desire these people to fashion their way of life on our pattern? What right have we to assume that our way of life is superior to theirs, and that we can thrust our opinion upon them? We have heard that we tend to thrust our opinion on these people, whether or not that is what they want.

From a reading of the Foot report it continually emerges that the mission looked at the situation in Papua and New Guinea with European eyes and not through the eyes of the people that it sought to help. The Foot report convinced me that the members of the mission, having looked at the problem with European eyes, proposed to solve the problem by their own methods. There is no evidence in the report of the mission, or anywhere else, to suggest that the members ever paused and tried to put themselves into the position of the Territorian or to think as a Territorian thinks. Did those members realize that over hundreds of years these people had a way of life that was family and tribal? Did it not occur to them that they would neither accept our free enterprise economy nor a Communistic economy? I believe that the Territorians will develop in their own way a co-operative economy, because each tribe has its own vested interests, and vested interests are very strong in the 500 tribes that inhabit the countryside. They have their own land tenure and their own inheritance laws which vary from tribe to tribe. In some cases land tenure is handed down through the female line and not through the male line.

Did members of the Foot mission ask themselves whether these people had any real desire to create one united nation?

There is no evidence that over the hundreds of years these people have had any desire to create one nation. There is no fact recorded in history that there was ever a man or woman among their ranks who rose to organize them into one nation or even to a group of a few tribes. To my way of thinking, there is not yet any urge or desire for this one nationhood. I do not believe such a desire ever existed before aliens or expatriates came to their land. Having said that, I must say that in many ways the Foot report is an excellent one. It is a good report when it does not project its own approach on to the people of the Territory, and when it deals with the facts of life, as it were. It is a good report considering the limited time which the mission had at its disposal and the places it visited.

The leader of the mission, as I have said, was Sir Hugh Foot, and the three other members came from Bolivia, India and the United States of America. It is true that the mission travelled extensively in the Territory, but as many honorable senators know, travel in that area presents many difficulties. What interests me is to consider the places and areas which the mission did not visit. Sir Hugh Foot has referred to speed as the point at issue at present. He has spoken of the need to hasten towards the future attainment of his own vision for the Territory. It is his own vision that he is projecting. He thinks that that should be attained as quickly as possible, with little or no thought for the consequences. I ask myself: Who is better qualified to look after the interests of the people of the Territory than are the Australians? I heard to-night a statement to the effect that we may not have the opportunity to stay there. I ask: Who is going to put us out of New Guinea? Many people have made similar statements to the one I have mentioned, but no one answers the question I have just asked. In a few moments I shall deal with various aspects of the attitude of the United Nations to the Territory, but for the moment I merely say that no nation in the world has done more for the Territorians than has Australia. No nation has had a more abiding interest in the people of the Territory. 1 repeat - and I think it cannot be repeated too often - that in this connexion we are dealing with human beings.

In my view, the United Nations mission went about the Territory with starry eyes. its members believed that the people of the Territory had a great idealism involving political freedom and that they wanted to throw off the aid which they were receiving from expatriates. How easy it is to accept a point of view on a few straws of evidence, as it were, if that evidence fits into your own pre-conceived idealism. On this question of idealism, I think that perhaps the mission, with’ the best intentions in the world, may have been led astray, and that that is reflected in its findings. I say so because I have seen a little of New Guinea. I can give them chapter and verse in the report to support the points I am making. In paragraphs 68 and 209 of the report, the mission paid lip service to Sir Dallas Brooks when it said that the interests of the Territorians must come first, and that their ideas and opinions should be heard and respected. I agree that that is so. If we respect their ideas and opinions we should not submerge them, but that is what the Foot report does. It submerges the individualism of these people.

In paragraph 210, the report refers to leaders who are competent to speak. Two points are emphasized. The report states that the decisions in this respect were based on the statements of people to whom the members had spoken at patrol posts, country centres and district and sub-district headquarters. That is a great tribute to the Australian administration. The second point which the mission has emphasized is that in the back areas it is not possible to find people who are competent to speak on behalf of their fellows. I want the Senate to pause and consider that point. To me, it is one of the crucial points of the whole report. The mission did not visit many of the thousands of back areas which I could have suggested it should visit. It has merely stated in its report that in the back areas it is difficult to find competent people.

In paragraph 122 it is stated, inter alia, that Australia faced an enormous task when the Japanese surrendered in 1945, and that this task presented a challenge and an opportunity with few parallels in world history. The report states that with courage, enterprise and drive remarkable results were achieved. Reference is made to the estab lishment of patrol posts. What a magnificent service has been performed by the Australians at the patrol posts. When the patrol officers first went into the Telefomin area, which is now a relatively calm and orderly area, they were surrounded by people who stroked them lovingly and thought they were fit for the cooking pot. Unfortunately, some of their own people went into the cooking pot. I cannot speak too highly of the young men who went out into those unknown, wild and rugged regions to succour the people and show them that we wanted to be their friends. I cannot speak too highly of the work that has been done in building schools. We hear a lot of clap-trap spoken about the schools in the Territory. It is all very well to sit back here and say what should be done. I suggest that the people who make derogatory comments about our educational work in the Territory should go there and see what they can do themselves.

One of the greatest problems in the Territory, of course, is the multitude of languages that are spoken. As we have heard during this debate, more than 500 dialects are spoken. I pay a high tribute to the teachers in the Territory. I have seen some wonderful schools there. Maybe they had mud floors and thatched roofs, but within their confines there were dedicated men and women who Were prepared to give their best for the people of the Territory. The temperature of my blood rises when I hear people say we have not done enough for them. My answer to such people is: Go there and see for yourselves. Is it suggested that we have been sitting down and not raising a hand to help the people of the Territory?

I intend to say a few words about the attitude of the United Nations to this problem. Before I do so, however, I wish to comment on some of the work that is being done in the Territory. Schools and hospitals are being built and roads are being constructed. In fact, there are now 5,000 miles of road. Once the people of the Territory get on to a road they are in a sanctuary. An Administrator of the Territory once said: “Just as the old church was the sanctuary in days gone by, this road is now a sanctuary for you people, and Heaven preserve you if you carry on your tribal feuds on it.”

Senator Cormack:

– It is the Queen’s highway.

Senator MATTNER:

– Exactly. The people of the Territory have pushed ahead with road construction. I pay a tribute to the way in which they build bridges and undertake other engineering works. All this work has been done by men and women who have been dedicated not only to the Administration but also to the cause of the Territorians.

I should not like to forget the Christian missions and the work they have done in the fields of education and health. I have heard a lot about what the United Nations may do in the future. If the United Nations had been concerned years ago about the welfare of the people of the Territory it could have provided more doctors, nurses and teachers.

Senator Cormack:

– And money.

Senator MATTNER:

– And money, but the personal touch is what is needed. I admit that money is very important in the development of the Territory. Although that opportunity was awaiting the United Nations, it did not take advantage of it. The work that needed to be done in the Territory existed long before Sir Hugh Foot’s mission went there.

I should think that, of all things, the teaching of the English language is a “ must “ for the Territory. If we are to do anything at all we must have a universal language, and there is no better language than English. I am delighted that English is being taught in the schools and that at the same time the culture of the people is being preserved.

In paragraph 239 of the report we are told of the achievements of the past ten years. We are told of the hospitals that have been constructed at Wewak, Rabaul, Butaway and Lae, together with a mission hospital at Manbisanda. I think Senator Wade will agree with me. One of the things that intrigued me was the wonderful cathedral that has been built at Wewak. It is something out of this world. Dedicated men of a different religion from mine - chiefly from America - have dedicated their lives to giving the people this wonderful cathedral. I saw the mission children in their beautiful little uniforms.

I want to pay a tribute not only to the Administration but to the many missions for what they have done.

Then we talk about the establishment of an extra 1,000 aid posts and the increase in the expatriate medical staff in ten years from 238 to 588. The actual number of Papuans and New Guineans engaged has risen from 2,324 to 3,588. Perhaps I am boring the Senate, but the people of Australia should know these things. I think they are as proud of them as I am. Four hundred new infant and maternity clinics have been established in 10 years. Yet, it is said we have done nothing for these people! The one thousand new aid posts treated 2,000,000 patients in 1960-61. More than 250,000 people from 2,000 villages were treated and examined by medical patrols. Do not let us forget that these are only small communities. Anything found to be wrong with the people was treated by expatriate doctors.

Persistent efforts are being made to eradicate malaria. By 1967 60 per cent, of school children will be attending health clinics and 60 per cent, of the women will be receiving ante-natal care. Four survey teams surveyed 350,000 people for tuberculosis, each team examining 40,000 to 50,000 people per annum. By 1967 more than 1,250,000 people will have been examined for tuberculosis and all cases that are found will be receiving treatment. The same applies to leprosy. Let the United Nations show a real interest in these matters. This is where the United Nations could come in and show that it is interested. If malaria and tuberculosis can be cleared up, we can look after the health of the people and give them education, then the other things will follow just as night follows day.

Senator Cormack:

– The United Nations is not interested in it.

Senator MATTNER:

– Not at all. It is true that the economy of Papua and New Guinea can be summed up in three “ c’s “ - coconuts, cocoa and coffee. I am hopeful that a fourth “ c “ will come to their aid - cattle. If the economy is to be improved, markets and prices will become more important. I do not intend to discuss that aspect to-night because it is not connected with this bill.

Earlier I mentioned the latent intellectual power that these people have. I am referring to power that is latent according not to their own lights but to our European ways. Sometimes I think that they could become even our equals in intellectual capacity. We should ask ourselves how we are to bridge the gap between the two cultures. How can we, by education, blend the two cultures - the culture of the territorians and the European culture? I mentioned earlier that the teach ng of English would help to deal with this problem.

Senator Ormonde:

– We will have to learn English then?

Senator MATTNER:

– 1 would not go to the honorable senator if I wanted a teacher. If Australia does not continue her contribution of £20,000,000 per annum in the form of human service and example how can these people alter the way of life that they enjoy? They are human beings and should not be treated as chattels. How are we to alter the way of life that they have enjoyed and do enjoy? I see raised eyebrows, but I repeat that they enjoy their way of life. I also heard shouts of derision when Senator Cormack spoke of the indecent hurry that the Foot report proposed. What is 2,000 years in the history of the world? These people have not been, and are not, a threat to world peace or security. No valid reasons have been advanced yet why any great change should come about so quickly. Because I say that it does not mean that I am not amenable to change. But why the indecent haste? I ask: Are their methods of waging war any more barbaric than atomic weapons?

Because the report of the select committee of the Legislative Council of the Territory came from men with long experience - I mentioned them earlier; they have had long experience in the Territory and they have the knowhow - I support the report and prefer to accept an assembly of the size that the members of that committee envisage, in preference to that suggested by the Opposition. In conclusion I say, having seen some of the tasks that confront the Administration, that the Australian people need have no fear that the millions of pounds that have been poured into New Guinea have not been well applied. The expatriates have helped the territorians by example and precept. There is no other way. These things that >ve envisage cannot be brought about unless the expatriates remain in the Territory and by their example and precept show the way. I support the bill.

Senator AYLETT:
Tasmania

.- I regard the bill before the Senate as one of the major measures of our time. Two things in Australia are of major importance at the present time. One relates to what we do in New Guinea, and how we do it, and the other to the development of the north and the far north-west of Australia. The latter subject does not come within the ambit of this bill so I shall not discuss it, but some of the remarks that I make in this debate will refer also to that subject.

We have just heard a remarkable speech from a senator on the Government side. Like several other honorable senators before him he wants, in effect, to have two bob each way. I shall touch on one subject with which he dealt while it is fresh in the minds of those who may have been listening to him over the air, as well as those who listened to him inside the chamber. He launched a most scathing attack against the mission appointed by the United Nations to inquire into and report on New Guinea. Such an attack was illbecoming of an honorable senator who is supposed to be supporting a government which is trying to do something to appease the United Nations by making an effort to develop and bring self-government to New Guinea. Senator Mattner must know what happened in West Irian, which was formerly Dutch New Guinea. Surely he has not forgotten the step that the United Nations took there. If we do not pay heed to what the United Nations says about east New Guinea, it is possible that similar action will be taken on that side of the island. Is it not better for Australia’s interests for us to continue to have a say in New Guinea than to have a commission established there by the United Nations, as was the case with West New Guinea. We must pay some heed to the pressure that has been put upon the Government. This has come not only from the United Nations but also from other world organizations, such as the Inter-Parliamentary Union, and the Trade Union Congress. Pressure has come from every angle.

Senator Cormack:

– Are they interested in the people?

Senator AYLETT:

– We hear Senator Cormack and other honorable senators on the opposite side of the chamber ask: “ What is the haste? What is the hurry? “ We heard Senator Mattner say that the Opposition did not realize that this bill dealt with human beings. Where is the foundation for such an iniquitous, untruthful statement?

Senator Cormack:

– Who made it?

Senator AYLETT:

– Senator Mattner. He placed nothing before the Senate to back his statement. From what I have heard of the debate, the Minister will get far more support from the Opposition than from his followers. So far as I can see, the Opposition gives far more credit to the Minister administering the Territory for what has been done and is being done in New Guinea than do his own colleagues on the Government side. Anybody should be able to see that we can do nothing other than pay a tribute to the Minister for the Interior.

Senator Cormack:

– When did he take over?

Senator AYLETT:

– I mean the Minister for Territories (Mr. Hasluck). The honorable senator may be very sharp, but I can be just as sharp. The Territory of Papua and New Guinea is being well administered by Australia but if a Labour government had been in office the Territory’s progress might have been greater still. However, we give the Minister far more credit than is given by his own supporters. He realizes far more than do Government back-benchers the importance of speeding up the development of the Territory and pushing the issue. He knows what New Guinea is to Australia. One of the most pleasing statements I have heard to-day was the announcement in the statement read by the Minister for Civil Aviation (Senator Paltridge), for the Prime Minister (Sir Robert Menzies), that in relation to defence the Territory of Papua and New Guinea was on the same footing as the mainland of Australia. That was a very welcome statement, not only to Australians listening in but also to people in the Territory.

The position is changing from day to day. It is very different from what it was three years ago. That is something which Government back-benchers cannot appreciate. They do not understand the changes taking place throughout the world, when they claim that the people of the Territory are not ready for the advancement that is proposed. I say that they are ready for some advancement. A framework is being erected for the emergence of another small nation that will be born in the very near future, not in generations hence, as some Government supporters predicted. In 1954, when travelling through East Africa, I spoke to some Ugandans. I told them within ten years they would have selfgovernment. They laughed at me, saying, “ No, it will take 25 years “. However, only eight years elapsed before they declared their independence. That is a sign of the changes that have taken place. It is necessary to push on towards selfgovernment wherever possible, to bring people to the stage where they can govern themselves successfully.

Senator Cormack:

– When do you think we should give self-government to New Guinea?

Senator AYLETT:

– If the honorable senator had his way, there would never be self-government in New Guinea. It would continue to be under the domination of the Parliament in Canberra for generations to come. It would be the front line of defence, if necessary, for Australians to trample over the top of New Guineans as the Japanese trampled over them during the last war. I advise the honorable senator to keep his interjections to himself and do a little more thinking about development and the pace at which the world is going. He should forget his foolish interjections and his foolish outlook upon the territories.

Senator Cormack:

– You do not even know what a coconut looks like.

Senator AYLETT:

– I am sure that if a coconut broke on the honorable senator’s head it would not splash his clothes, because his head is so hollow it would absorb what was in the coconut.

Having dealt with Senator Mattner and his scathing attack on the United Nations, let me move to something else of importance. The position to-day is entirely different from the position of .three years ago. Then we had on the western side of the Territory a nation with which we could discuss administrative problems at will and with which we were in close co-operation. Then another nation came in, defied the United Nations and dropped paratroopers all over Dutch New Guinea. The issue was forced to the point where the United Nations had to take over for a certain period and then to hand over the administration of that part of the island to Indonesia. The Indonesians took over on certain terms, one of which was that they would conduct a plebiscite within a certain time to let the people of West New Guinea decide far themselves how they should be governed. Already we find that West Irian is being placarded with signs reading: “ We want no plebiscite. We want no referendum.” We can therefore see the writing on the wall. How much notice can we take of guarantees of friendliness?

I want to be on the most friendly terms with the Indonesians, but instead of having a friendly administration across the border with which we can exchange outlooks for the benefit of both sections of New Guinea, we have at least 15,000 - some say 30,000 - trained Indonesian troops there. Those are the people with whom we have to exchange our views now. Therefore, the whole situation has changed. I hope that they are friendly towards us, but irrespective of how friendly they are, we must have the same answer on our side of the dividing line. If it takes 15,000 trained troops to administer West Irian, it should take 20,000 or 30,000 trained troops to administer the Territory of Papua and New Guinea. If we provide that answer we shall be doing the right thing by the Territory. The people there will feel much safer than they feel to-day if that defensive line were taken and we worked in a friendly relationship with our Indonesian friends across the border. If they can afford to put 15,000 or 30,000 troops in the area, surely Australia can put a like number on our side of the border to serve some useful purpose.

When I made this statement recently, I was asked, “ How would you finance this? “ Surely we are not back in the dark days in relation to finance. Do we hear the United States of America asking where it could get the finance to build in Australia a base to cost about £40,000,000? Of course not! She knows that she has a nation worth billions of pounds upon which she can draw. The value of Australia’s untapped wealth does not run into a few hundred million pounds but into billions and billions- of pounds. There is no lack of finance for anything we want to do to advance the people in the Territory of Papua and New Guinea, whether it be educational, social, economic, or for the purpose of defence. At the moment we can regard the Territory as being part of the mainland of Australia. If we do otherwise, possibly in the distant future, or even in the not too distant future, we will pay very dearly for it.

The people of the Territory of Papua and New Guinea are like a little bit of meat in a sandwich. They are squeezed in between the powers of the Western world - Australia, supported by the United States of America - and the Indonesians, who could be supported to-morrow by Com-“ munist China or the Russian Communists. There is a slight difference of opinion as to which of those Communist nations the Indonesians will play up to. It is possible that, regardless of expense or anything else, President Soekarno will make a Utopia of West New Guinea. For what purpose will he do that? He will do it to display to the people of East New Guinea the wonderful benefits that are being enjoyed by the people of West Irian. If the people of East New Guinea thought we were not doing our best for them, President Soekarno, through his infiltrating agents, could say: “Come over to us. The colour of our skin is closer to yours than that of the whites. We can do just as much for you. In fact, we can do more.”

As I said earlier, the people of the Territory of Papua and New Guinea are like a little bit of meat in a sandwich. Sooner or later they will have to decide to which side they will give their allegiance, because their country will be too small to act as a buffer between two big powers. When I use the term “ big powers “, I do not mean that we are a major power but that we are supported by a major power. ‘ In fact, we ourselves are like the meat in a sandwich. We must accept the support and friendship of the United States of America and the rest of the Western world, or the support of the other side. I do not think there is any doubt in the minds of honorable senators on both sides or of the people of Australia about which side they will take. We are on the side of the Western world and the United States of America.

In time to come the people of the Territory of Papua and New Guinea will have to make a choice, and they will decide in favour of the side which they believe can do the best for them. We will find that the pace will be set for us by President Soekarno. If the people of the Territory take sides with the people of West Irian, in what position will Australia find herself? We will find submarine bases and ports established right down in the eastern part of the island only a stone’s throw from the coast of the Australian mainland. It is of major importance that no stone should be left unturned to do everything that is humanly possible to advance the people of the Territory economically, educationally and politically.

Some supporters of the Government have ridiculed the idea that the size of the proposed House of Assembly should be increased from 64 to 98 members. We must remember that the Territory of Papua and New Guinea is far-flung and that it embraces many tribes. The more widely we spread representation amongst the masses of people and the various tribes the more likely we are to have peace there. Moreover, the existence of a larger representation would lead to a greater influence being exercised upon the people than if we were to establish the smaller House of Assembly that is proposed by the Government. The Opposition will not reject the bill if the Senate does not agree to the amendments it will propose. Even if our amendments are not agreed to, we will allow the measure to be passed. But if we believe that it can be improved by moving certain amendments, we will not be backwards in coming forward.

Australia has played a major part in the development of the Territory and she must continue to do so in the near future and possibly the more distant future. But we must remember that the International Bank has been established for the purpose of developing backward countries. What is wrong with the International Bank coming to the rescue of the Territory now when it is so urgently in need of finance for development? Why should Australia have to find all the necessary finance when the International Bank has been established for this very purpose? The United Nations could back the International Bank if backing were needed. The United Nations has taken it upon itself to dictate to other countries about what they should do in relation to trust territories. It has dictated to the Australian Government, and I am pleased to note that the Government realizes that it must take heed. I repeat: What is wrong with finance coming from overseas to develop the Territory?

I suppose our contribution to Indonesia through the Colombo Plan would amount to nothing less than £1,000,000. But we may be obliged to expend an additional £5,000,000 or £6,000,000 a year to combat, what is taking place in West Irian. The Indonesians must take stock of this situation and must realize that, if they intend to put armies of trained men on the other side of the border, irrespective of the degree of their friendliness towards us - I do not doubt that they are friendly - it is only a matter of common sense for us to want to do likewise on the other side of the border. What have the Indonesians to be afraid of that they should want to bring so many troops into West Irian? We do not have thousands of troops stationed in the Territory. Therefore, I am pleased to see that the Government proposes to outline a defence programme.

Probably, some senior Ministers as well as back-benchers on the Government side do not realize how necessary it is, in view of changing events, that defence preparations should be stepped up, not only in the Territory of Papua and New Guinea but in Australia itself. This is so in view of the dangers that could arise should the people to whom I have referred become sufficiently developed in their second stage. At that stage they are to make a choice and they could choose the other side. At present, we have no defence other than the old global strategy. It is essential that no stone should be left unturned to meet the situation. We must get finance whether we get it from tha International Bank for Reconstruction and Development or from the Australian Treasury. Even if £50,000,000 were needed, the Australian Treasury could provide it.

Honorable senators might think that this is a wild statement. We did not ask where the finance would come from when we were threatened by the Japanese. The Japanese professed their friendship for us and then, within a week or so, turned their bayonets against us. We did not ask where finance was coming from then. It was in this Territory of Papua and New Guinea that we halted their attack. The debt that we owe to the natives of the Territory for saving the lives of Australian troops during the last war can never be repaid in pounds, shillings and pence. Finance for the development of that Territory should be considered as a mere bagatelle to a nation which is backed by millions of pounds’ worth of untouched resources. Australia has obtained loans overseas for other purposes and could obtain similar credits for the development of New Guinea. This would not mean that we would get gold or currency. We would get bank credit which would be backed by the wealth of the United States of America.

I say that the credit of this nation should be used for the development of the north of Australia, which comes into the same category as the development of New Guinea. The resources of northern Australia have only been scratched up to the present time as have the resources of the Territory. The development of a stable economy could make New Guinea selfsupporting. As much as we have done, there is still a lot to do and there need be no shortage of finance. There is no shortage of finance to do anything that it is humanly possible to do with available man-power and materials. That has been proved over and over again in war-time. If the use of credit can be a success in wartime it can be a success in peace-time. We have no hesitation about using credit in time of war. We should have no hesitatation in using it in time of peace in order to get on with the job of developing underdeveloped countries. In our own undeveloped country we have the potential to feed the starving people of other countries. The Territory of Papua and New Guinea is capable of producing untold wealth. It only needs development. Therefore, I con gratulate the Minister for Territories (Mr. Hasluck) on what he has done. I disagree entirely with Government back-benchers who claim that we have been trying to go too fast in New Guinea and that we should wait for a generation or two in order to bring these changes in gradually. We would wait a long time if we were to proceed at a pace to suit some of the backbenchers opposite. Some of our children would never get out of kindergarten if they were never pushed along by their parents until they got through the university. But Government back-benchers do not want us to adopt that attitude as far as the people of New Guinea are concerned.

I now wish to deal with Senator Mattner’s regrettable statement that the Opposition did not realize that this bill dealt with human beings. I challenge him to show how Opposition senators who have participated in this debate have not dealt with the position of New Guinea as humanly as we would deal with our own affairs. The Opposition does realize that this bill deals with human beings. Judging by Senator Mattner’s remarks, particularly his castigation of the United Nations mission, and judging by the remarks of several other Government senators, they do not realize that they are dealing with human beings because they want to delay the progress of the establishment of economic security, economic stability and self-government in the Territory of Papua and New Guinea.

Senator HANNAFORD:
South Australia

– Mr. President, in common with practically every other speaker in this debate, I regard this as a very important measure and one which deserves our closest attention. I think it has been to the advantage of all of us to give the closest study to the bill and all that it means. I think we can say that, generally speaking, most senators agree entirely with the principles that lie behind the legislation. I think that all of us, both on the Opposition side and on the Government side, are proud of the achievements of the Australian administration of the Territory of Papua and New Guinea. I had the pleasure, some years ago, of leading a delegation to New Guinea which included the Leader of the Opposition in another place, Mr. Calwell, and other

Labour supporters in that chamber. I think it can be said that we were all impressed by the splendid results that have been achieved in the comparatively short period of the post-waT years.

I am surprised at some of the criticisms that have been levelled by Opposition senators who have implied that we on the Government side are reluctant to make haste in developing this area. The very opposite is the truth. Any sensible person would recognize the truth of that statement if he saw the great work that has been done in a country peopled by some of the most primitive races on the face of the earth - a country which is confronted with difficulties no matter which way you turn. Many of the difficulties are due to the terrain. New Guinea is a tremendous island. Next to Australia it is the biggest island in the world, although, of course, we do not occupy all of it. It is populated by people who have been practically unknown to the rest of the world. Initially, there were the incursions into the Territory by the early missionaries and the officials of some of the colonial powers. But they only penetrated the areas adjacent to the coast. Vast areas of New Guinea have remained practically unknown to the white man. Some tribes have been unaware of the presence of other tribes which may have existed for centuries only a few miles away.

Senator O’Byrne:

– In the way that God made them.

Senator HANNAFORD:

– That is correct. They are primitive people in the extreme. For that reason we have had an enormous task in bringing something of civilization to this Territory. One has only to visit the country to see the difficulties of the terrain. Tremendous mountains and enormous rivers have to be traversed. Unfortunately, many of the rivers are not navigable although they are of great size and flow. Many areas are surrounded by fetid swamps. Apart from the physical difficulties of the terrain, many of these people have existed for centuries with practically no contact with white men. Many are stricken with diseases. Malaria has been rampant for centuries and has had an adverse effect on the populaton of the whole country.

So Australia had an enormous task in meeting the responsibilities it has accepted under a trusteeship to do something for these human beings who need our help. That has been the story of Australian administration from the early days of this century until the present. Admittedly, in the early part of our administration, from 1906, progress was slow and very little was achieved. The first world war really focused our attention on New Guinea, because then we annexed German New Guinea and, after the war, accepted a mandate over the Territory on behalf of the League of Nations. That is historical background and it does not directly concern the measure before us.

The bill provides for the setting-up of a House of Assembly actually based on the Legislative Council which was instituted in 1961. Time will not permit a close analysis of the proposed House of Assembly but an analysis shows that it is a great improvement on the old Legislative Council. No doubt as time passes we will improve on the situation and will have a more advanced form of parliamentary system which eventually will have the responsibility of self-government in the Territory.

As the Leader of the Opposition said in his speech, this bill has great international significance for all of us. It is of national significance to Australia as a country and also has great local significance to the people of the Territory. Things are not as they were a few short years ago, even a few months ago, in this area. Recently West New Guinea was occupied by Indonesia and is now named West Irian. The development of that country will be interesting to watch. The administration of West Irian by Indonesia will be an interesting exercise, because we face a challenge from the fact that in West Irian there will be a parallel administration dealing with the same sort of people under similar conditions. So in an administrative sense there is a direct challenge to the Australian Government and the people of Australia from across the border that separates West Irian from Papua and New Guinea.

Indonesia is under an obligation to carry out a plebiscite in West Irian in 1969.

We on our side have no need for a plebiscite because we have undertaken - and I think this has been accepted since the inception of our administration in the area - to grant self-government in Papua and New Guinea eventually, as an obligation. That is accepted freely, as I am sure honorable senators on both sides will agree. 1 think it can be said that the setting up of a new House of Assembly in the Territory stems directly from the establishment originally of the Legislative Council in 1961. That body appointed a select committee to investigate the needs of the country and to suggest proposals for the better government of the people of the Territory. The reports of the select committee have proved most interesting. I have studied both the first report and the interim report with great interest. They show clearly what the select committee believes to be in the best interests of the people. The proposals are constructive and if fully implemented would be of great benefit to the Territory. I am glad that the Commonwealth Government has accepted almost in toto the suggestions of the select committee.

That is not to say that the Foot report which was sponsored by the United Nations Trusteeship council has been ignored. I agree with the Leader of the Opposition that that report undoubtedly had an influence on the introduction of this legislation. I believe that to be true. I think it essential that we give due regard to the report of the Foot committee. I had the opportunity to hear in a television programme some remarks made by Sir Hugh Foot in regard to this question of hastening the development of New Guinea by giving it fuller representation. I must say that 1 was very much impressed by his remarks and by the case that he presented. I think he is a very knowledgeable person who understood the subject with which he was dealing.

I must confess that I felt that the proposals that the mission suggested were not outside the bounds of possibility. That statement may convey the impression that I feel that the proposal in the bill does not go far enough, but I am a cautious person by nature. I feel that although Sir Hugh Foot and his mission have some justification in bringing down their recommendations in regard to the size of the proposed house of assembly, it is perhaps wise to hasten slowly in this matter. In due course a more ambitious house of assembly can be set up, but for the present I believe that the Government has acted in accordance with the principle contained in the recommendation of the Foot mission by bringing down the proposal that is now before the Senate. The amendments proposed by this bill will provide the Territory with a very adequate house of assembly which should meet the requirements of the people concerned.

In 1959 I had the opportunity to attend a meeting of the United Nations. While there I saw something of the activities of the United Nations in many of its fields of endeavour, and I was greatly interested in what took place on what was termed the Fourth Committee, which deals with these questions of trusteeship. It was immediately obvious to me that there was always a background of feeling by the less-developed peoples against the old spirit of colonialism. That feeling is evident to anybody who reads a transcript of proceedings of the United Nations, or even the newspapers when the General Assembly is sitting or the various bodies associated with the U.N. are sitting.

Fortunately we can claim that in New Guinea - so far as our administration is concerned, anyhow - there is no hint of the old type of colonialism with which we are and have been familiar over the centuries. I am glad to think that that spirit will not develop there, and 1 hope- that it will not develop. We are taking the steps proposed in this bill as a protective measure to prevent any sort of colonialism developing in our relations with the countries that we have the responsibility of guiding. We have an enormous responsibility in this area, and we have discharged this responsibility down through the years very faithfully.

I think we can say without doubt that the Minister for Territories (Mr. Hasluck) is a man who has been dedicated to his task. The way in which he has carried out his responsibilities in the administration of this area has been very fine indeed. He is actuated by the highest ideals, and I hope that his association with the Territory will continue for many years to come. Honorable senators have seen the work that has been done in Papua and New Guinea. Anybody who has visited that area will recognize that it is a country without a very great economic potential. I think that is evident to any one who goes there. We know that its resources are comparatively limited and have not yet been developed to any great extent. We know of the development that took place in the early days after the First World War when Australia had the responsibility of administering the mandated Territory of New Guinea and the interior was opened to the white man. We know also how these intrepid men penetrated these mountain fastnesses and discovered gold at Edie Creek in the Bulolo Valley, which meant the opening up of those areas which had been practically untouched by the white man in the years before.

To my way of thinking, there is not a great economic potential in the area with which we are concerned. Australian companies have spent millions of pounds in trying to find oil in Papua and New Guinea, but without avail. They have found traces of oil and gas flows only. I believe that in West Irian - or West New Guinea - there is an oilfield with a limited potential; but in our part of the Territory there has been no great economic discovery that would lead us to believe that the country can be self-supporting in the near future. For that reason Australia has had to pour into the Territory a tremendous amount of money to establish those amenities that we associate with civilization. This amount has grown progressively from £2,000,000 or £3,000,000 a year to £21,000,000 in the current financial year.

New Guinea has been like a very great sink for Australian taxpayers’ money, but we are unable to say that we have gained one penny from the investment of the funds in that area. However, we can say that we have established throughout the area amenities that we associate with civilized life. We have established hospitals and teaching institutions but there is a great deal more to be done. We have improved the health of the community, but we have a long way to go. No doubt Senator Turnbull will agree that we have a mighty long way to go in the matter of health services for the community in New Guinea. We have done our utmost to control malaria which has decimated the population of the Territory for centuries. We could go on ad infinitum informing the world of what we have done during the period of our administration. Of course, the development of the Territory has been a costly procedure. We have had to spend a great deal of money to maintain our efforts.

The administration of the Territory is carried on by a dedicated band of people. I say that without hesitation, knowing the character and calibre of the men and women who are working there. So far as I can see, the administrative work that is done by the staff, from the patrol officers right up to the Administrator himself, is of the finest possible kind. I have seen the work that these people do. We know of the hardships they undergo. The climatic conditions, which are not pleasant for people of our race, have been endured. There is no doubt that the administrative officers have a great love for the people who are under their care, and that has brought results. We have seen the fine relationship that exists between the people who are doing the administrative work in the Territory and the native people. It does one’s heart good to know that the administrative officers are respected by the indigenous people, and that they are depended upon because their worth is fully recognized.

While the economic development of the Territory will be particularly difficult, I feel that we must do our best to try to develop the country along lines which will give the people some kind of independence and some form of self-government. That is the aim and object of the bill. We are seeking to give the people of the Territory something of the system of democratic government that we enjoy ourselves. Admittedly, it is only in embryo form, but it will grow. A greater measure of representative government came from the 1961 legislation, under which the Legislative Council for the Territory of Papua an£ New Guinea was established. In the short space of two years, we are now instituting proposals which will give the people of the Territory a much more representative system of government. I believe that it will not be very long before there is an advance on what we are doing now, and the people of the Territory have democracy, as we know it, instituted in their midst. With assistance from the Australian Government, there is no reason to believe that they will not reach a stage where they are able to exercise self-government.

Although honorable senators opposite have criticized this bill on the ground that it does not propose to do sufficient for the Territory, I believe that it is a step in the right direction. It will provide a fairly representative parliament for the people of Papua and New Guinea. We must not underrate the capacity of these people. I do not want to bracket all the people of the Territory under the one heading, because we know that many of them are much more primitive than others, but those who have had some association with white men are fairly sophisticated. I found that to be so, in my experience of them. I saw that they could readily be trained and that they could do a great deal to help themselves. I saw the practical work they had done, such as carpentry work. I saw their co-operatives at work. I believe that, with further education, they will be able to handle their affairs fairly satisfactorily.

This is a progressive measure. Although the Opposition proposes to put forward certain amendments, I am glad to know that it will not oppose the passage of the bill. I think it can honestly be said that this is a great step forward on the path which will eventually lead the people of the Territory to greater self-sufficiency.

Senator TURNBULL:
TASMANIA · IND; AP from Aug. 1969; IND from Jan. 1970

– Having listened to all the speakers who have spoken during the debate last night and to-day, it would appear that the Government is fortunate indeed that the Australian Labour Party is supporting it on this measure, because I do not think the bill would be passed otherwise. Certainly, as it stands, it would not be passed with any approval. Before I make my comments on the bill, 1 wish to say that, having seen a little of the administrative work in the Territory. I have every confidence in the Administration so far as general matters are concerned, but I have very little confidence in regard to its health conceptions, which 1 regard as deplorable. There are indeed many conscientious and dedicated people in the service of the Administration, from the Administrator down. I refer particularly to the people who work in the field, such as the patrol officers, the field doctors, the teachers, the agriculturalists and so on. We could not have better officers than the district commissioners and their staffs. But that does not mean to say that this bill should not be criticized. Before 1 finish my words of praise, I should like to add that I think no man could be more admired than Mr. Paul Hasluck, the present Minister for Territories. The people of the Territory have the greatest confidence in him.

In my opinion, the key statement in the second-reading speech of the Minister for Civil Aviation (Senator Paltridge) is as follows: -

In all matters of political advancement the Government’s firm intention is to defend the freedom of choice and respect the wishes of those dependent on us.

Until to-day, 1 had little hope that even the first part of that statement would be fulfilled. Last Thursday, 1 pleaded that the Prime Minister (Sir Robert Menzies) should make a statement indicating where we stood in regard to the Territory of Papua and New Guinea. To-day, like manna from Heaven, at 4 o’clock his words came forth. He said that we intend to stand by the people of the Territory. They must indeed be heartened that this statement has at last been made and that they now know where they stand. Until 4 o’clock to-day there had been no expressed intention to defend their freedom of choice.

Regarding the statement made by the Minister that it is the intention of the Government to respect the wishes of those dependent on us, may I ask: Whose wishes are we to respect? Are they the wishes of the natives, or the wishes of the United Nations? This, to me, provides the key to the problem. Let me say that I do not believe in speaking of indigenes and nonindigenes. The people of the Territory are natives, and they should be proud of the fact. I propose to call them natives. It is not the wish of the natives that they should have self-government. If we go there and speak to them we are told that they do not want it and that they are not prepared for it. So, whose wishes are we to respect? Of course, it is the wishes of the United Nations. We are so terrified about what the United Nations may think. I used to have a great deal of time for the United Nations, but I have none for it as it now stands. However, I have great respect for its organizations, such as the Educational, Social and Cultural Organization, the World Health Organization and the Food and Agricultural Organization. I think they are doing a considerable amount of good work. But everything that is being done in the Territory to-day is being done in order to overcome our abject fear of what the United Nations may say about us. We are trying to show that the natives are ready for self-government, and they are not ready. They are not. They admit themselves that they are not. This bill is just another instrument of appeasement, and I do not like the attitude of the Government with its facile servility to appeasement. This bill represents, to my mind, a toadying by the Government, not to the people of New Guinea but to the United Nations. When the Indonesian Information Minister Mr. Abdulgani states that his instructions are to persuade the people of West Irian against holding a plebiscite the United Nations docs nothing about it. There is not one single objection from our Ministers or from the United Nations. Here we see a further gross violation of an international agreement, and not a word is raised in protest, or anything done to prevent it. Are we as a nation prepared to accept all the dictates of Indonesia and just do nothing? 1 cannot believe that our leaders are so miserably afraid of the future that they are not prepared at least to criticize Indonesia for tearing up an international agreement which it has entered into. But at least the Government has said we will defend New Guinea. I agree with Senator Wright that this bill goes too far. I have no time for the Opposition’s view that it does not go far enough.

Furthermore, the bill appears far too soon. It accepts the findings of the select committee which the Administration set up and upholds its recommendations, but no one has given us the reason why. I ask the Minister to give us those reasons later. We are touching the ground with our foreheads in an effort to placate the United Nations. The select committee’s report says -

The indigenous members-

You must not use the word natives, according to these people - . . are of the opinion that a council of 100 is associated in the people’s mind with selfgovernment which the people appear to fear and which they do not want at this stage.

Surely it is clear enough that the people of New Guinea do not want a large Parliament. They do not want self-government, but the select committee’s recommendation does not accord with that. The people themselves know that they are not economically, militarily or politically ready for self-government. Why are we trying to accelerate this process for them? The natives there will tell you that the Germans, when they were there, were hard, and that the Japanese were harder, but that the Australians are soft. They want us there. If a referendum were held the people of Papua and New Guinea would vote to be absorbed into the Commonwealth of Australia.

I am not going to argue whether section 92 of the Constitution would preclude us from taking New Guinea in as a state or a territory, but we should demand that New Guinea belong to us. I have no time for those who say that because we have a United Nations trust we should hand the territory back. Are the Indonesians going to hand West Irian back? Oh, no! We must play ball with the United Nations, which is bankrupt, which is made up of a number of nations that are opposed to colonialism by white nations but are prepared to condone it when it is carried out by coloured people. If Indonesia can absorb West New Guinea we can absorb East New Guinea.

The select committee said that the indigenous people were in favour of a representation of one indigene to one white person. The maximum asked for was representation on the basis of two natives to one white. Only four people of all the hundreds they spoke to said that there should be a representation of four natives to one white person. I presume that in any democracy the majority rules. If the majority want a representation of two to one, why does the Government decide to give the natives a representation of four to one, when the people do not want it themselves? The truth is that Gunther wants it. That is the answer to the whole thing. He is the greatest socialist of all time. Sidney Webb and the Fabian Society would be proud of him.

Will the Minister give us the reason why the select committee, having said that the people wanted a representation on the basis of two to one, recommended representation on the basis of four to one? We have not had that answer yet. If we were to give the people what they want we would give them a representation on the basis of two to one. Only four people living on Manus Island, which is furthest away from the centre of government, and probably out of touch, recommended representation of four to one.

In its report the select committee said also -

The ten non-indigenous members would be less than half the number desired by most of the people interviewed.

If ten is less than half I presume that the number that the people wanted was 30. Again this bill is contrary to public opinion. Why was the select committee appointed? Why not say to Gunther, “Tell us what you want, and we will do it for you? “ I cannot understand this abject attitude to Gunther. Perhaps the Minister will explain why, although the people up there did’ not want this, the wishes of this great socialist - this great pro-native man - were met. I think he wants to please the United Nations. He has advocated this increase in numbers, which the people themselves do not want.

If we take into consideration the words of the people themselves the Council should consist of 33 natives, twenty non-natives, ten officials and one president. I ask honorable senators who have been to New Guinea what they found there. The main thing 1 found was a fear of the future. There was not one person I met who did not have it. The people up there are not interested in this bill, except as a subject of conversation - but they are interested in their security.

Senator Wright:

– They are fearful that Australia will withdraw.

Senator TURNBULL:
TASMANIA · IND; AP from Aug. 1969; IND from Jan. 1970

– That is so. They want Australia there for all time. Unless wc can absorb them into our country we will not have them for all time. It stands to reason if the Opposition is correct that a party system will develop in

New Guinea, there will be two sides, a radical party and a conservative party. The radicals will no doubt be fed by the malcontents on the other side of the border, and before long you will have the whites eliminated from New Guinea. That will not be very far in the future once control of the country is vested in the native people.

There will be no future development of this country unless we do certain things. To me the most important thing is security. Secondly, there must be a statute of limitations in regard to land tenure; thirdly some insurance scheme for compensation in respect of land taken over by a government; fourthly, better education facilities, and lastly adequate health facilities. Until we have security for the people no one is going to invest money in the Territory. No person will do so unless he knows that he is going to get some capital return and that his investment is safe. Until security is assured money will come out of rather than go into the Territory. Everybody up there knows that the big people are sending their money out. They are selling their plantations, and most of them are buying properties in New South Wales or flats in Melbourne. There must be a statute of limitations regarding land tenure. We have had the administration suggesting to the natives to launch a court case against some land-owner claiming that he does not really own the land because his title is not correct, although he has been using the land for 20 or 30 years. I do not know whether judgment in that case has been given, so I will not say any more about it. I repeat that the Government must bring in some statute of limitations or every holding in the country will be upset.

Then there must be an insurance fund - to which the natives themselves are prepared to contribute. The Government should also contribute something to the fund so that in the event of any take-over the natives will be paid compensation for the land they have lost. I think that is essential. I hope the Minister will make some comment on these things that I have mentioned.

In regard to education, the functions of government are completely useless unless we have an educated people. So far very few or them are educated. It is useless for the Opposition to keep on saying that the people are educated and know what they are doing.

Senator Bishop:

– So you agree that there should be self-determination?

Senator TURNBULL:
TASMANIA · IND; AP from Aug. 1969; IND from Jan. 1970

– No. I say-

Senator Bishop:

– Why educate them if you are not going to give them selfgovernment?

Senator TURNBULL:
TASMANIA · IND; AP from Aug. 1969; IND from Jan. 1970

– I do not quite follow that. I still believe that they should be educated. We agree on that, if we do not agree on anything else. But we are going about it in the wrong way. More money must be spent in the Territory. How on earth can we talk about educating people to go to the university when we have not got them educated from the very start? First, primary education should be concentrated upon and, secondly, technological education must be developed. This seems to me to be the most important form of education for Papuans and New Guineans, who are not mechanically minded but need to be mechanically minded. If we are to have progress in that Territory, obviously everything will have to be mechanized. Unless we have technical schools, this will not be possible. I admired one school at Lae, and the one that is being built at Popondetta but these are not enough. We need far more technical schools.

We have had the farcical spectacle of a select committee going around the country to see whether the people could have a university, although there is only one graduate so far. Whenever there is talk about university education, the case of this one man is brought up. That is the only native graduate so far. I know that in time there will be more, but ten years will pass before there will be sufficient numbers for us to start worrying about a university. I suppose that the select committee was sent around to show the United Nations that we were doing something about university education, but there is only one person in New Guinea who is capable of undertaking university education.

I should like to express my admiration for the Mater school which I visited. It seemed to me to be one of . the best schools on the island. It is unfortunate that there is some jealousy- on the part of the Administration education officers in regard to a private school such as this. This school needs funds. Geelong Grammar School has done something about helping it out, but more funds are needed. The school is now undertaking secondary education but it requires more teachers. I know that the Administration does help. An allowance is made for every secondary pupil, but why should the Administration not help in the primary field as well? After all, what does it matter whether a church or the State is doing the educating? We want education. Does it matter which of these bodies is supplying it? Surely help should be given in both cases. This school is doing a very good job. I should like to congratulate the missions upon their work in the fields of education and health.

One of the problems about education in New Guinea is the inadequacy of the pay provided. There seems to be the same trouble in civil service life in the Territory as we have in Tasmania, namely, inadequate pay for people of professional standard. A police officer need have reached only the grade 4 standard of education to get £18 in pay, but a teacher who has to work his way up to grade 7 gets less pay than the policeman and has less chance of promotion. The Administration should look into that aspect and ensure that teachers are paid far more adequately. I refer to native teachers.

The same considerations apply to patrol officers, who do a magnificent job. No one in New Guinea does a better job. They are pooh-bahs. They have to be judges, friends, councillors, doctors and everything else. If they go out on patrol they are given 10s. 6d. a day and they have to pay for their own food. All honorable senators will say that that is fantastic, but not one will do anything about it. On the other hand, a grade 3 clerk, who sits in his office, upon being sent to another town receives 12s. 6d. a day and has his board paid in a first-class hotel. Is anything more ludicrous? But will you, Mr. Minister, do anything about it? I do not think that you will. Patrol officers receive an air allowance of £250, but every one of those patrol officers, who have to get all their stuff flown in, incurs an expenditure of £400; I understand that now there is to be a limitation upon their consumption of electrical power. They will have to cut out some of their electrical services. When patrol officers and their wives are asked to go out to the backblocks, they should be given every amenity possible instead of having them cut down.

The subject of health, to my mind, typifies more than does any other activity in New Guinea the contortions of the Administration in turning over backwards to oblige the United Nations. Every one says, “ Look how far we have advanced in relation to health “. This is pleasing to the United Nations but it is not pleasing to the people. I have not yet heard one white man in the Territory, or even many natives, who will agree that the training of native doctors there is adequate. The Administration’s use of expediency is deplorable. Before we had this hurry to get everything done, in the medical service there used to be European medical assistants, who were people of the same type as members of the St. John Ambulance, and were sent out to outposts. They did good work. Now, however, the Territory has native medical assistants who are given a five-year course at Port Moresby. They are not educated. They have not reached matriculation standard. Some have only just entered upon secondary education. Yet these people are expected to learn medicine in five years. Some of us still have not learnt it after many years of practice.

Who are teaching these people? Even in Port Moresby, we find a little clique of administration doctors, supporting each other and saying, “ How wonderful we are “. Is it possible really for one to say how good he is if he has never competed with doctors anywhere else to see whether he can make a success of his career? Doctor Gunther has not done this. He worked in the Solomon Islands for years, but that is the extent of his knowledge of general practice. The present chief medical officer, Dr. Scragg worked in the Territory for five years. They may be good, but one cannot tell how good they are until one compares them with the every-day run of doctors in Australia. These are the people who are teaching the natives, setting themselves up as little professors. I suppose that they would be able to get jobs somewhere in Sydney or Melbourne as assistant readers. They certainly would not get jobs as professors, but they are the people who are now professing to teach the natives.

Senator Kendall:

– They are only teaching them to be medical assistants.

Senator TURNBULL:
TASMANIA · IND; AP from Aug. 1969; IND from Jan. 1970

– I am coming to that. 1 am working my way up. Give me a chance. I know that the honorable senator lived in New Guinea for a long time and I have been waiting for him to speak up for them. This is the point that I am coming to. They are giving these natives a five-year course as medical assistants. That is all they should do. These people should be technicians, assistants to medical officers. But that is not the case. An edict has gone forth from the Administration that these persons shall be called doctors. The name “ doctor “ means one thing and one thing only. It is of no use for the honorable senator to say that these natives are not being trained as doctors, if there is an edict that they shall be called doctors. Is it not a fact - the honorable senator should know - that after 1st June a law will be passed in the Territory to provide that they be qualified and registered as doctors? That is deplorable. That is a second-rate service that we should not tolerate at all. Those people on this side who keep talking about the humanities should be up in arms when we give a second-rate service to the natives. If it is good enough for the natives it is good enough for us.

Senator O’Byrne:

– The majority of doctors in Australia hold only the degree of Batchelor of Medicine. They do not hold a doctor’s degree.

Senator TURNBULL:
TASMANIA · IND; AP from Aug. 1969; IND from Jan. 1970

– That is so, but the term commonly applied to them is “ doctor “.

Senator O’Byrne:

– And that is the common term up there.

Senator TURNBULL:
TASMANIA · IND; AP from Aug. 1969; IND from Jan. 1970

– It is not. When the term “ doctor “ is used in a medical sense in Australia, every one knows that the person to whom it is supplied is probably an M.B., B.S., but at least he has a university degree. These people to whom I refer have not a degree and they are not being taught by proper teachers. They have not even been educated to matriculation standard, yet we are told that they are doctors.

I should like to refer also to the way the Administration goes on with its hospitals. Admittedly we are building hospitals, but there is nothing to be proud of. The one at Malahang should be burned to the ground. Certainly, it is changing. What is being done? A new hospital is being built alongside an airstrip. There is a lot of tetanus in New Guinea. It is a wonderful thing to have aeroplane engines whirring near where you have tetanus patients! One of the essentials in the treatment of tetanus is absolute silence.

The Administration continues to build chalet hospitals. Such hospitals have been out of vogue for years. Nobody builds chalet hospitals anywhere else. Even in Persia they are not built. Nowadays hospitals are built upwards and air is circulated through them just the same. I repeat that even though chalet hospitals ceased to be built in other parts 30 years ago, the Administration in New Guinea continues to build them. This is only a side issue, but on one occasion a preposterous instruction was sent forth from the Administration which said it had run out of money and directed that the patients be sent home. We ought to be ashamed of such a state of affairs.

The Administration is training girls to be nurses and, with the exception of one error, it is doing quite a good job. The Administration will not accept the general principle that nursing comes under the care of a matron. It does not matter whether the matron is a male or a female; he or she should run the show. The Administration has a tutor sister who’ is a male. There is nothing wrong with that, provided the person concerned has a tutor sister’s certificate. The man in question has that certificate, and therefore he has every right to be in charge of the tutoring of the nurses. However, he is instructed to report not to the matron but to the medical officer. That is not done anywhere else in the world. I raise this matter here only to point out that all the nurses in New Guinea are highly incensed about this administrative edict.

I know that we must progress in New Guinea, but there is no doubt whatsoever that we are trying to do so far too quickly. The people of New Guinea do not under stand what you are talking about when you speak to them about the Government. Whether one comes from this Parliament or from a State parliament, or is the head man of a village in the interior, he is regarded by the people of New Guinea as being the government. They do not know the difference, yet we are telling them to run this country. In the present legislature of New Guinea the natives wait to see what the official members say and then they vote with them. They have not a clue about how to govern themselves. If we were to take away the official members, they would not know what to do. Yet the Government is saying, “ Let us have more and more indigenes to rule the country “.

I hope the Government will take note of my suggestions about security, compensation and the other matters to which I have referred, and that it will state why we are asked to go beyond the report of the select committee. To my mind, that is the essence of the whole debate, but so far we have not been given any reasons. Why should we do things that we are not even asked to do and which the people themselves do not even want? I presume it is because we want to impress the United Nations by being able to say: “ We should have only 22 natives in the legislature, but we have put in 44. Aren’t we good? “

I wish to make a final suggestion to the Parliament. We have a Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs. I urge the Government to consider the appointment of a standing committee on Papua and New Guinea. Such a committee would not cost very much. I would be happy to serve on it without receiving a fee. Even if all its members did so, we would be able to help the people of New Guinea to know that there were people in this Parliament who were taking a special interest in them. Let us appoint such a committee instead of having us all go up there alone and forming different views about the matter. At least we would be able to form a uniform, official opinion on the subject.

Senator KENDALL:
Queensland

– Mr. President, I wish to speak on this bill. I ask for leave to make my remarks at a later stage.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 660

UNITED STATES NAVAL COMMUNICATION STATION AGREEMENT BELL 1963

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

Bill (on motion by Sen,tor Gorton) read a first time.

Second Reading

Senator GORTON:
Minister for the Navy and Minister assisting the Minister for External Affairs · Victoria · LP

.- I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

On 9th May, the American Ambassador and the Minister for External Affairs (Sir Garfield Barwick), on behalf of their respective governments, signed an agreement for the establishment of a naval communication station in Western Australia. The agreement was made subject to approval by the two governments and is to enter into force on the date on which the governments exchange instruments notifying such approval.

Although the Australian Government has constitutional capacity to sign the agreement without further parliamentary authority, the Government, as the Prime Minister (Sir Robert Menzies) announced some weeks ago, has decided to submit the agreement to the Parliament for approval before exchanging with the American Government its instrument of approval. This bill therefore seeks the approval of the Senate of the agreement which is set out in the schedule to the bill.

By the agreement, the Australian Government permits the American Government to establish, maintain and operate for a minimum period of 25 years a naval communication station at North West Cape in Western Australia. The North West Cape is the north-westernmost point of Australia seaward of the Exmouth Gulf. The station will he a United States communication station under the sole control of the United States Government.

There is little need for me to speak at any length on the nature of the station or of its capacities. The Prime Minister, on 17th May, 1962, in another place described the proect and on 26th March, 1963, reiterated earlier statements with respect to the station.

The Minister for Defence (Mr. Townley) also made a statement on the same matter on 6th March, 1963. By way of broad description, the proposed station will consist of a number of wireless masts, some of considerable height, and of wireless aerials, with buildings to house the gear associated with the transmission and receiving of wireless messages. The establishment will include the plant and buildings to generate electricity in a conventional manner by diesel power and the necessary administrative buildings and facilities. Included in the station’s capacity to transmit and receive wireless messages will be a capacity to emit a signal of considerable strength of a very low frequency capable of being received by submerged naval vessels as well as by surface naval vessels. It will have no other capability of any kind than the capacity to transmit and receive wireless messages. It will be described in the agreement - a naval communication station, a wireless station - nothing more and nothing less.

But this naval communication station will provide a very significant link in the command and deployment of naval vessels, both submerged in, and on the surface of, the oceans and seas around and adjacent to Australia and to South Asia and South-East Asia.

It is common knowledge, Mr. President, that the deterrence of aggression in those parts of the world of greatest immediate significance to Australia, namely the western Pacific region and South-East Asia - stretching from the Soviet Far East southwards through Korea and the islands off the east coast of Asia and westwards into SouthEast Asia - depends to a great extent upon the capacity of the United States Navy to react against aggression. Naval units, whether surface vessels such as aircraft carriers, or submerged vessels, submarines, derive from their mobility not only a great measure of their immunity from attack but also a great measure of their capacity for sole or co-ordinated action. The wireless station in North West Cape will give an added flexibility and efficiency to the massive naval forces which have done and which are doing so much to deter aggression in the areas to which I have referred.

No one - certainly no one viewing the world scene with any sense of reality- can deny the vital necessity for effective systems of communication in war-time. Only those who live in a world of fantasy can deny the vital importance in peace time of such a system of communication, as an item of defence preparation and preparedness. Indeed, its very existence is a significant element in the deterrence of aggression. Those who are interested in peace may well set much store by this aspect of the establishment of this station.

Mr. President, Australia with New Zealand is an ally of the United States in the collective security pact, commonly known as Anzus. The importance to Australia of this alliance cannot be exaggerated. Not merely its existence but the mutual performance of its obligations, both in the letter and in the spirit, are of critical significance to the security of this country - to the possibility of its continued growth. This is particularly true as of this time when the effort involved in developing its natural and industrial resources produces such a significant effect on this country’s capacity to expand and maintain its own military defensive capacity.

By Article II. of the Anzus treaty, the allies, the United States, New Zealand and Australia, agree separately and jointly to develop their individual and collective capacity to resist armed attack. The establishment of the proposed naval communication station will significantly increase the capacity of the United States to perform its part of the Anzus pact and, as well, to play its part in the maintenance of peace in the world generally. Use by Australian forces of the facilities of the station will significantly increase their effectiveness both in training and war-time operations. It would enable Australia the better to perform its obligations as an Anzus ally. The provision by Australia of the site for the naval communication station and the permission this agreement gives to its establishment, maintenance and operation in Australia, constitute a most important contribution by Australia to the mutual purposes of the Anzus pact and, beyond that, to the security of the free world generally.

Mr. President, I have said that this naval communication station, both in its very existence and in its use for the purposes of defence communications, will contribute to the security of the free world generally. Let me say something of this. The mastery of flight, the successful uncovering of atomic secrets, the development to a high degree of submarine movement and navigation and the emergence of almost incredible means of quick and effective communication, not to mention the many other advances of science and technology, have so contracted the world that it is no longer possible to live - or for that matter to contemplate survival - in isolation. Nor can it be denied that the threat to freedom - not even thinly disguised but loudly and confidently proclaimed - is global, however much pressures may be concentrated from time to time in one place or another. The pattern of the defence of the free world must be global because no significant part can be abandoned without jeopardy to all the parts, either immediately or in an inevitably due course.

The relevance, Mr. President, of these observations to the matter on hand is this: The efficiency of the defence capacity of Anzus to which this wireless station will contribute adds security to areas of the world outside the ambit of the pact: just as the efficiency of the Nato defences adds security to Australia and New Zealand as members of Anzus as well as to the United States of America which is a member of both collective security pacts.

Thus, whilst I have emphasized the importance of the proposed station to the Anzus partners, I do not pretend that its communication capability has no significance for the United States as a member of Nato. But that significance is important also for Australia which cannot hope to isolate itself from the effects of aggression in areas not directly covered by the Anzus treaty.

Indeed, Mr. President, we have accepted and share with the United States obligations in respect to Communist aggression in South-East Asia. For the deterrence of aggression in that area and the performance of the obligations of the United States and ourselves in relation to that treaty area, this naval communication station has undeniable significance.

As I leave this discussion of general considerations touching the making of this agreement, may I say that in all our relationships with the United States, in Anzus and in Seato, there is mutual respect and confidence as well as a community of interest and of purpose? This agreement is itself at the one moment the result of and an expression of that mutuality of confidence and of community of interest and purpose.

Before turning to an explanation of the detailed provisions of the agreement, let me say something of the broad principles which each Government has recognized in the course of negotiation. They are -

First, that the agreement and the obligation it creates should respect the sovereignty of each.

Secondly, that the control of the station should rest with the United States.

Thirdly, that when desired by either there should be consultation between the two Governments as to matters connected with the station and its use.

Fourthly, that the Australian armed forces should have the use of the communication services of the station.

Fifthly, that the Australian Government should not seek to make a revenue profit out of the American establishment, maintenance or operation of the station and that, where possible, it should assist to minimize the cost of the station to the American Government.

Sixthly, that in the establishment, operation and maintenance of the station, the maximum practicable use of Australian resources should be made.

Seventhly, that, without submitting to the jurisdiction of Australian courts or compromising its sovereignty, the United States would conform to Australian law and its personnel would observe it.

The agreement does carry out these principles and to its particular provisions I now turn. The agreement consists of some preambular paragraphs and sixteen articles. It is to be read in conjunction with a somewhat longer agreement which I have laid on the table of the Senate of which copies are available to honorable senators dealing with the status of members of the United States forces in Australia. I shall make a more specific but brief reference to the contents of this other agreement a little later.

The preambular paragraphs of the agreement call attention to the Anzus treaty and reflect in their brevity those considerations to which I have already made reference and which I will not repeat.

The first article in the agreement records the Government’s decision that the station may be established and maintained and operated by the United States and so provides in terms.

Article 2 provides for the Australian Government to make available the site of the station and to grant to the United States Government all necessary rights of access to and of exclusive use or occupancy of it. The land on which the station will be built has already been acquired by the Commonwealth under the Lands Acquisition Act for defence purposes. The title to the land will remain with the Australian Government. The rights of the United States Government which we have agreed to grant will include a right to designate specific areas of the land as exclusive, controlled or restricted areas. In due course, these arrangements will be spelled out in a landuse agreement. The status of the United States under this agreement will be that of a lessee. A token rental in the traditional form of a peppercorn will be reserved to emphasize that relationship.

Article 3 performs two functions. It provides for consultation between the two Governments and it limits the use to which the station may be put. To deal with this latter function first, the article ensures that, without Australian consent, the station cannot be used for any purpose other than purposes of defence communication. Ancillary to this limitation on the use of the station is an Australian right of access to the station at all times - a right which can be used to verify that the station is not used for any other than the agreed purpose. Nothing more need be said at his stage as to the limitation on use which is to be found in clause 2 of the article. It is clear and unambiguous. Without qualification, it restricts the use of the station to purposes of defence communication except with Australian consent.

But more needs to be said of the first clause of the article which reads, in full -

The two Governments will consult from time to time at the request of either Government on any matters connected with the station and its use.

T have already indicated that a basic principle of the agreement is that the station shall be in the sole control of the United States. When the nature of this station as it has been publicly described is understood, I am sure it will be obvious that, unless it was desired to create unilateral right of veto on the use of the station - and it is not - joint operation is in fact impracticable. But apart from all questions of practicality, the Government has agreed that its ally, standing in the relationship to this country which 1 have mentioned and filling the position in relation to the defence of the free world which the United States undoubtedly does fill, shall have the right to establish and to maintain and to operate the naval communication station - which means as a sole operator.

Article 3 is not intended to establish control over the use of the station. In particular it is not intended to give Australia control of or access to the content of messages transmitted over the station.

But. Article 3 stipulates a right in the Australian Government to consultation as to the effect of the station’s use on any Australian interests, national or international. But the right of consultation is not limited to this aspect of the station’s use. The article means what it says: That there is a right to consultation on any matters connected with the station and its use. But the width of the area of possible consultation does not imply any right of control over the station.

Article 4 provides for use by Australian forces of the communication services of the station. Bearing in mind that this agreement has a currency of twenty-five years, this right is important in itself, avoiding as it may, substantial Australian expenditures to provide any equivalent service for the Australian armed forces. But in addition, as I have pointed out, this right has significance for the potential of our defence forces in relation to Anzus, Seato and otherwise.

Article 5 provides for the maximum practicable use of Australian resources in the establishment, maintenance and operation of the station. It is evident that to apply such a general phrase to the circumstances of so vast a project, some arrangements will need to be made from time to time by the two Governments. Accordingly this article so provides. We have already had some discussions with the United States regarding the means by which this article will be given practical effect. Nothing but Australian or United States resources will be used. The prime contract for the initial construction phase may be awarded only to a joint venture of Australian and United States interests. Practically all constructional steel within the capacity of Australian industry and all the cement and hardwood for the entire construction will come from Australia. Airconditioning and ventilating materials as well as piping, electrical material, paints, and many other building and other materials will be purchased in Australia. As has been said in earlier statements, large sums of money will be involved in the construction, sums estimated to exceed £A.33,000,000, and of course further sums in its maintenance during the years of its operation.

By Article 7, the United States agrees that it will conform to the provisions of applicable Commonwealth and State laws, including quarantine laws and industrial awards and determinations and that its personnel will observe such laws and regulations. The language of this clause is designed to ensure that the United States does not compromise its sovereignty or submit itself as a government to the jurisdiction of Australian courts. It agrees to conduct its activities in conformity with Australian law, that is to say as if it were, though as a government it is not, bound by such laws and regulations. Of course, all its contractors and their personnel will be bound by the relevant Australian law. Its personnel, including members of its forces and their dependants and contractors working for the United States and civilians accompanying the forces will observe such laws.

It is a general principle of our law that, if a person builds anything which becomes a fixture on another man’s land, title to the fixture passes to the owner of the land. Australia has no wish to acquire title to anything that is brought or built on the land for the purpose of establishing the station. It does not wish to profit by the technical consideration that such things may be fixtures. Article 8 makes this situation clear. It also makes clear the intention of the two Governments that if, when the station is no longer needed, the United States does not want any particular item of property, it shall not dispose of that item within Australia except under conditions to be agreed upon between the two Governments. The purpose of this provision is to guard against the possibility that United States disposals might have adverse effects on orderly Australian commercial transactions.

I mentioned earlier that the Australian Government has no desire to make a revenue profit out of the activities of the United States Government in establishing and operating the station. I mentioned also that the Australian Government desires to play its part in minimizing the cost to the United States of the establishment and the operation of the station. Articles 9 and 10 are directed to these matters.

Article 9 exempts from Australian taxation the income of people who come to Australia solely to work in the establishment, maintenance or operation of this station, which they derive from that work, provided that that income, in short, is taxed in America. This exemption is not to relieve the individual of any liability to be taxed but is designed to prevent a reduction in the tax recovery of the American Government from the incomes of its citizens, a recovery which in the long-term works a reduction in the net cost to the American Government of the work done on the station.

Article 10, dealing with customs duties and sales tax, is directed towards ensuring that no revenue profit is made out of the United States Government and that the cost of the work is not increased by duties and taxes. No duties or taxes will be collected on property of the United States. In order to maintain the competitive position of Australian suppliers of such goods and commodities, duties and taxes will be exacted on contractors’ plant and consumables used up in the construction of the station. A refund will be made direct to the United States Government - not to the contractor - equal in amount to the duty and tax charged on such items as are wholly employed or consumed on the site in the construction of the station. There is no need I feel, Mr. President, to enter into the highly technical details of these clauses. It is the broad intent and result that is significant. The result is as I have stated.

For the rest, Mr. President, the agreement provides for the hiring by the United States of communication services in Australia and for technical matters connected with the operation of the station and for subsidiary technical arrangements to give effect to the agreement. The station is to be established, maintained and operated without cost to Australia except that we will reimburse the United States Government sums to be agreed for use of the station by our own armed forces. Our flag is to be flown when the American flag is flown at the station.

It will be observed from the preambular paragraphs of the agreement that a status of forces agreement is to be read with the present one. That agreement will regulate the status of American forces at any time in Australia in connexion .with some agreed activity. The provisions of this agreement will apply to the members of the American forces who are in Australia from time to time in connexion with the establishment, maintenance- and operation of the station. The status of forces agreement will become operative immediately.

Subsequently, legislation in connexion with it will be introduced into the Senate. Meantime I have laid it on the table of the Senate. There is a protocol to the agreement by , which the parties agree to enter into negotiations to make a mutual agreement to regulate the status of their forces in the other’s country. It is hoped that a mutual agreement substantially in the terms of the present agreement will replace that agreement before long.

This brief explanation of what is in truth a very brief and straightforward agreement should suffice for the present purposes of the Senate which is to consider the bill for the approval of the agreement. What I have proposed for acceptance or rejection by the Senate is that Australia should offer to the United States on the terms of the agreement the use of an area of Australian land to facilitate communication among that country’s armed forces. The purpose is in that way to assist the armed forces of the United States.

This is another notable event in the accumulating history of co-operation between our two democratic freedomloving countries. To-day, as always, the great maritime and air power of the United States is deployed in the wide Pacific and the other waters around Australia. Let’ us consider how much Australia has owed to this protective shield in the years of peril twenty years ago; through the subsequent years when new movements, plainly and declaredly bent upon expansion, have been astir in the countries to Australia’s north and north-west. Has there been a single year in the past generation when armed force has not been in action in this region - subverting, raiding, intimidating, killing? Save for the tragic miscalculation by North Korea and China in 1950, and the still recent attack on Indian border regions, the enemies of freedom and independence have desisted from open and massive attack.

But there has been erosion and intimidation - and much for the Western world to deplore. Tibet has disappeared. But the majority of the small, militarily weak countries on the periphery of Communist China to-day are still independent. Does any one suppose that this is by grace of mainland China’s respect for the independence of her neighbours, or their people and her desire to respect their right to govern themselves in their own way? The Australian Government believes that the sense of safety and freedom from anxiety which Australians enjoy is the direct product of the presence of American retaliatory power in the Indo-Pacific area supported by the approval of the group of independent nations allied with the United States.

Who is so blind as to fail to foresee the continuance, indeed the expansion, of the Communist threat and who so foolish as to imagine that we shall not continue to need that shield which American retaliatory power provides? It should by now be common knowledge that American capacity to deter aggression derives in no small part from its possession of nuclear power which more than counter balances the superiority in conventional strength of the Communist powers; a nuclear strength which in large part has been deployed hitherto in and by surface ships but which will increasingly be available in submerged vessels.

That this American shield should continue to be available in the context of that mutual respect and confidence of which I have spoken is in truth indispensable to our future, as it is to that of the world. I have stressed our alliances of which we are proud and for which we are appreciated. An alliance for joint defence is not real unless each side contributes and does so in a spirit of mutual trust. This agreement is a notable Australian-American contribution to that joint defence. It is with this overriding purpose that I commend to the Senate this bill.

Debate (on motion by Senator McKenna) adjourned.

page 665

PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE BILL 1963

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

Bill (on motion by Senator Sir William Spooner) read a first time.

Second Reading

Senator Sir WILLIAM SPOONER:
Vice-President of the Executive Council and Minister for National Development · New South Wales · LP

[11.2], - I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

The purpose of this bill is to provide for a total appropriation of £6,500 for the estimated cost of the allowances of the chairman and members of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works during the financial year 1962-1963. Section 36 (1.) of the Public Works Committee Act authorizes the payment to the chairman and members of the committee of such allowances as are prescribed. Section 37 (1.) limits the total amount of such allowances to £5,000 in any financial year. Regulation 6 of the Statutory Rules made under the act prescribes the allowances and has the effect of including in the term “ allowances “ the cost of transport of the chairman and members when travelling in the course of their duties as members of the committee.

This financial year has been a busy one for the committee, particularly with regard to references to the committee by the House of Representatives of projected major works in the Northern Territory. The committee members have already undertaken two trips to the Territory to investigate and report on works there; a third trip has now become necessary. As a result of this work, coupled with the committee’s other work in Canberra and elsewhere in Australia, it is estimated that the committee will need £6,500 for allowances for this financial year. It is therefore proposed, by means of this bill, to substitute an appropriation of £6,500 for the allowances of the committee in lieu of the standing appropriation of £5,000. This special provision will apply for this financial year only.

Senator McKENNA:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– The Opposition supports the measure.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate.

page 666

PAPUA AND NEW GUINEA BILL 1963

Debate resumed (vide page 659).

Senator KENDALL:
Queensland

– Mr. President, I had intended to speak at some length on this bill, which is of particular interest to me, but because of the lateness of the hour and the knowledge that there are many more bills to come I propose to be as short as possible. There is one matter that I cannot let go unanswered. I refer to a remark by the Leader of the Opposition (Senator McKenna), and reported at page 574 of “Hansard” of 21st May -

I come to the post-war period 1945-49, for which the Labour Government was responsible.

A little later he stated - . . unquestionably, what was done between 194S and 1949 laid the foundations for the social, economic and political development of the Territory ever since.

In 1950, shortly after the 1949 election, I went back to New Guinea for the months of January and February to find out what had been going on while I had been away, to meet old friends and to gain some knowledge on which to make a report to Mr. Spender, who was at that time Minister for External Territories. My memory is not as good as it was and, consequently, rather than trust to that memory I have gone back to “ Hansard “ to my maiden speech, which I made in March, 1950, on New Guinea. In what I said then will be found the answer to what Senator McKenna said yesterday. I then said -

One of the most important factors holding the Territory back is the shipping position. .At present no privately-owned ships are allowed to trade unless they are carrying their owner’s cargo. In other words, they can carry copra from their own plantations to a shipping port, or can take their own cargo to their plantations. It is not economic and it is ridiculous to ask each plantation manager to own a ship. Consequently, the Government owns 23 ships and has a virtual monopoly, and does not seem to care much what it does about it. The thing is so tied up with “ red tape “ that they get nowhere. I shall quote an example. The European personnel running the Government ships are engaged by the Australian Shipping Board in Australia. The ships are owned by the Department of External Territories. The native crews and the maintenance, that is to say, the supply of victuals and fuel, are provided by one of the three big private companies acting as agents. The Production Control Board buys the copra, the Directorate of Shipping tells the captain of the ship where he is to go, the customs authorities have charge of the discharge of the ships, and the Production Control Board hires the labour from the administration to discharge the ships. The administration, the customs authorities and the Production Control Board all start work at different times, and knock off at different times, and there is complete chaos. Although the Government owns 23 ships there are never more than about fourteen actually working. The rest are (aid up for repairs. The shipping position is worse than serious because on the 24th January, when I was ‘ in Rabaul, there was a backlag of 64,200 bags of copra waiting for ships to pick them up. That copra is owned by people who went back and. tried to rehabilitate themselves in their country.

I then went on to say that- the people had copra lying in their backyards because they could not get ships to take their cargo into port. I remind the Senate that the events to which I am referring occurred at about the same period which Senator McKenna mentioned when he said that everything in the garden was lovely.

Senator O’Byrne:

– He said that the foundations had been laid then.

Senator KENDALL:

– Do you call that laying foundations? I am referring to facts with which I am only too familiar.

In the speech I made on that occasion I went on to say that the copra was rotting and that there were no ships to pick it up. I made other comments which should be of interest to those who think that everything was in order at that -time. For instance, I said -

I notice in the recent report of the AuditorGeneral a reprimand of the shipping companies for not having given proper returns for 1948-49. He stated that he had withheld his certificate because he was waiting for proper returns. . . . Now look at the other side of the ledger. The Australian Shipping Board was running a cargo service there in 1946, 1947 and 1948. A number of claims were made for short-landed cargo during that period by the bigger European-owned com,panies. They were disallowed by the Australian Shipping Board because the companies were told that they should have taken delivery of their cargo from the ship’s slings. The customs regulations in New Guinea prohibit that being done, so they could not possibly obey the law. But in addition to not being able to get their claims paid, they had lo pay customs duty there on the goods lost because the Australian Shipping Board in turn would not give a clearance to say that the goods had been lost.

It would be senseless for me to continue to read from “ Hansard “. The matters to which I referred in my speech on that occasion were typical of the things that were going on in the post-war years between 1945 and 1949, about which Senator McKenna spoke so proudly. He said that unquestionably what was done between 1945 and 1949 had laid the foundations for the social, economic and political development of the Territory. I have never heard such rubbish. The conditions to which I referred in my speech completely refute Senator McKenna’s contention. Things could not have been in a worse mess than they were when I visited the Territory for two months. I spent the time looking up people I used to know. Unfortunately, many of them were missing. I came back and gave the Minister a seventeen-page report of the conditions I bad found. I leave the matter there.

I join my colleagues who have commended the Minister for Territories (Mr. Hasluck). Also, I should like to join those who have congratulated Sir Donald Cleland on the work for which he has been largely responsible. I have nothing more to say, but I did want to refute Senator McKenna’s statement, because it was made by a responsible member of the Parliament and had no relation whatever to the facts.

I have the greatest pleasure in supporting the bill.

Senator BISHOP:
South Australia

– Having read the statements made by the Minister for Civil Aviation (Senator Paltridge) in his second-reading speech and reported at page 538 of “ Hansard “ of 16th May, and also statements made by the Minister for Territories (Mr. Hasluck) in introducing the bill in another place, I had intended to say that there was much common ground between the Government and the Opposition. It appeared that we agreed on the- need for constitutional reform and that the substantial difference in our points of view concerned the distance that we should travel in a short time on the road to self-government. Now that I have heard the speeches that have been made by some Government supporters to-night, and also the speech of an independent member of the Senate, it seems to me that there is very little common ground on the Government side of the chamber. I believe, however that there is in fact a common point of view between the Minister for Territories and the Opposition regarding the moves that should be made towards ensuring selfgovernment for the people of the Territory.

We share with the Government, which is the architect of this amending bill, a desire to give the people of the Territory selfgovernment as quickly as possible. We disagree with the Government regarding the speed at which that should be done. I accept the points made by the Minister for Civil Aviation when he said -

The political advancement of the Territory of Papua and New Guinea is part of a peaceful constitutional process. A basic principle is that in each successive stage of advancement the people of the Territory can and should participate in the process and make their own judgment.

We of the Opposition appreciate the force of that statement. We join in the commendation that has been made of the administrative personnel in the Territory. Personally, I am satisfied that the people in charge of the various administrative services are first-class in all respects. As a matter of fact, they are much more advanced in their views than are some of the speakers in this chamber who have supported the bill to-night. I have complete confidence in the administrative officers of the Territory and in the soundness of their views.

It seems that both the Government and the Opposition share the view that justice should be done to the people of the Territory, and also that their interests and those of the people of this country should be safeguarded. I can understand the feelings of one or two Government supporters regarding the progress that we should make towards self-government and the possibility of another power intervening. It may be that, for this reason, they are hesitant about the moves that we should make. The test, of course, is that we cannot make the

Territory secure unless we satisfy the demands of both the indigenous people and our own people in the Territory. I welcome the statement made by the Prime Minister (Sir Robert Menzies) to-day regarding our intention to defend the Territory. It is most satisfactory. This is perhaps an appropriate time to make such an announcement, but I suggest to the people who have applauded it that they should also have regard to the comments which the Prime Minister made about the need to co-operate with the United Nations.

We have certain obligations that we need to remember in regard to the Charter of the United Nations and the reports of its visiting missions. The people who are listening to the broadcast of this debate should note that many supporters of the Government have condemned the Foot report and have questioned the right of the Trusteeship Council visiting mission to make suggestions to the Australian Government. We should consider our obligations in order to put the picture in its correct perspective. I say so because it seems to me that, in such a debate as this, that consideration assumes great importance. We are not merely exchanging views as between the Government and the Opposition in this Parliament. Our comments on this bill will be closely followed by the people of the Territory who are most concerned about this matter and who want to move towards their objectives as soon as possible. They will also be noted by world opinion. We should consider our responsibilities in this regard.

I remind the Senate of the obligations that we have assumed under the trusteeship agreement. I propose to quote from the Annual Report for 1961-62 on the Territory of New Guinea, which we have submitted to the General Assembly. The report refers to Article 3 of the trusteeship agreement for the Territory of New Guinea, which is as follows: -

The Administering Authority undertakes to administer the Territory in accordance with the provisions of the Charter and in such a manner as to achieve in the Territory the basic objectives of the International Trusteeship system, which are set forth in Article 76 of the Charter.

to further international peace and security;

to promote the political, economic, social, and educational advancement of the inhabitants of the trust territories, and their progressive development towards selfgovernment or independence as may be appropriate to the particular circumstances of each territory and its peoples and the freely expressed wishes of the peoples concerned, and as may be provided by the terms of each trusteeship agreement.

to encourage respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion, and to encourage recognition of the interdependence of the peoples of the world.

These are the important things.

Senator Cormack:

– By 1967?

Senator BISHOP:

– It is not a question of time. I am not saying, nor is this party saying, that the question of time is the issue. At the committee stage we will ask the Government to take note of the recommendations, particularly on representation, that have been made by a proper authority to which we subscribe but to which, apparently, the people opposite do not subscribe. We want to put it on record that we claim that the Government should accept Australia’s responsibility to the United Nations and should have regard for the findings of the Foot committee. We say that there should be no sneering at the Foot report or at Sir Hugh Foot ‘ himself. The point is that the report covers’ a great many important things to which we should have regard.

I want to refer to a number of things contained in the report, but time does not allow me to do so. I suggest that the people who follow in this debate might have regard to a number of points which indicate that the United Nations mission did a thoroughly good job. Whether or not we agree entirely with its recommendations we must pay proper regard to its report. To some extent the Government has obviously been influenced by the report, because the Minister has pointed out that while the mission was doing its rounds, the Legislative Council’s own select committee was making an investigation too. The Government preferred to accept the recommendations of the select committee because it felt that weight should be given to that committee’s report. But I say that if honorable senators read the Foot report they will see that it contains a number of important recommendations. I want to refer to some points from the report, although I cannot read them all.

Paragraphs 24, 48 and 54, in relation to Bougainville, New Ireland and Manus Island, contain statements presented as coming from the indigenous people suggesting that there [ was certain dissatisfaction with our adminis!tration and that in fact the United States should be asked to take part in the administration of the Territory. You might say that 1 this has some relation to the cargo cult, but 1 I suggest that it indicates what is in the minds of these people. Paragraphs 31, 32, 34 and 54 contain statements from people who met the mission, pointing out that they were dissatisfied with the general set-up. They wanted’ better educational facilities, more positive moves towards granting power in local government and so on. Visitors to New Guinea tell of repeated statements that they have heard from the natives to the effect that they fought alongside us in the last war and that now they think we have forgotten them. Those statements were reported to the mission. I personally heard such statements up there from the native people, and so did Senator Wright. Honorable senators can see statements of this kind referred to in the report.

Time does not allow me to read out much of the report, but I commend to honorable senators paragraphs 105 and 106 in which the mission lists representations made at public meetings. The mission pays a great tribute to the Australian administration and to the people of the Territory, including members of the ordinary community who were doing so much in advancing the aims of the Trusteeship Council and working for the benefit of the natives.

I refer now to a point which an honorable senator opposite made with reference to a statement by Senator McKenna. He spoke of Senator McKenna’s reference to the Labour Government’s development of the Territories. You will remember, of course, that in this respect Senator Hannaford, I think, made the point tonight - which I think was sound - that most of the development of the Territory had taken place in the post-war years. Paragraph 121 of the report shows, in substance, that that is exactly what the mission found. It reads -

The main effort for improved administration, education and development dates only from 1945. Almost all that has been achieved has been achieved in little more than a decade and a half. For all practical purposes the administration started from scratch in 1945.

The report went on in paragraph 122 -

We recognise the magnitude of the undertaking in New Guinea which faced Australia when the Japanese surrendered.

The report continues by commending the Administration. We have no quarrel with the commendation of the people up there. As I said before, the discussions which some of us have had with these people, and our reading, have convinced us that the Administration personnel - down to the last patrol officer - are in the main dedicated people doing the tasks that we are commissioned to do by the United Nations. They are people whom we should respect.

One of the ways in which we are going to win the people of Papua and New Guinea over to us is to indicate to them that we share with them the task of developing the community on a multi-racial basis towards self-government. That is the concept we have to put frankly on the record. We have to tell the people that we believe in it. We should not water it down because we think there is a threat to our security. I have already mentioned the statements the mission heard from the natives about having fought alongside us in 1945 and being now forgotten. Some of these people have outstanding qualities of trustworthiness. They are acutely aware that in the period after the war there was not the concern for their status and their rights that there should have been. We are now coming to recognize the need for them to take part at every level of authority and the need for them to develop their skills in leadership, and we must show them that we do not believe in discrimination.

We have made great progress during the last 12 months. There is no doubt that the move in relation to liquor was very well received by the indigenous people. I think we could make one or two further moves, but I will not mention them to-night because I do not want to make a political football of this matter. The Labour Party insists that we must have regard to what the United Nations mission says we should do.

I want quickly to recapitulate what I said earlier. I accept the approach that the Minister made in his opening remarks. Many of the statements made in another place are acceptable from our point of view, even though they came from Government supporters. We differ, of course, as to the speed of progress towards selfdetermination. It is no good saying that because of an emergency, because of the nearness of some other power, the issue should be shelved for all time. That is just a way of finding excuses for escaping our obligations. I say to the Government, and to speakers who have supported the bill, that we are on common ground on a lot of matters, but we disagree as to representation in the House of Assembly.

I hope that during the committee stage we will have an opportunity to make more specific criticism than we have made so far. I finish by saying, as I said earlier, that I am confident that the people administering the Territory, and many of the indigenous people, recognize the contribution we make in this chamber towards giving them more equality. This, of course, should be our main objective.

Senator PALTRIDGE:
^-Minister for Civil Aviation · Western Australia · LP

– in reply - The bill that the Senate has been considering deals directly with the reform of the parliamentary institution in Papua and New Guinea and with certain administrative processes. Probably of more importance still is that it is a bill which deals with people. It deals directly with 2,000,000 people who are in various stages of literacy and education and of various social standards.

One of the points that has impressed me as I have sat listening to a most interesting debate is that while the bill has been introduced to provide reforms, we would be very wrong to believe that the mere introduction by a legislature of certain reforms in respect of administration would get the result that we want. The result that we want is the advancement of 2,000,000 people, to whom we are affectionately attached, along the road to selfgovernment. We want to advance them in such a way as will enable them to extract the greatest possible benefit from what we do here.

Up to that point, I think, the Opposition and ourselves are on common ground. I very readily accept the sincerity with which the Opposition makes the point that it wishes to advance these people to a goal of self-government and ultimately independence. Where we part company, quite obviously, is on the rate at which this progress shall be made, and, in some respects, the manner in which it shall be achieved. I say at once - it cannot be repeated too frequently - that basic to the Government’s policy of self-government for the people of New Guinea is that this shall be achieved by the people at a rate that is conditioned by their wishes, having regard to the social and economic conditions of their land. That, I think, brings us into rather sharp conflict with” the Opposition, whose sincerity, let me repeat, I readily accept.

I say with respect that Opposition senators seemed to be overborne by the importance of a planned time-table. They seemed to be over-influenced by what other countries, looking in from the outside, might say about what we were doing in respect of our obligations to New Guinea. That, I think, came out during the course of the debate. It was obvious in the speech which was delivered by Senator Bishop, of South Australia, who laid particular emphasis on the importance of the Foot committee report, almost to the exclusion of the other report to which, I say quite unblushingly, the Government gave preference in the determination of its policy and in shaping the legislation that is now before the Parliament.

It has been said frequently by the Opposition that there is an inevitability about events that we are in some way attempting to frustrate. The Leader of the Opposition (Senator McKenna) himself referred to the upsurge of nationalism in other countries, which seemed to me to be particularly irrelevant to the situation with which we are dealing in New Guinea. Whatever form of racialism exists elsewhere, or however it is worked out, the plain fact of the matter is that in the Territory of Papua and New Guinea racialism is not even hinted at. There is an affection between Australians and the indigenous people of the Territory which has grown up over the years. I recall that early in the debate someone referred to the little that had been done by Australia before the war. As I heard the comment, my mind ° went back to the war years. I thought of the fuzzy-wuzzies and the way

In which they so readily helped our Australian troops. There was not then in existence any feeling other than the deepest affection, lt was apparent in those days and it has grown, .1 suggest, as a result of the activities which Australia and Australian governments have undertaken since the war.

The Opposition has said that we have been too dilatory, that we have not moved as fast as we could have moved. What we have done, of course, is to accept almost in toto the report and recommendations made by the select committee of the Legislative Council for Papua and New Guinea. The establishment of that committee was set in train on the motion of a member, Mr. Hurrell, on 21st September, 1961, at what was, I understand, the second session of the council. That is the type of outcropping that one would want to see coming from within a council established by this Parliament for the purpose of advancing the New Guinea people along the road to more representative government and, ultimately, to self-government.

It is said that we were pushed into this development. Nothing could be further from the truth. This is a democratic development, taking place in a democratic way, in an institution democratically established by this Parliament. As we are criticized for not adopting lock, stock and barrel, the report of the Foot committee, it is as well to recall what the Minister for Territories (Mr. Hasluck) himself said in respect of this matter. He said -

While the Government pays proper deference and respect to the report of the visiting mission on the Trust Territory of New Guinea, it will be clear that the reports of the select committee, produced as the result of action commenced before the time of the visiting mission and, i repeat, after a careful consideration of the visiting mission’s report, have been the chief formative influence in shaping this bill. At the same time we believe that these reports are fully in conformity with the objective which the visiting mission was trying to serve.

I should like to refer again to the interim report of the select committee in order to reply to some remarks which were made criticizing us for being too slow on the one hand and, on the other hand, for being too fast in certain respects. Paragraph 26 states -

Your Committee wishes to point out that its recommendations, though largely based upon the freely expressed wishes of the people, in fact go well beyond the conservative proposals which they themselves put forward. However, your Committee is confident that the people will respond to this stimulus and challenge, and that the implementation of these proposals will mark yet another step forward in the democratic political development of this country.

I have quoted that paragraph because I want to show again - if it is necessary to do so - that the select committee was conscious that there were some shortages of suitable people but it wanted to keep that half-step in front about which Senator McKenna spoke last night. If the committee erred, it erred on the side of generosity rather than on the side of not being fast enough.

The Leader of the Opposition rather deplored the rate which the committee had recommended and the rate of progress which had been accepted by the Government. He said that we were too late, that we were lagging behind. But I point out to him that, if we are to adhere to our basic policy of accepting the views of the people of New Guinea, it is quite impossible for us to go faster. The people of New Guinea in turn will tell us precisely what they want. I believe they have sufficient knowledge to realize that in too rapid progress there is danger and I believe that they themselves, emerging as they are into various forms of agricultural activity, are aware at this point of time that their economy needs to be watched very closely. Let me say in passing, with due respect to the arguments that have been advanced particularly by Opposition senators, that there has been a marked disposition either to avoid altogether, or to treat very lightly, the economic conditions and the economic potential of the Territory.

This country has almost a singlecommodity economy. As the Leader of the Opposition said, it is dependent on the three C’s - coconuts, coffee and cocoa. One of those commodities at present is sold under a world-controlled system of marketing and there is talk of placing another under the same system. How can any country which is faced with that situation accept the fixing of target dates for certain development? That has been put to us as being a desirable approach. Even the Foot mission, subsequent to a discussion with the Minister for Territories and a survey made by the World Bank to discover the economic potential of the country, recognized the importance of this aspect of the problem. If the first report of the World Bank is the only document we ever get in respect of the Territory’s economy, surely it would be the height of stupidity to move towards a definite target date before we had that document. I do not suggest for one moment that that is to be, or that it should be, the only report on which the economics of this country should be judged and that upon that judgment we should try to base a timetable for independence or self-government. I hope that as time goes by there will be other reports which will deal not only with the agricultural potential but also the industrial and mining potential and what can be done with water power and the like.

I mention the subject of economics not because I think that is the final or only factor which should be considered in determining these important political and social questions but because a decision as to political and social advancement cannot be divorced from it by responsible people who pay due regard to the proper care, progress and protection of these 2,000,000 people. I understand that the Opposition proposes to move a number of amendments at the committee stage. In view of that fact, I conclude my remarks on the motion for the second reading at that point.

Senator McKenna:

– Mr. President, I claim that I have been misunderstood in a certain particular. The Minister for Civil Aviation referred to my comments about the upsurge of nationalism amongst the new nations and spoke as though he understood that I had related what had happened in those countries to the state of racialism and nationalism in New Guinea. If that is his understanding, he is quite wrong. I recall quite well that I used the reference to the upsurge of nationalism throughout other countries to indicate the kind of pressure which would be put upon Australia as the administering authority and that those countries would look with critical eyes upon what we did in the trust territory and in Papua. I never attempted at any stage to equate conditions in Papua and New Guinea with those in the more recently emerging countries.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Sitting suspended from 11.50 p.m. to 12.40 a.m. (Thursday).

Thursday, 23 May 1963

In committee:

Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.

Clause 3.

Section four of the Principal Act is amended- (a)……

  1. by omitting the words - “Division 2. - The Legislative Council (Sections 35-53).” and inserting in their stead the words - “ Division 2. - The House of Assembly (Sections 35-57a).”.

Section proposed to be amended.

  1. This Act is divided into Parts, as follows: -

Part I. -…..

Part V. - Legislation.

Division 1. - Laws (Sections 32-34).

Division 2. - The Legislative Council (Sections 35-53).

Senator McKENNA:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– I move -

In paragraph (c), omit “ House of Assembly “, insert “ House of Representatives “.

This proposed amendment is associated with amendment No. 3 proposed by the Opposition, which is directed to the constitution of the proposed new House of Assembly. If our amendment No. 3 were carried members of the House of Assembly would all be truly representative and the title would be completely appropriate. But it is not less appropriate to the Government’s proposals. Those proposals are to have ten non-indigenous persons elected by the whole area, 44 elected by the inhabitants of Papua and New Guinea and another ten representing the Government. Three classes of representatives are proposed: The representatives of the Government, the representatives of the non-indigenous people and the representatives of the indigenous people. So the title “ House of Representatives “, proposed by the Opposition, is completely relevant to what the Government is doing. An additional argument is that the Foot mission recommended the title “ House of Representatives “ in paragraph 208 at page 68 of its report. Referring to the composition of the new House of Representatives, the following passage appears in the report: - we suggest that this title is preferable for many reasons, principally because it gives a more accurate picture of the composition and function of the Parliament proposed , ..

In making that statement the mission had in mind a house comprised of approximately 100 representatives, including five official nominees. In other words, it had in mind the type of house contemplated by the Government. After all is said and done, I think the Government might well be prepared to make a bow to the Foot mission, the United Nations Trusteeship Council and the United Nations General Assembly. I recognize that the choice of a name is largely a matter of personal preference. The choice made by the Legislative Council of the moment is. not a choice by a truly representative body. I think I am correct in saying that only about eleven or twelve of its members may be representatives of the indigenous people of Papua and New Guinea. The rest are nominees or are elected by the non-indigenous people. It is largely a nominee body. I do not think that a body so constituted can be truly said to be representative of the people of Papua and New Guinea. It certainly is not, on the face of it.

Whilst I recognize that the amendment proposed by the Opposition is not of world shattering importance, and I think I have said enough- on it, I hope to speak to the Opposition’s proposed amendments briefly in order to indicate that there are real reasons why full consideration should be given to them.

Senator Vincent:

– Would you argue that your proposed name should apply if you did not succeed in having your other amendments carried?

Senator McKENNA:

– Yes. One argument I put was that the proposal of the Government will mean that the House of Assembly will be comprised of three classes of representatives - nominated members representing the Government, indigenous members elected by the people and nonindigenous members elected by the people. I think it would be completely apposite to apply this term to a body consisting of those members. After all is said and done, it would be intended and, I think, appreciated as a compliment from this Parliament if we were to pass on to the new body a name which is so well-known here. It certainly will be the ultimate name of the body.

I invite the attention of the committee to the fact that, in its first report, the Legis lative Council itself said that there was some degree of agreement upon the term “ House of Representatives”. I am not quoting exactly what was said. In the second report a choice was indicated without any reason being given for it. I think that to bestow the name “House of Representatives” would be a nice compliment to the United Nations bodies and to the people of Papua and New Guinea from us. I think it is truly descriptive. 1 do not want to address any further argument on this point, Mr. Chairman.

Senator VINCENT:
Western Australia

– I would agree with Senator McKenna’s argument if it were correct to say that the appointed members of this chamber would be representative of the Government.

Senator McKenna:

– I said that the various members would be representative of three classes.

Senator VINCENT:

– I think I am quoting you rightly when I say that your argument was that the appointed, members of the proposed chamber would represent the Government.

Senator McKenna:

– That is right.

Senator VINCENT:

– I would doubt it.

Senator McKenna:

– Whom would you say they would represent?

Senator VINCENT:

– I would say that they would represent the entire population of New Guinea.

Senator McKenna:

– They are officials.

Senator VINCENT:

– Yes. They may be officials, but they are still persons. I can see nothing in the bill or in the present law which would lead one to infer that they will be in the House of Assembly for the purpose of representing the views of the Government.

Senator Cohen:

– Even if you are right, that would not destroy the argument of Senator McKenna.

Senator VINCENT:

– I will come to that. If they were representing the Government I think it would be right to assume that somewhere in this bill that status would be postulated. I think that Senator McKenna’s inference is one which he cannot properly draw. They are appointed members of a legislature. In answer to Senator Cohen, I think I am right in saying that where a legislative body is partly elected and partly appointed, nowhere in the world is it deemed to be a House of Representatives. It can be called a council. Strictly speaking, it is a council if it is not elected. I think that we are stretching it a little even by calling it a House of Assembly.

Senator Hannaford:

– Why?

Senator VINCENT:

– Because all the members are not elected by the people. There is still a group of appointees. In those circumstances, it is customary to refer to such a legislative body which is not fully elected as a council. I think it is stretching it a bit far even to call it an assembly. In any case, I put it to the Opposition that the select committee wished this house to be called by the name which appears in the bill. It did not like the expression “House of Representatives “. It was aware when it took evidence that the Foot committee had recommended that this name be used, but its recommendation differed from that of the Foot committee. Surely it is only fair that we should accept the recommendation of the select committee in preference to that of the Foot committee.

I do not think that Senator McKenna would argue that the members of the Senate would have liked some outside body before federation to have sought to impose upon the Australian people some name of its choice. The Australian people had a say in the choice of the name for this chamber and I do not think that anybody else did. I do not think that Senator McKenna would have welcomed an outside body recommending, over the wishes of Australians, some name other than “ Senate “ for this chamber. I think that is the substantial reason why we should adopt the recommendation of the select committee. This is the wish of the people, and we should respect it. It is only a matter of courtesy that we should do so. If I were a resident of New Guinea and for reasons best known to myself I wished this body to be called the “House of Assembly “, I would consider it impertinent for others to impose their wishes upon me, irrespective of my own views.

Senator WILLESEE:
Western Australia

– Senator McKenna said that this matter is not of world-shattering importance, and I do not want to delay the committee for very long. At some stage, we will leave our imprint on whatever organization we set up in New Guinea. State Houses in Australia are called Houses of Assembly. We are building a national parliament in Papua and New Guinea, which includes very many islands and covers a large area. Therefore, following the practice in Australia, I think the national body ought to be called the House of Representatives. This name would give the body a sense of importance in the eyes of those who will take on political responsibilities for the first time.

People in other countries do not regard parliamentary duties in the same way as we do. This marked difference is noticed when we go to international conferences. People overseas seem to have the rather old idea that when elected they are somewhat superior to others and give only a few hours to their parliamentary duties. We must avoid this attitude being adopted in Papua and New Guinea. We do not want people in the Territory to think that they have been lifted above,,others because they have been chosen to represent the people. The name we have chosen for this organization is a simple name and would have meaning for people who may not have very much education.

As I said when I was speaking during the second-reading debate, impartial people in the international scene may think that on a subject as small as this the select committee, with a petulant attitude, wanted to depart from the recommendation cif the United Nations mission. I think we have all agreed in this debate that we should have a very good reason for departing from the recommendations of the United Nations mission, even in minor matters of detail such as this is. Frankly, I do not see a good reason for departing from the recommendations of the United Nations mission on this matter. I fail to see any argument against our suggestion, except the argument that we envisaged a completely elected body and that “ House of Representatives “ would be a more suitable title for such a body. However, the United Nations mission also envisaged appointed representatives and it still favoured the use of this name.

I do not see any value in the name “ House of Assembly “, but I see a lot of value in the name “ House of Representatives “. I think this is one of the times when we can disagree with Shakespeare, who asked, “ What’s in a name? “

Senator PALTRIDGE:
Western Australia Minister for Civil Aviation · LP

– The Government does not accept the Opposition’s amendment. This amendment was submitted in another place when the Minister for Territories (Mr. Hasluck) had the advantage of considering it, and it was rejected after due consideration. In contradistinction to Senator Willesee, I must confess to being influenced by the report of the select committee. Senator Willesee, it would appear, is more influenced by the report of the visiting mission. I do not agree with him that this recommendation of the select committee showed some petulance.

Senator Willesee:

– I said it could be assumed in independent minds in the international scene. I did not accuse the committee of it.

Senator PALTRIDGE:

– I contest the proposition that it could be assumed by intellectual minds in the international scene that this shows petulance. It is quite clear from the’ report of the select committee that, approaching this question with an open mind, it gave more than passing consideration to it. In its first report, the committee said -

Your Committee was unable to find an indigenous word or phrase which would adequately convey the meaning of the new assembly and which would also be acceptable to other language groups. However, there was some agreement on the name “ House of Representatives “ and this proposal will be further considered by your Committee.

This seems to me to show a quite objective approach. In the absence of finding an indigenous word, some members of the committee in the first instance were attracted to the name House of Representatives. However, after further and deeper consideration, the committee concluded that House of Assembly was a more appropriate name. With no disrespect at all to the visiting mission, I continue to think that this select committee of the Legislative Council, though not representative in the broader sense, as the Leader of the Opposition (Senator McKenna) said, was closer to the people of the country and to the feeling of the country than the visiting mission was.

For those reasons, the Government accepts the suggestion of the select committee and rejects the amendment moved by the Opposition.

Question put -

That the words proposed to be left out (Senator McKenna’s amendment) be left out.

The committee divided. (The Chairman - Senator G. C. McKellar.)

AYES: 25

NOES: 30

Majority . . . . 5

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 4 and 5 agreed to.

Clause 6. (1.) Section nineteen of the Principal Act is amended -

Section proposed to be amended. 19.- (l.) . . . . (2.) The Administrator’s Council shall consist of-

the Administrator;

three persons who are official members of the Legislative Council; and

three other members of the Legislative Council, none of whom shall be official members and of whom at least two shall be elected members. (3.) Each member of the Administrator’s Council (other than the Administrator) shall be appointed by the Minister on the nomination of the Administrator and shall, subject to this section, hold office during the pleasure of the Minister. (4.) A member of the Administrator’s Council (other than the Administrator) shall not hold office for a longer period than three months after the date on which he ceases to be a member of the Legislative Council unless, within that period, he again becomes a member of the Legislative Council. (6.) The resignation of a member of the Administrator’s Council who is an official member of the Legislative Council does not become effective unless and until it has been accepted by the Minister.

Senator McKENNA:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

. -I move -

Leave out paragraph (a) of sub-clause (1.), insert the following paragraphs: - “ (a) by leaving out paragraphs (b) and (c) of sub-section (2.) and inserting the following paragraph: -

ten members of the House of Assembly;’ (aa) by leaving out sub-section (3.) and inserting: (3.) Each member of the Administrator’s Council (other than the Administrator) shall be elected by the House of Assembly and shall, subject to this section hold office during the pleasure of the House and’.”

The amendments are directed to altering the position contended for by the Government. Under the existing act, seven constitute the Administrator’s Council. They are the Administrator, three officials and three others, two of whom are to be elected members of the Legislative Council. The significant fact is that all of them are to be nominated by the Administrator. Under the bill, that pattern of appointment is completely preserved. It is proposed under the bill that the Administrator’s Council consist of the Administrator, three officials and seven elected members of the House of Assembly, all appointed by the Administrator. Under the act as it stands and under the bill, every one of them would be in the category of appointees.

The Opposition proposes in the amendment before the committee that the advisory council should consist of the Administrator and ten members of the House of Assembly who would be appointed by the House and would hold office during the pleasure of the House. In other words, apart from the representatives, they would be truly elected members. I point out that every member of the Administrator’s Council takes the oaths set out in Schedule 8 of the bill requiring him to observe complete secrecy regarding anything he might hear in the Administrator’s Council. The function of the members is largely advisory. There are some statutory functions such as the promulgation of regulations, that type of thing, but by and large their functions are not what we would normally term of an executive nature. We feel that the new body - the House of Assembly - would have much more confidencein an advisory council that had comefrom amongst its members but more particularly when it had been elected by the House of Assembly.

I point out that it is infinitely better to proceed with the process of training the people of Papua and New Guinea for administrative posts. Under the Opposition’s proposals, ten of them from the House of Assembly would undergo their training in the Administrator’s Council whilst under the Government’s proposal only some seven of them would do so. They would be chosen at the unfettered discretion and choice of the Administrator. We object to the principle of appointment by the Administrator and we think it is better to let the men come directly from the House of Assembly and be elected by that body. It is certainly a position that would conform more to the line of thought of the Trusteeship Council of the United Nations. I have no doubt that the body constituted as we propose in our amendment would be a far better vehicle than the one proposed by the Government for expressing the wishes, of the people of New

Guinea to the Administrator. In those circumstances, I commend the amendment to the committee.

Senator PALTRIDGE:
Minister for Civil Aviation · Western Australia · LP

– The Government finds the amendment unacceptable for these reasons: The functions of the Administrator’s Council are to advise the Administrator on the exercise of executive functions. Where ordinances so provide, the Administrator must have the council’s advice before exercising certain statutory powers. If the Administrator does not act in accordance with the advice of the Administrator’s Council, he must cause a statement of reasons to be laid before the legislature.

The purpose of the Administrator’s Council is to provide for participation by nonofficial members in the executive government. The constitutional changes provided for in the bill do not transfer from the Australian Government and the Australian Parliament the responsibility for the executive government of the Territory. The nonparliamentary executive in the Territory is an executive that is not, at this stage of constitutional’ development, directly responsible to the Territory legislature. The view taken by/’the Government is that at this stage of constitutional development it is not a case of members of the legislature taking control of the executive, it is a case of finding members of the legislature who are willing to accept a close association with the Administration in the executive government. It is hot a matter of choosing yes-men, but there has to be a minimum degree of compatibility in a group of people engaged as a unity on executive functions. If all the dissensions and divisions and incompatibilities that exist outside are transfered into an executive body then the body will not function in the way it is intended to function. The Administrator should, therefore, have the opportunity to invite members to accept appointment to the Administrator’s Council who are members who will work with him and are seen by him as people whose advice he would consider to be worthy of his regard. Similarly the members themselves will have to have some degree of confidence in the Administrator and be willing on their part to associate with him in the common executive task.

The members who accept appointment to the Administrator’s Council would to some extent identify themselves with the actions of the Administration. They would not forego their rights to discuss, to criticize and to express opinions contrary to those of the Administrator or to offer advice in accordance with their own consciences and in accordance with their own knowledge. But they would be bound to the extent that, having entered the Administrator’s Council and having taken an oath of secrecy, anything divulged to them in the Administrator’s Council discussion would be confidential, and they would forfeit some of their personal liberty of action on the floor of the House of Assembly. The members should, therefore, have the opportunity to consider whether to accept an invitation extended privately by the Administrator to join the Administrator’s Council and not have to decide whether to refuse to accept a nomination made publicly in the House of Assembly.

Senator COHEN:
Victoria

.I suggest that the amendment of the Leader of the Opposition (Senator McKenna) should be supported, for two reasons which I propose to state briefly. The first is this: What is proposed in the bill fails to carry through the logic of this exercise in granting representative government. It fails to accustom the 44, or the 88 - whichever the Parliament decides - elected indigenous members of the assembly to the idea that they have a real say in government and that they should, therefore, get used to the idea of electing those who, in a broad sort of way, one can talk about as the cabinet. That is one reason.

The second, and perhaps more important reason is this: There is something invidious about the idea of the Administrator selecting those who are to be members of this advisory council, without any assistance from the legislature. This means that it would be theoretically possible for the Administrator to select ten who do not represent the indigenous people at all and do not include indigenes. That is one possibility. There would be a temptation, I suppose, to select people who would be amenable to the view of the Administrator, and even if we do not look at it in that suspicious way - and I am not suggesting that there is ‘ anything sinister about it - there surely must be the appearance, for all those who are watching this experiment very closely, that” what is granted in the assembly is retained as a reality in the inner council. For those reasons it seems to me that there ia a great deal tp.be said for the amendment “moved by the Leader of the Opposition, and I support it., v Senator VINCENT (Western Australia) [ L..-1’S a.m..].- I want to make one or two remarks a’bout -.’Senator Cohen’s observation.. I - will answer his. second argument first. He claims that there is an invidious element , in this proposal. In theory this could perhaps have some -weight, but only in theory. I think it is purely an, academic argument. The reality of the matter, is this: Whether the government’s plan or the Opposition’s amendment with regard, to the composition of the House of Assembly is accepted, we will have a legislature of which the- big majority will be indigenous Papuans or New Guineans. If the House of Assembly, of which . the great majority of members are indigenes, do not like the section of this Administrator’s Council, or do not agree with the policies of that council, then they have a forum, created by this legislation, in which to vent their displeasure I can see, therefore, no support for the suggestion of an invidious element as referred to by Senator Cohen.

I think there is some logic in Senator McKenna’s argument, but again it is rather academic. We should look at the reality of - what is happening and not regard this matter in isolation. We should try to see it as part of a pattern, of the growing up of a government in New Guinea. If we do this then I think we can agree with the proposition I am now putting forward. I submit, first, that the Administrator’s Council is an embryonic cabinet. It represents an attempt to train, as far as possible, the inhabitants and the members of the legislature in executive responsibility. I do not think the Opposition will disagree with that point. This is the first stage, I suggest, in the establishment of a responsible executive. Admittedly it should not be deemed to bc an executive in the complete sense of the term, but I suggest that this is a first step towards the establishment of such an executive, and a very important step. It is important for the reason that if we do not start these early legislators on the right track they may get a wrong conception of responsible government and of Cabinet responsibility.

This embryonic cabinet, as I term it, should be trained in all the proper essentials of cabinet responsibility. This cannot be done, ^1 believe, if the members of the Administrator’s Council cannot work together in complete harmony and as an integrated unit. I think this is the first essential. As in all cabinets there must be a degree of integration and unanimity, and I fail to see how this can be secured - in fact I suggest it probably cannot be secured - if the members are elected from all quarters of the legislature. Even in our Parliament here we do not elect the members of the cabinet from both sides of the Parliament. >

Senator Cohen:

– Do you elect them from one side?

Senator VINCENT:

– Well, they’ are appointed on one side, and on the other side they are elected, but my. point is that they are not taken from all sides, which ! is what is suggested at the moment by the Labour Party. I suggest that this cannot work for the reason 1 have given. The first element of responsible cabinet govern-‘ ment is an integrated policy. I .think Senator Willesee suggested to-day that that will evolve, and it is very desirable that a. two-party system should evolve, in due course. We have, a government and an opposition. That is- the only way that a proper examination can’ be made of any legislation. That is the second reason- why there should be this high degree of integration of the views of this embryonic cabinet. The -members of it will have to work in complete harmony with- the Administrator, a servant of the Crown and an executive officer of the Territory.

Now I get down to theorizing. My friends, opposite have, so I shall do so: If the ten members were elected there, could be. ten different views on high policy in the one embryonic cabinet. Does the Leader of the Opposition suggest that that is a. workable proposition? For those reasons, the possibility of having a divided Administrator’s Council will be quite opposed, I suggest, to the principle of cabinet administration and cabinet government; and as we, by hypothesis, are endeavouring to train these people in these processes, I think we should stick to the principles of cabinet administration ab initio.

Senator Cohen:

– On that argument, would not the Cabinet have to be responsible to the legislative assembly?

Senator VINCENT:

– Of course.

Senator Cohen:

– And removable by it?

Senator VINCENT:

– It could be objected to by it, and when it gets full executive power there would be no muddled thinking in the proper functioning of the legislature. The first essential of this quasi-cabinet body is to learn the proper principles of responsible cabinet government, and I cannot see how the members can do “that if they are a divided body. Even the Labour Party could not govern this .country with a divided cabinet.

Senator WILLESEE:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP

– The- Minister was very glad when Senator Vincent sat down because he was slowly demolishing his argument. The Minister told us that the proposed House of Assembly was not intended to be a yesman’s show, but Senator Vincent was telling us that it could not be very much else because he did not want-any division at all in the ranks of this Cabinet of ten. . After all) if we are trying to teach these people something, it should be that we must abide by the majority rule. If we are to set up the basis of democracy in this Territory, it must be’ not a thin” veneer df democracy, but one which reaches down into the hearts of the people. One of the troubles in the Diet in Japan is that although the Japanese have the, facile trappings of a democracy, when a decision goes against them there’ is a first-class brawl in the grounds.

The mistake which Senator Vincent is making is that he envisages that the final development - I agree that it is very hard not to talk about the final development when discussing this bill - will be in a cabinet system as we know it in Australia. The whole of his argument was directed towards that. It may well be that the people of the Territory will develop a cabinet system similar to that in the United States of America, and after thinking about it for a few minutes I consider that, there seem’ to be many things that lead one towards that view.

Senator Hannaford:

-God forbid! . v

Senator WILLESEE:

– It is a matter of choice. Where you have,, on the one hand, a large illiterate population and, on the other hand, some people well educated in the business world, there may be many advantages in taking a cabinet from outride the parliament. I do not recommend that, but merely say thai it is not for us to fry to develop the people of the Territory along these lines. All that Australia should be doing is leaving to these people the priceless gift of representative government. They, should be left to develop that government as they want to develop it.

I ask to be pardoned for mentioning once again what is to Government supporters almost unmentionable, that is, the United Nations Visiting Mission. That body looked at this problem and made its report. But the Government of Australia has deliberately turned its back on that report for little apparent reason. The mission suggested a cabinet of five. This is the only - proposed amendment in which we have gone beyond what the mission recommended, but we do so because we want to be consistent and have a wholly elected body. The mission’s suggestion was not necessarily, but perhaps, five in a parliament of 100 members. However, the Government has taken it upon itself to make it a cabinet of ten in a parliament of 64. There is a pretty big difference in the ratio. What we should be trying to get is the voice of New Guinea and not the voice of the Administration talking down to this legislative body.

I do not see anything wrong with having a cabinet derived from the floor of parliament. Those elected have already qualified to be there. Despite what people say about -parliamentarians, they generally have a few rough edges knocked off them by the time they make it,, and perhaps they could learn to work with the Administrator. If they > cannot and if the situation becomes impossible, the Administrator has plenty of weight on his side. And, do not forget, there is the power of veto. Indeed, there is always the double veto and, in spite of

Senator Wright’s interjection the other day, the Labour Party has not raised one word against it.

I see no danger in what is proposed, but I think the Government could lay itself open to the charge in international circles that it is resisting change or is turning its back to change. I notice that the explanation given by the Minister acting on behalf of the Minister for Territories is slightly different from the one given in another place. The point the Minister for Territories made was that we are responsible internationally, that we provide the money and that this body will act as a cabinet; but I believe, as the Minister said to-night, that this is an advisory body. How can it be an advisory body if the only way a member can be appointed to it is by keeping on side with the Administrator? Surely honorable members on the Government side will agree that if one man appoints a cabinet he obviously will not pick somebody with whom he cannot agree. As it is in Australia so would it be in New Guinea. We do not want a team of yes men, but I cannot see how that can be avoided unless they are elected by popular vote.

Senator CORMACK:
Victoria

– I have been fascinated by the debate that has proceeded in another place and here on details in the committee stage. The first authentic note that I have heard occurred in one of the last two or three sentences uttered by Senator Willesee, who said that we must seek the real voice of the people of New Guinea. But all the voices we have been hearing, it seems to me, are those of the people who have been sitting in the groves of Arcady for a long time. In relation to the governing of the people of the Territory they are thinking constantly in terms of the history, moralities and principles on which our form of Commonwealth government has been founded. I do not object in any way at all to the concept of the Administrator’s Council because wherever you go in the islands, or in the eastern portion of the main island you find that the indigenous people are used to this system. In each of their tribal or clan areas they have, in reality, the same system in operation at the present moment. They have, as it were, some concept of a general assembly of a tribe or clan, and in some parts there is a long hut where the elders sit. They, in the final analysis, make the decisions. This is a system that they understand perfectly well.

This provision in the bill is only giving form to a system which has operated among these people. Why on earth we should try to put on these people a form of government that we have been experimenting with for two or three hundred years, I do not know. For goodness sake, let them adopt and conform to a system which they understand, and as they develop in terms of selfgovernment, they will model the parliament and form of government to their own desires and devices.

Question put -

That the words proposed to be left out (Senator McKenna’s amendment) be left out.

The committee divided. (The Chairman - Senator G. C. McKellar.)

AYES: 26

NOES: 30

Majority . . 4

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 7 and 8 agreed to.

Clause 9.

Division 2 of Part V. of the Principal Act is repealed and the following Division inserted in its stead: - “ Division 2. - The House of Assembly. “ 35. There shall be a House of Assembly for the Territory. “ 36.- (1.) The House of Assembly shall consist of sixty-four members, as follows: -

37.- (1.)

” (3.) A person is not qualified to be elected or appointed, or to continue, as a member of the House of Assembly if -

Senator McKENNA:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– I move -

In proposed section 36, leave out sub-section (1.), insert: - “ (1.) The House of Assembly shall consist of -

eighty-eight members elected by electors of the Territory; and

until the House otherwise provides, ten members, not being indigenous inhabitants of the Territory, elected by electors of the Territory.”.

Under the existing act, the present Legislative Council has 37 members - the Administrator, fourteen official members, twelve elected members, six of whom must be indigenous people of Papua and New Guinea, and ten nominees, at least five of whom, I think, must be indigenous people of Papua and New Guinea. The Government -proposes, by means of this bill, to increase the total membership from 37 to 64, to be made up by ten official members, 44 members elected by indigenous people of Papua and New Guinea, and ten members elected bynon-indigenous residents of Papua and New Guinea.

The Opposition proposes, by means of this amendment, to double the number of elected indigenous representatives to 88. One of the purposes of choosing this number is to avoid destroying the concept of the electorates already marked out, whether tentatively or firmly. It would be a matter only of dividing each of those electorates in two. We propose that there shall be 88 representatives elected by the indigenous people of Papua and New Guinea and ten members, not indigenous inhabitants of the Territory, elected by the electors of the Territory over the whole area on a common roll. The proposal that we make was supported by the Foot mission. That mission originated the idea of having approximately 100 members, and it considered that five - and five only - should be official members. That proposal was confirmed by the United Nations Trusteeship Council, by the Fourth Committee of the United Nations General Assembly and by the General Assembly itself.

In this matter, the Government relies upon the select committee of the present Legislative Council, which supported the proposal for only 44 elected indigenous members. The committee, however, pointed out that it settled on the number “44” because the people whose views were obtained feared that a larger number would mean self-government. The proposal that the committee was considering - a proposal that we do not oppose in principle - was that the indigenous people simply be given representation. They are to get nothing like self-government. Indeed, they will be an exceedingly long way from that, having regard to the veto of the Administrator, the veto of the Governor-General and the general power for disallowance of measures passed by the proposed House of Assembly. The factor that animated the local people - a factor that was accepted by the select committee and endorsed by this Government - was a fear that is completely baseless.

One other thought that we have in mind is that one learns to swim only by taking to the water. The Foot mission believed that there could be found quite easily 100 indigenous persons competent enough and articulate enough to represent their people. Those of my colleagues .who have been to New Guinea also are of that opinion. The quickest way to train the indigenous people, as I have pointed out, is to put them in the water, as it were, and let them try to swim. We believe that an adequate number of capable persons would be available to represent the indigenous people efficiently. The advantage of having 88 representatives instead of 44 would be that, with the greater number of members, they could more adequately attend to the needs of the various electorates.

It has been suggested that this would be too costly. That suggestion was made by the native people, but when we have regard to the fact that, in a later amendment, we propose that £1,500 per annum should be paid to each member, and if we take it that there will be 100 members, we see that a sum of £150,000 would be required to cover the whole assembly for a year. After all, the House of Assembly would be handling a budget of some £28,000,000 or £29,000,000 per annum. The cost of the House of Assembly would represent a really insignificant proportion of the Budget at that level. The surest way to train the people of Papua and New Guinea, for whom we are responsible, in independence is to give them opportunities. The more they are brought together in common activity for the common good, the greater the contribution we make to the ultimate goal of national unity. Of course, that is the great objective and it is the hardest to attain, having regard to the variety of people there are in the Territory.

I am reminded of a statement made at page 41 of the Foot report, to which I referred at an earlier stage of the debate. The Foot mission stated that it had found in some quarters a tendency not to urge the need for progress and speed and initiative but rather to emphasize the remaining difficulties and disadvantages, and sometimes to emphasize what should not be done rather than what should be done. The Opposition finds in this proposal of the Government an element of that tendency.- Far more reasons are sought for stating why things should not be done than for why they should be done.

I repeat that, in this situation, the Government should unquestionably be leading and not waiting for the formation of public opinion ‘in the Territory to push it into action. We consider that that is most unwise and a dangerous path for the Government to follow. It should be ahead of the average level of contemporary thought by quite a considerable period. With those thoughts, I commend the amendment to the committee.

Senator PALTRIDGE:
Minister for Civil Aviation · Western Australia · LP

– I have to advise the committee that this amendment is not acceptable to the Government. As has been observed by the Leader of the Opposition (Senator McKenna), the bill is based quite firmly on the recommendations of the select committee. The select committee had before it the proposals of the United Nations visiting mission. Its recommendation was not only its own judgment of what would be workable and desirable but was also a judgment, in the light of the proposals of the visiting mission, based on the opinions of local people who were well qualified to judge. Paragraph 9 of the first interim report of the select committee states -

With one exception, all of the people interviewed wished to see an increase in the number of Members of the Council on the ground that the present electorates were too large to allow the necessary contact between Members and their electors. Non-indigenes also favoured greater representation of indigenes because of their population majority. On the other hand there wasa definite feeling against too large a membership and only four favoured a Council of 100 representatives, the main reasons given being . . .

These are the reasons which were given, not the committee’s comments - that such a council would be irresponsible, too unwieldy to be of any great educative value and full of talk instead of work, that at the moment there were probably not 100 indigenes capable of successfully carrying out duties as Legislative Councillors and that a Council with so many Members would be unnecessarily costly. Attempts by your Committee to modify this attitude were of no avail. The indigenous members of your Committee are of the opinion that a council of 100 is associated in the people’s minds with selfgovernment which the people appear to fear and say they do not want at this stage.

The proposal in the amendment that the ten official members should be removed at this stage, before fully responsible government is introduced, raises the problem of who is to act in the role of a minister and who is to take responsibility for introducing bills, answering questions about administration and presenting the budget.

At any stage short of fully responsible government it is necessary to have in the legislature people who have official responsibility, who can stand up to criticism and who are in a position to speak on behalf of the executive government and take charge of government legislation. They must be in a position to explain the reasons for it and to accept, or refuse to accept, amendments. The United Nations visiting mission recognized this and stated in paragraph 214 of its report -

We suggest that it will be essential for the present to retain in the House a number of officials who will be in the early stages at least responsible for the presentation of draft legislation and financial proposals such as the annual budget.

The mission suggested that the number of official members should be five, but, as in other provisions of the bill, the advice of the select committee has been preferred to that of the visiting mission. With regard to the proposal that the ten elected non- indigenous members should be retained only until the House of Assembly provides otherwise, the second-reading speech which I made when the bill was introduced in the Senate contained assurances that, in keeping with the recommendation of the select committee, the arrangement would be reviewed before the election next after the one in March of 1964. The relevant paragraph of the select committee’s report is paragraph 1 6 (v) of the first interim report.

Senator McKENNA:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– I have one brief comment to make on what the Minister has said. He asked: Who would present bills in the House of Assembly in the absence of officers? The conception of the Opposition is that officers could attend committee meetings. I should hope that this House of Assembly would break up into committees as a part of the training of members. There is no reason why officers should not attend and explain the nature of measures and answer questions. There would be no difficulty in that respect. The members of the Administrator’s Council could act in a formal way as Ministers in relation to bills. I invite the Minister to consider that there should be, on the part of the Government, real encouragement of the committee system in the House of Assembly as one of the best means of training the men who will constitute that body.

Question put -

That the words proposed to be left out (Senator McKenna’s amendment) be left out.

The committee divided. (The Chairman - Senator G. C. McKellar.)

AYES: 26

NOES: 30

Majority . . 4

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Amendment negatived.

Senator McKENNA:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– I move -

In proposed section 37, sub-section (3.), leave out “ to be elected or appointed, or “.

This clause provides that a person is not qualified to be elected or appointed or to continue as a member of the House of Assembly if, first, he is an undischarged bankrupt or insolvent or, secondly - I paraphrase this - if he is under sentence of death or is undergoing imprisonment for an offence for which he could be imprisoned for a year or longer. The Opposition recognizes that a similar provision was in the 1949 act with which Labour initiated the Legislative Council, as it was then called. We are aware that it is included in the Constitution of the Commonwealth in section 44.

The Opposition puts the view that there may be different conditions in Papua and New Guinea, first of all regarding bankrupts. There are grave seasonal disturbances from time to time and volcanic eruptions. A person may be bankrupt through an act of God, due to activity in nature of that type. It was felt that in such circumstances it was reasonable enough to provide that a man should not continue if, for instance, he became bankrupt. But if in the by-election he stood again while still undischarged from his bankruptcy and the electors had knowledge that he was a bankrupt and knew also that there was no moral turpitude involved in the bankruptcy, he should not be debarred from being elected again. Every one would know about his bankruptcy and the reason for it.

Turning to the questions of imprisonment and of being under sentence of death, the latter presents some difficulty. As to imprisonment, my attention has been directed to the fact that numbers of great men have led their nations after spending long periods in gaol for political offences. I indicate to the committee that if in the Territory there was a provision similar to that in our Crimes Act, where after the declaration of an emergency in interstate trade anybody who went on strike for a day in defiance of a “ back-to-work “ order could be imprisoned for a year - he may be committed to gaol for only one week, but he would be liable to one year’s imprisonment - a person would be in the difficulties envisaged under this bill. He could not be elected or appointed at a time when he was so undergoing imprisonment. It is felt that in situations such as those I have mentioned the people should be allowed to judge.

Senator Wright:

– Is it part of your amendment to eliminate the disqualification of bankrupts?

Senator McKENNA:

– No; it is part of our amendment that he should be free to be elected or appointed, but if he goes bankrupt after election, he should not continue and should resubmit himself to the people for them to judge at the by-election.

Senator Vincent:

– While still undischarged?

Senator McKENNA:

– That is right. I concede the difference in our own act of 1949 and even in our own Constitution. I have already referred to that. I leave the amendment with those comments.

Senator PALTRIDGE:
Minister for Civil Aviation · Western Australia · LP

. -This amendment was considered by the Minister when submitted in another place and was rejected for the following reasons: The amendment ‘is unworkable in its present form as, although under it a bankrupt or convicted person would not be disqualified from being a candidate for election, as soon .as he took his seat he would be disqualified from continuing as a member.

The disqualification does not apply to a person who has in the past been bankrupt and has been discharged or who has been convicted in the past and has served his sentence, but to a person who is an undischarged bankrupt or who is a convicted person under sentence or undergoing imprisonment. Concern about the possibility of political offences should be directed at ensuring that the laws of the country do not provide for improper convictions for such offences and not at disqualification from the legislature. The provision in the bill has exactly the same effect as that provided for members of the Commonwealth Parliament by section 44 of the Constitution.

Senator WILLESEE:
Western Australia

– The only thing that brings me to my feet is that the amendment does carry all the weaknesses of our own act. I think that there are a lot of difficulties in our amendment, but there are two angles that ought to be kept well in mind. First, as Senator McKenna remarked, many great leaders throughout the world - from Ireland to Indonesia - have served long terms of imprisonment and have risen to play important roles in the leadership of their nations. The possibility, which we talked about earlier, of pressures that could come from Asian countries, ought to be watched.

I do not want to develop my second point at this late hour, but the Minister may be prepared to make a note of what I say. It always seems peculiar to me that a bankrupt can nominate for an election, go through all the procedure of the election, but finally after winning the election he cannot take his seat. It seems strange to me that the electoral machinery is such that his oponent can be in a position of fighting an election which he cannot lose. I could mention a couple of sad cases but to do so to-night would be out of order. It ought not to be beyond the wit of man to prevent a person - by statutory declaration if necessary - from taking part in the election in the first place. I agree that there are difficulties associated with this. The Opposition has considered the position and because we are worried about the circumstances and can envisage the troubles that might arise, we bring the matter before the Government for its consideration.

Amendment negatived.

Senator PALTRIDGE:
Minister for Civil Aviation · Western Australia · LP

– I move -

In proposed section 37, sub-section (4.) leave out paragraph (a), insert (he following paragraph: - “ (a) he is absent at all times during each of three consecutive meetings of the House of Assembly, and permission has not been granted to him by the House to be absent from any of those meetings; or”.

After sub-section (4.) of proposed section thirtyseven, insert the following sub-section: - “ ‘ (4a.) For the purposes of paragraph (a) of the last preceding sub-section, a meeting of the House of Assembly commences when the House first sits following a general election, a prorogation of the House or an adjournment of the House otherwise than for a period of less than seven days and ends when next the House is either prorogued or adjourned otherwise than for a period of less than seven days.”.

The amendment is simple and is for the purpose of tidying up the clause. Proposed new paragraph (a) makes it clear that the disqualification provided by the sub-section arises from absence without leave for each of three consecutive meetings of the House and for the whole of those meetings. The effect of the proposed new sub-section (4a.) is to define a meeting as a series of sitting days following each calling together of the council. This removes any possibility of the provision being interpreted as a disqualification by reason of absence for three consecutive sitting days.

Senator Wright:

– What is the history of the amendment?

Senator PALTRIDGE:

– The matter was first raised by the submission of an amendment in another place. The Minister for Territories (Mr. Hasluck) gave an undertaking at that time that he would have a look at the amendment to see how far he could go to meet the proposal.

Senator Wright:

– I am amazed that a disqualification clause so common as this was not provided in the first instance.

Senator McKENNA:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– I am glad the point has emerged that this matter was initiated by an Opposition amendment in another place. The position was obscure. It seemed to be too tight when we talked about an absence for three meetings. The actual form of Labour’s amendment was not acceptable to the Government. I find the amendment moved by the Minister quite acceptable and accordingly I shall not proceed with amendment No. 5 circulated in my name. This is, in fact, the fifth amendment that the Minister for Territories has been prepared to accept.

Senator Wright:

– That is not a reflection upon him.

Senator McKENNA:

– I completely agree. I intended to compliment the Minister for Territories upon having accepted so many amendments. Let me also rectify an omission that I made from an earlier speech on this matter. I should like also to compliment the Minister on his presentation of the bill, with explanatory memorandums on clauses, statistics on every aspect of life in New Guinea, and a very interesting booklet upon life in the Territory. I am delighted with the presentation of the bill generally, particularly in view of what I was forced to say about the presentation of another bill not very long ago by the Minister for Labour and National Service (Mr. McMahon).

I found the wording of proposed subsection (4a) a little difficult to follow for a while, and I am intrigued to know how the less sophisticated members of the House of Assembly will interpret the latter portion of it. It deals with the determination of the beginning and end of a session in relation to an adjournment. I have taken it that a meeting commences after an adjournment for seven days or more and that it ends after an adjournment for seven days or more. Without being critical of the draftsman in any way, I suggest he has expressed the matter in a reverse and rather interesting way. I am not attributing any fault to the draftsman in this matter but I just wonder how many of the inhabitants of Papua and New Guinea will understand many of these provisions which are most vital to them. I would think that a particular effort should be made to reduce everything relainR to their legislature to very easily absorbable - if that is the correct word - terms. I am happy to say that I can now forgo my amendment No. 5, and to indicate that the Opposition accepts the amendment noved by the Minister.

Amendment agreed to.

Senator McKENNA:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– I move -

After proposed section 38 insert the following new section: - “ 38a. Until the House of Assembly otherwise provides, each member shall receive an allowance of one thousand five hundred pounds a year as from the day on which he is elected.”.

The purpose of this proposal is to determine the salary of members of the House of Assembly at £1,500 per annum. I gathered from what the Minister for Territories (Mr. Hasluck) has said that at present members of the Legislative Council receive £10 10s. a day for sitting days or when travelling to and from council meetings, £1 a day for incidental expenses, while travelling, in addition to the actual cost of accommodation, and an electorate allowance of £200. The average salary of members has been from £543- to £795 a year. Those are not very large sums having regard to the fact that many people in Papua and New Guinea engaged as teachers or working for the Administration earn in the vicinity of £1,000 a year. It may be expected that with some real inducement those latter people to whom I have referred may be the ones to seek appointment to the Assembly but they will be reluctant to do so if it means taking a reduction in salary. We feel that the figure we suggest is right for the moment and that any future figure could be determined by the Assembly itself, subject always to the right of veto.

Senator Vincent:

– What proportion of the existing allowance is taxable?

Senator McKENNA:

– I cannot answer that. You must direct that query to the Minister. I do not think, having regard to the terrain of the country and the circumstances under which members would serve - having regard to the numerous widely separated tribes - that it would be overgenerous to provide £1,500 by way of salary to a man who was prepared to devote himself full time to his duties.

Senator Vincent:

– I was wondering whether £700 free of tax might be more remunerative than what you are suggesting.

Senator McKENNA:

– I do not know. I would be inclined to think that the £1,500 would be liable to tax. About £8,000.000 is collected in the- Territory and I imagine that most of that must come from taxes. I do not see how much of it could come from customs duty.

Senator Paltridge:

– I am informed that if £1,500 was the member’s only income it would not be taxable. It would fall within the exemption.

Senator McKENNA:

– Well, there is some virtue in that, but even with that concession I would argue that £1,500 is not too much to offer in order to attract the better type of Papuan or New Guinean who would devote himself to his duties.

Senator Wright:

– How are salaries fixed now - by act of this Parliament?

Senator McKENNA:

– No, I understand they are fixed by an ordinance of the Legislative Council.

Senator Wright:

– Then I would suspect the motives of the amendment as being an attempt to ingratiate the Labour Party with the New Guinea legislature.

Senator McKENNA:

– All I can say is that Senator Wright has a very suspicious mind. As a mere upholder of our own Constitution, I remind him, that an external body actually fixed our salaries in this Parliament at the beginning of federation and left it to us to vary them thereafter.

Senator Wright:

– Yes, adopting the precise words of the convention that was voted on by the Australian people.

Senator McKENNA:

– Quite so, but the fact remains that an external body to the Commonwealth of Australia took that course. I do not think it is desirable to hand the new constitution to a body with a greatly augmented membership and leave it to members of that body to initiate their own salaries. We should be prepared to do what was done in our case. We should be prepared to nominate an amount. The Minister has suggested that this matter might await the determination of Public Service salaries, which I understand is imminent. I consider there is no need to wait for that. This salary can be adjusted. Apparently salaries approaching the figure that we have mentioned are being paid already to Papuans qualified for administrative and teaching positions. The salary may be adjusted upwards or downwards at will, but I think we should be prepared to indicate what we think the salaries should be. What is £150,000 in a budget of £28,000,000 or £29,000,000? The sum is utterly insignificant.

I object very strongly to the imputation made by Senator Wright. I do not know that there are any political parties in the Territory. I am prepared to say that there are no Labour Party activities that I know of. I do not like the honorable senator’s suggestion that our amendment is designed for political purposes. My mind was so far removed from the thought that we were attempting to ingratiate ourselves with the Papuans by this proposal that I frankly did not understand what the honorable senator meant when he said he was suspicious.

Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania

– If the present position is that it has been left to the immature legislature that exists in the Territory by ordinance to fix the emoluments of its members, the amendment seems to me to be an oddity and incongruous with the professed purposes of the Labour Party in relation to this bill, advocating, as it does, that the representatives of the people should have the right to legislate for all matters affecting their Territory. Why should the Opposition in this chamber single out the emoluments of members of that legislature as a matter for legislation by this Parliament? I feel that it is such an intrusion into the experience of the past and so inappropriate to the idea of advancing representation in the Territory, which involves the principle that the legislature there should have the right to legislate in all these matters, that I stand by my suggestion that I think it is only an attempt to ingratiate the Opposition in this chamber with the members of the legislature in the Territory.

Senator COLE:
Leader of the Australian Democratic Labour Party · Tasmania

– I support the amendment. We are setting out to do something new, and the person who takes the job of a member of the legislature should be worthy of his hire. Otherwise the whole thing becomes a farce. The member’s salary should be set just as anybody’s salary is. I am impressed by the fact that when I entered this Parliament my salary was £1 ,500. The people in the Territory are starting something new in the way of parliamentary government and £1,500 a year has been suggested as the figure that should be paid to them. I think that figure is within reason. To base salaries of members of the legislature on the amounts paid to other indigenes would lead to the payment of very small salaries. The members will be representatives of their race. Their salaries should be commensurate with the work they do. They will be members of parliament and they should be treated as such. We can give them their necessary standing in the community only by giving them a decent salary. This will be a salary commensurate with the job. We in this Parliament, who are making all the other provisions, should fix the salary and not just leave it to be fixed by ordinance or in accordance with a suggestion from the Minister. There is quite a lot to be said for the amendment.

Senator PALTRIDGE:
Minister for Civil Aviation · Western Australia · LP

– I think that I can put Senator Cole considerably at case right away by telling him that the Minister for Territories (Mr. Hasluck) has already given an assurance that the determination will be made before nominations are called for the next election and that the emoluments will be uniform for all members, other than official members, who will receive only a nominal amount. He gave that assurance a few days ago in another place against the background of the existing position to which reference has been made. Emoluments are in fact already fixed by ordinance. I think that the Leader of the Opposition (Senator McKenna) refered to most of them. They include £10 10s. a day sitting fee and cost of accommodation, plus an incidental allowance of £1 a day for time occupied travelling to and from meetings. In addition, there is an electorate allowance of £200. It is proposed that provision for fees for the House of Assembly will also be made by or under ordinance, as has been the case with the old council.

Senator Cole:

– That is only payment in the manner in which a committee would be paid.

Senator PALTRIDGE:

– No. I have given the old fees - £10 10s. a day and the other payments to which I have referred. The select committee of the Legislative

Council, to which I have referred repeatedly throughout the evening, considered this matter but it concluded that it was linked with the larger question of the Territory’s new economy and the salary proposals of the new public service now being worked out by the Public Service Commissioner. These new proposals are for a public service based on local conditions and with salary scales related to the capacity of the Territory economy to pay, assisted by an ancillary divison staffed by expatriate public servants.

The select committee made no specific recommendation on the remuneration for members, as it expected that the new public service salaries would set the pattern for wage levels in the Territory, but it remarked that it considered in general that the electorate allowance should be raised, the sitting fee should be lowered and further provision should be made for travelling expenses when the members are engaged on electorate matters. The present indigenous elected members have received total emoluments over the past two years ranging from £1,087 to £1,660. It is considered to be premature at this stage, until the salaries of the reconstructed public service have been determined, to make any judgment either as to the amount to be paid or as to the form in which the payments should be made to members of the House of Assembly. I repeat that the Minister has already given the assurance that the determination will be made before nominations are called for the next election. In those circumstances the Government does not accept the amendment.

Senator WILLESEE:
Western Australia

– It is apparent that the mere moving of this amendment in another place has had a good effect, because the Minister’s reading of the notes on behalf of the Minister for Territories (Mr. Hasluck) arose from the fact that we were disturbed at such a great difference between payments to members. At the same time, I believe that this matter should be given much more serious consideration than it has been given. I am glad that the Government, as represented by Senator Paltridge to-night, does not read into the proposed amendment the motives that Senator Wright sees in it. The Minister does not impute such motives to us, because he is a little more realistic. He understands how the bill will be finally presented to the Parliament of New Guinea. He does not suggest that we are trying to ingratiate ourselves with’ the people of New Guinea.

Senator Wright should know a little more about the position. Does he imagine that the whole of these debates will be read out in the Territory House of Assembly? All that it will finally get is the act itself. There will be no underlinings to indicate the way in which the bill has been amended. Senator McKenna said that Senator Wright had a suspicious mind. As a result of Senator Wright’s behaviour of the past few days I am wondering whether or not he has lost his mind altogether. He says that the proposal is incongruous and not in keeping with the general approach of the bill. Of course, the reverse is the case. Throughout the debate an effort has been made to achieve two things, first, to make the legislature as nearly as possible a fulltime Parliament, and secondly, to lay down the final framework of the House of Assembly in Port Moresby. We are aware of the situation. We have tried to increase the numbers. We must make it abundantly, crystal clear that these are to be full-time members representing very difficult electorates, without the aid of good roads, air services that are in any way comparable with what we have in Australia, or good telephone services and with the problem of 700 different languages. It is quite probable that some of these representatives will not be able even to speak the languages of all of the people that they represent.

Far from proposing to depart from precedent, as Senator Wright suggests, our amendment is completely appropriate for the purpose of laying down that these shall be full-time representatives. We consider that they are worthy of a decent salary we do not think that the salary that we propose is extravagant. As Senator McKenna pointed out, this procedure is in accordance with that which was followed by the English Parliament in relation to the Australian Parliament. It is quite true, as Senator Wright said, on the one occasion when he was on the ball to-day, that this was in accordance with recommendations of the conventions prior to 1900. Never theless, the procedure was approved by the United Kingdom Parliament, and we have a complete precedent for it.

I am hardly reassured by what the Minister has said. It is most important that plenty of prior notice be given in order to attract people to serve in the Parliament of the Territory, but the conditions should not be laid down in the manner in which they have been laid down. I hope that there will be a departure from the system of merely paying sitting fees, so that we may inculcate the idea that these are to be full-time representatives of their people. In the circumstances, I support . the amendment moved by the Leader of the Opposition.

Question put -

That the words proposed to be inserted (Sena tor McKenna’s amendment) be inserted.

The committee divided. (The Chairman - Senator G. C. McKellar.)

AYES: 27

NOES: 29

Majority . . . . 2

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Senator McKENNA:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– I move -

Leave out proposed section 48, insert: “48. (I) The power, privileges and immunities of the House of Assembly and of its members and committees shall be such as are declared by the House and until declared by the House shall be those of the House of Representatives of the Parliament of the Commonwealth at the date of commencement of this Act.

The House of Assembly may provide for the manner in which its powers, privileges and immunities may be endorsed or upheld.”.

This amendment relates to the privileges, powers and immunities of the proposed new House of Assembly. This, too, is an amendment originated by the Opposition in another place. No provision for this type of thing had been made in the bill, but the Minister for Territories (Mr. Hasluck) acknowledged that some provision should be made. He did not adopt the exact form of the amendment proposed by the Opposition, but included what is now proposed new section 48, part of clause 9. I particularly invite the Minister to note the grounds of the Opposition’s objection to the Government’s proposal. They are two-fold. The bill now states that the new House of Assembly can declare its powers, privileges and immunities but may not go further, in declaring them, than those that existed in the House of Commons at the commencement of federation - in other words, back in 1901.

My first comment on that is that we in this Parliament, under our Constitution, had our powers, privileges and immunities declared, in exactly the same way, to be those operative, at the commencement of the Commonwealth, in the House of Commons. So we get the date 1st January, 1901. We, in this august national Parliament, have never had the wit, the energy or the ability to declare one of our own powers, privileges or immunities. We have never acted. I suppose there would be no more difficult task to undertake than to sit down and, with complete precision and accuracy, define the powers, privileges and immunities of the House of Commons in 1901. Yet we ask this immature legislature either to do this for itself or have nothing. That is what this provision proposes. This legislature will have as much as it declares and until it does declare it has nothing. Then we say to members of this legislature, “ When you do start to declare, do not go any higher than the level set by the House of Commons at 1st January, 1901 “. Is it not a psychologically bad approach to a new legislature, in this world of misunderstanding of Australia and its motives that we very often face, to say to the new body, before the world, “ Go back to 1st January, 1901, and the House of Commons “? If we said, as we propose in our amendment, “ Go back to the powers, privileges and immunities of the House of Representatives as at the date of commencement of this act “, we would say exactly the same thing, in effect, but at least we would bring the matter up to date and make it look a bit decent before the world. Is there any body in the committee who can applaud the proposition that these politically immature people shall have no definition of their powers, privileges or immunities unless they undertake it themselves - a task that we have not considered ourselves capable of attempting in 63 years?

I will read to the committee what we propose in lieu of the Government’s proposal. Surely it is common sense. Our proposed new section 48 (1.) means that the powers, privileges and immunities of the House of Assembly and its members and committees shall be such as are declared by the House, and until declared by the House, shall be those of the House of Representatives of the Parliament of the Commonwealth at the date of the commencement of the act. At least, we would then say to the new legislature: “ You have our privileges. You have something to work on “. We would put it in a form far more preferable from the public relations viewpoint of Australia’s dealings with these people. It will stagger me if members of the committee cannot see the importance of that alteration and if the Government is not, on consideration, prepared to accept it. I concede to the Government that I have adopted and purloined the full effect of paragraph (b) of the Government’s proposed new section 48. That was not in the Opposition’s original amendment. It was an improvement. This is one amendment that the Opposition puts forward with real strength. We think it a grave mistake to set this new body afloat without any powers, without any privileges and without any immunities until it declares them.

Senator Vincent:

– Do you argue that the proposed legislative body should not have the right to declare its powers? Are you arguing that this Parliament of the Commonwealth should actually do that? I suggest that that should be a matter for the legislative chamber itself.

Senator McKENNA:

– Will the honorable senator look at our proposed new section 48? It states that the powers, privileges and immunities shall be as declared by the House of Assembly. We give the new body the power and we give it something to work on. We go further, and say, “ Until you do declare them, they are the same as those applicable in the House of Representatives in Canberra “. To paraphrase the Government’s proposal, it begins by saying that the powers, privileges and immunities shall be such as the House of Assembly declares. But if the House does not declare - and it would have grave difficulty in the task - it has none. If it does declare, it cannot go any higher than the House of Commons at 1st January, 1901.

Senator Vincent:

– You say it should have full power to declare any power, privilege or immunity?

Senator McKENNA:

– Let us be clear about this: Both the Government’s proposal and the Opposition’s amendment give them complete power to declare anything. The Government puts a limit on what they can do.

Senator Vincent:

– Limited discretion.

Senator McKENNA:

– Unlimited power subject always to the power of veto of the Administrator and the Governor-General. So it cannot get out of hand. It is not a power which can be wielded rationally by this immature body. If the Opposition amendment is adopted they will not declare anything. They will rest exactly as we do on the 1901 practice of the House of Commons. What a task to throw at this body, as we propose to do, a task that we have never attempted ourselves. If they do not declare, they have no immunities or privileges. I would say that in a legislative body the first consideration is that it should be adequately protected as to its utterances. Surely we have a duty to make sure, until they get to the stage of declaring their immunities and privileges, that they are covered. I do not believe that they will ever get to the stage of declaring them. We never have. I hope that the Minister will give real consideration to that argument.

Senator PALTRIDGE:
Minister for Civil Aviation · Western Australia · LP

– Fortunately the Leader of the Opposition (Senator McKenna) gave me notice of his proposed amendments and I have had an opportunity to discuss them with the Minister for Territories (Mr. Hasluck). First, it should be stated that the amendment which was written into the bill last week by the Minister is similar to the provision made for the Northern Territory Legislative Council by the Parliament as recently as last year. In discussion of the bill in the House of Representatives the Minister said -

The big advantage that we claim for our amendment is that the House of Assembly of the Territory, having defined by ordinance its own powers and privileges, would be able to ascertain much more readily what those powers, privileges and immunities are than ;’if it had to go back and discover in each instance what were the powers, privileges and immunities of the House of Commons in 1901.

I am sure that honorable members with some acquaintance with May’s “ Parliamentary Practice” will know the wide search that has te be made with the assistance of the Clerks if on any occasion we want to know what were the powers, privileges and immunities of the House of Commons in 1901. Do we want to impose that rather tedious burden of study on these newly-fledged members of the House of Assembly of the Territory? It would seem to be much easier to allow them by ordinance passed by themselves to specify those provisions which seem to be applicable to their own situation, and having specified them by ordinance, to be able to have ready reference to them.

We oppose the amendment proposed by the Opposition.

Senator COHEN:
Victoria

– The Minister’s explanation does not really meet the point of Senator McKenna’s proposed amendment. The explanation completely overlooks the fact that although the amendment accepted by the Minister for Territories (Mr. Hasluck) would give the House of Assembly the power to make ordinances, it is not true to say that the House of Assembly would be at large. It could only make ordinances insofar as the powers sought did not exceed those which the House of Commons had at the turn of the century. The only way in which you could determine whether they exceeded the powers which the House of Commons had at the turn of the century would be to discover what the House of Commons powers were at that time. There would not be any way of knowing whether the House of Assembly had exceeded its own powers to make ordinances except by ascertaining precisely what the privileges of the House of Commons were at the turn of the century. The Minister has failed completely to meet the point. The difference between the Minister’s proposal and Senator McKenna’s proposal is not merely the difference between Tweedledum and Tweedledee; it is the difference between mumbo-jumbo and common sense. I suggest that the common sense of the matter lies clearly in Senator McKenna’s amendment. He proposes that until the House of Assembly makes provision for privileges, the privileges shall be those that the House of Representatives of this Parliament possesses at this time.

Senator Mattner:

– According to Senator McKenna our existing privileges are exactly the same as they were in 1901.

Senator COHEN:

– What he is saying is that at the date of commencement of this act -

Senator Mattner:

– We have not been game to tackle it.

Senator COHEN:

– That may be so, but it is time that you did tackle it. It is nothing to the point to say, as the Minister for Territories does, that this was provided for in some bill relating to the Northern Territory in the recent past. The Minister has put forward an amendment to the bill and the Leader of the Opposition in this chamber has put forward something which makes much more sense. Why will not the Minister accept the Opposition’s amendment?

Senator VINCENT:
Western Australia

– I cannot pass over this aspect lightly. I stand to be corrected by the Minister, but I would assume that the reason for the proposal - I think Senator McKenna gave us the clue - is that the powers, privileges and immunities of the House of Representatives of the Commonwealth would be most difficult to prescribe and to find. I think the honorable senator will agree with me there.

Senator McKenna:

– They are those of the House of Commons of 1901. The problem arises in finding out what they are.

Senator VINCENT:

– If that is so, surely it is more logical to turn to the origin of the powers so that there will be no misunderstanding about them. I would assume that a little research into May’s “ Parliamentary Practice “ -

Senator McKenna:

– A lot of research.

Senator VINCENT:

– I admit that. I would assume that research into May’s “ Parliamentary Practice “ would indicate the powers of the House of Commons. Whether they are the actual powers now enjoyed by the House of Representatives might be a different proposition. It might be safer to go back to the fountain of these powers than to take them second-hand.

Question put -

That the words proposed to be left out (Senator McKenna’s amendment) be left out.

The committee divided. (The Chairman - Senator G. C. McKellar.)

AYES: 26

NOES: 29

Majority . . . . 3

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative-

Amendment negatived.

Senator McKENNA (Tasmania - Leader of the Opposition [2.54 a.m.]. - by leave - I move -

In proposed section 54, sub-section (2.) leave out “ thereupon “, insert “ within seven days of such presentation “.

In proposed section 54, sub-section (3.) after “ Administrator “ insert “ within twenty-eight days after such presentation”.

This relates to the power of veto. The purpose of the amendment is to make sure that the Administrator will deal expeditiously with bills that are submitted to him for assent. If the committee will look at sub-section (2.) of proposed new section 54 it will note that there is an obligation upon the Administrator, “ thereupon “, that is on the submission of a bill for assent, to declare one of three things - that he assents, that he withholds assent, or that he reserves the bill for the Governor-General’s pleasure. The Minister for Territories indicated in another place that he would accept some qualifying or limiting words after the word “ thereupon “ and the Opposition is now proposing that the word “ thereupon “ be left out and the words “ within seven days of such presentation “ be inserted. We propose to leave him a little elbow room.

The second amendment we have proposed obliges the Administrator, if he is going to return an ordinance to the assembly with amendments, to do so within 28 days. If the committee reads the clause it will find that there is no time limit imposed on the Administrator at all. It merely provides that the Administrator may return the ordinance to the House of Assembly with amendments that he recommends. We propose that he should be tied to doing that within 28 days of having the ordinance presented to him. There would appear to be need for this because there have been instances in which action by the Administrator has been delayed for up to eight or nine months. This has occurred in relation to an industrial ordinance and an industrial relations ordinance in the Territory. As recently as last year there was such an instance. On that occasion, there was a delay from March, 1962, until March, 1963. Therefore, we submit that some limitation is needed.

Senator PALTRIDGE:
Western Australia · LP

– The proposed amendments are not acceptable to the Government. The period of seven days would replace a requirement that the Administrator act “ thereupon “ after presentation of an ordinance to him. In most cases the Administrator would act within seven days. There could be circumstances in which this period was unduly rigid. For example, he might be held up while travelling, or he might want to call his Administrator’s Council together and discuss an ordinance. The effect of imposing such a rigid time limit could be that an ordinance would lapse for want of assent since the Administrator’s power to assent would terminate at the end of seven days and an ordinance is of no effect unless it is assented to in accordance with the terms of section (53).

The provision for 28 days for return of an ordinance to the House of Assembly is somewhat inconsistent with the period of seven days proposed to be attached to assent, witholding assent, or reservation, since, in effect, return of an ordinance to the House of Assembly with recommended amendments is one of four alternative courses of action open to the Administrator. The period of 28 days for return of an ordinance to the House of Assembly is in any event unsatisfactory in that the House of Assembly may not be sitting during that period. It should not be regarded as necessary to go beyond the clear expression of intention to the Administrator, by use of the word “ thereupon “, that he is intended to act promptly. If the Administrator is responsible enough to head the executive government in the Territory, he is surely responsible enough to be trusted to comply with the spirit and intention of the provision in the bill that he should act as soon as may be in the circumstances that prevail.

Question put -

That the amendments (Senator McKenna’s) be agreed to.

The committee divided. (The Chairman - Senator G. C. McKellar.)

AYES: 26

NOES: 29

Majority . . . . 3

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Clause 9, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 10 to 14 agreed to.

Title agreed to.

Bill reported with amendments; report adopted.

Bill read a third time.

page 694

PARLIAMENTARY PAPERS BILL 1963

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

Bill (on motion by Senator Gorton) read a first time.

Second Reading

Senator GORTON:
Victoria · LP

, - I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

Sub-section (1.) of section 2 of the Parliamentary Papers Act 1908-1946, provides that it shall be lawful for either the Senate or the House of Representatives to authorize the publication of any document laid before it. The provision is part of the scheme of that act, which is designed to prevent civil or criminal proceedings in respect of publication of parliamentary papers.

The Acts Interpretation Act is at present being amended by the addition of a new provision to the effect that, where any Commonwealth or Territory legislation provides for any document to be tabled or otherwise brought to the attention of either House or both Houses of Parliament, and under the Standing Orders of the House or Houses concerned papers are deemed to be presented to the House if they are delivered to the Clerk of the House and recorded in the records of the proceedings of the House, it is sufficient compliance with that requirement if the document is dealt with in accordance with the Standing Orders of the House or Houses concerned.

The new provision will overcome the difficulty that is placed in the way of the implementation of the revised Standing Orders of the House of Representatives by the use of expressions such as “ lay before “, “ present to “, “ table “ and “ lay on the table of “ in Commonwealth legislation which provides for presentation of documents, as such expressions would otherwise require literal compliance. The amendments to the Acts Interpretation Act will not operate to change the literal meaning of the expressions mentioned where they are used in a provision that does not require documents to be presented. Thus documents delivered to the Clerk of the House or of the Senate and recorded in the Votes and Proceedings or Journals would not be laid before the House concerned within the meaning of section 2 of the Parliamentary Papers Act, unless that section so provided. The purpose of this bill is to make such provision in section 2 of the Parliamentary Papers Act. I commend the bill to the Senate.

Senator McKENNA:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– The Opposition supports the measure.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate.

page 694

EVIDENCE BILL 1963

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

Bill (on motion by Senator Gorton) read a first time.

Second Reading

Senator GORTON:
Minister for the Navy · Victoria · LP

– I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

The purpose of this short bill is to facilitate the proof in courts of law of tariff and other proposals for financial imposition made in Parliament.

The Evidence Act contains a number of provisions designed to enable public matters or documents in the Commonwealth sphere to be proved in courts of law without the necessity of leading oral evidence as to such matters or producing the original documents from proper custody. One of such provisions is section 7, which provides that all documents purporting to be copies of the Votes and Proceedings or Journals or Minutes of either House of the Parliament, or of papers presented to either House of the Parliament, if purporting to be printed by Government Printer, shall on their mere production be admitted as evidence thereof in all courts. The wording of this provision follows closely that of a similar provision in the United Kingdom legislation, which the courts have held to establish the admissibility of journals of Parliament as evidence of what happened in Parliament.

Among matters printed in the Votes and Proceedings of this House are tariff and other proposals for financial imposition moved by a Minister. Such proposals are printed in full and in the case of customs or excise tariffs run into many pages. Each tariff proposal is, in addition to being printed in the Votes and Proceedings, also printed as a separate document by the Government Printer, but those separate documents are at present not evidence in courts of law of proposals printed in them. In order to effect a saving in printing and eliminate delays in the publication of the Votes and Proceedings which occur when large tariff proposals are involved, it is now proposed to discontinue the printing in full of customs and excise tariff proposals in the Votes and Proceedings.

Customs and excise legislation enables new tariffs or alterations of tariffs to be put into effect as from the date on which they are expressed to operate in a tariff proposal introduced in Parliament. Therefore, the fact that an amendment has been proposed has an immediate effect on the rights of persons and it is important that, when evidence of the proposal can be no longer given by production of a copy of Votes and Proceedings because the proposals are no longer printed in that document, it should be possible to give evidence before a court of law of the making and the contents of any such proposal by mere production of some other document. This bill therefore provides that documents purporting to be printed by the Government Printer and to be copies of motions, resolutions or proposed laws moved in, agreed to by, or introduced in a House of Parliament or in a committee of a House, shall on their mere production be admitted as evidence of that fact and of the terms of the motion, resolution or proposed law. Evidence may be given, under section 7 of the Evidence Act, of any amendment to, the abandonment, or withdrawal, of such motions, resolutions, or proposed laws by the mere production of a copy of the “ Votes and Proceedings “ or “ Journals “ of the relevant House, as printed by the Government Printer.

The bill is drawn widely, so as to cover not only tariff proposals but also any other motions, resolutions or proposed laws, including other proposals for financial imposition, such as sales tax, primary industry levies, &c. Under the revised financial procedures of the House of Representatives as approved by that House, some of these proposals may be introduced in future by a bill, instead of a proposed resolution. The bill therefore enables evidence to be given of such proposals by the production of a copy of a bill. Likewise, it may be decided at some future date not to print in full in the Votes of Proceedings, for instance, income tax or sales tax proposals. Should this happen, this bill will enable evidence to be given of such proposals by the production of some other document in which the proposals are printed. I commend the bill to the Senate.

Senator McKENNA:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– The Opposition supports the measure.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate.

page 696

LOAN (AUSTRALIAN NATIONAL AIRLINES COMMISSION) BILL 1963

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

Bill (on motion by Senator Paltridge) read a first time.

page 696

LOAN (QANTAS EMPIRE AIRWAYS LIMITED) BILL 1963

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

Bill (on motion by Senator Paltridge) read a first time.

page 696

ADJOURNMENT

Television

Motion (by Senator Sir William Spooner) proposed -

That the Senate do now adjourn.

Senator BRANSON:
Western Australia

– I am loath to detain the Senate any further at about a quarter-past three in the morning, but I would be even more unpopular if I left my speech until 4 o’clock to-morrow morning. I believe that this issue should be brought before the Senate because we will go into recess shortly and will not reassemble until the Budget is presented. The issue is country television in Western Australia.

Honorable senators. - Oh!

Senator BRANSON:

– It is all right to say “ Oh! “, but this issue is very important to some areas of which Senator Prowse, for instance, is aware. Recently I received a deputation from representatives of the northern ward of the Shire Councils Association in Western Australia. That ward covers a pretty wide area. I think the shires concerned should be placed on record. They are as follows: Coorow, Carnamah, Three Springs, Mingenew, Geraldton, Greenough, Chapman Valley, Northampton, Mullewa, Morawa, Perenjori and the Geraldton Municipal Council.

It is not a small area. It has a population of 24,950 people and embraces about 9,500,000 acres. The wheat production in that area last year was 12,500,000 bushels. The sheep population was 2,000,000, and 18,300,000 lb. of wool was shorn from those sheep last year. This area produces quite a lot of vital overseas credits for Australia.

The Geraldton area in particular and the area south of Coorow receive no mention at all in the Government’s plans for the extension of television. The people in this area resent the fact that so far the Government has ignored their claims for a television service. One of the problems confronting all governments to-day, both State and Federal, is the alarming drift of people from the country to the cities. This sort of treatment aggravates that drift. The people of these areas are reasonable in that they are not asking for a dual service - commercial and national stations operating simultaneousy. They would be quite happy with one service at this point of time because they realize that they have not the population to warrant a commercial station.

That brings me to the section of the Broadcasting and Television Act which deals with the ownership of not more than two stations by any one group. I have suggested in the Senate before, and I bring the suggestion to the attention of the relevant Minister again, that one of the ways in which to overcome the problem of providing television services in isolated areas is to declare them to be isolated areas until such time as the population reaches a figure set by the Government, and, in the meantime, meet their needs by some form of service provided by a translator or repeater station.

All of the reasons that I have advanced in regard to these agricultural areas apply just as strongly to the Kalgoorlie and Boulder area. I have received representations from local authorities in the goldfields area, and also a very strong plea from the responsible Chamber of Mines in Kalgoorlie, seeking a television service for the Kalgoorlie and Boulder area. That area has a population of 21,773 people. It has been one of the greatest producers of overseas credits over the years. From 1886 to 1962, during the lifetime of that goldfield, it produced 63,366,238 fine ounces of gold which was valued at £473,901,056.

Senator Henty:
TASMANIA · LP

– Would you think the people there could buy television sets?

Senator BRANSON:

– They could buy a few. There are 6,000 homes there. I should think that these people would purchase television sets. That would mean an income of £30,000 a year for the Government from television licences. I beg the Minister for Health (Senator Wade) to use his persuasive powers with his Country Party colleague, the Postmaster-General (Mr. Davidson), and urge him to give serious and sympathetic consideration to these two areas when he is preparing estimates of his department’s expenditure for inclusion in the next Budget. The two isolated areas, which are producers of such great wealth, are deserving of a favorable answer to their pleas. I know that, at the end of phase four, about 90 per cent. of the Australian population will have a television service; but this is cold comfort to the people in the Geraldton and Kalgoorlie areas who are included in the 10 per cent. who will not have a television service. I beseech the Minister to urge the Postmaster-General to make provision in the 1963-64 Budget for a television service for these two areas at Geraldton and Kalgoorlie in Western Australia.

Senator WADE:
Minister for Health · Victoria · CP

– Because of the lateness of the hour I content myself by giving Senator Branson an assurance that I shall bring his representations before my colleague, the Postmaster-General.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Senate adjourned at 3.22 a.m. (Thursday).

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 22 May 1963, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1963/19630522_senate_24_s23/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant