Senate
11 September 1968

26^th Parliament · 2^nd Session

DEATH OF THE PRINCESS MAKINA
CZECHOSLOVAKIA
- Petition
QUESTION
- TASMAN1AN’ SHIPPING SERVICES
QUESTION
- HANSARD
QUESTION
- DROUGHT BONDS
QUESTION
- SHIPPING
QUESTION
- GREAT BARRIER REEF
QUESTION
- WEAPONS RESEARCH ESTABLISHMENT
QUESTION
- NAURU !
QUESTION
- BIAFRA
QUESTION
- ANTARCTICA
QUESTION
- NIGERIA
QUESTION
- UREA
QUESTION
- ELECTORAL REDISTRIBUTION
QUESTION
- TULLAMAKINE AIRPORT
QUESTION
- WATERFRONT EMPLOYMENT
QUESTION
- UREA
QUESTION
- TOURIST ACTIVITIES
QUESTION
- UREA
QUESTION
- CREDIT UNIONS
QUESTION
- CLOF1BRATE
QUESTION
- TULLAMAKINE AIRPORT
QUESTION
- SOCIAL SERVICES
QUESTION
- WATERFRONT EMPLOYMENT
QUESTION
- ELECTORAL
QUESTION
- UREA
QUESTION
- VIETNAM
QUESTION
- CIVIL AVIATION
QUESTION
- SHIPPING
QUESTION
- NORFOLK ISLAND
QUESTION
- WAR SERVICE HOMES
QUESTION
- APPLES
QUESTION
- RAILWAYS
QUESTION
- PAPUA AND NEW GUINEA
QUESTION
- NATIONAL SERVICE
SUPERANNUATION
QUESTION
- IMPORTED PEAS AND BEANS
QUESTION
- CZECHOSLOVAKIA
QUESTION
- TELEVISION
IMMIGRATION
WRAPPING MACHINES
- Tariff Board Report
QUESTION
- BUDGET 1968-69
ADJOURNMENT

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Shipping and Transport. I preface it by referring to a statement made by the Minister for Shipping and Transport in another place on 7th May this year. When referring to the ‘Wahine’ disaster, he stated:

As a result of the disaster, it was thought necessary that on each voyage an explanation of safety drill should be made by officers of the Australian National Line on ships’ intercommunications systems.

– Has the MinisterinCharge of Tourist Activities seen a report which recently was presented to the Queensland Government by an overseas expert, Dr Ladd, on various questions affecting the Great Barrier Reef? If so, can the Minister supply the Senate with information on that part of the report which states that it would be safe to allow mining on certain sections of the Reef or information concerning any other sections of the report?

Senator WRIGHT:
Minister for Works · TASMANIA · LP

– I have been provided with a copy of the report to which the honourable senator refers. I was concerned about the nature of the publicity given to it, particularly in the Queensland Press. I think it is fair to say that it is a distortion of the report to suggest that it in any way authorises or approves mining on the Reef. The particular section of the report to which Senator Lawrie referred states:

The discovery of economically valuable oil in other off-shore areas encouraged the belief that oil and gas resources exist beneath the Reef. If such resources are discovered they will certainly be developed, no matter where they lie with relation to existing surface reefs. Petroleum is potentially the Reefs most valuable resource but if development is not properly controlled it could present the greatest of all dangers to the Reef.

Senator RAE:
TASMANIA

– I direct a question to the Minister-in-Charge of Tourist Activities.

With respect to the $5m provided by the Commonwealth Government to Tasmania to construct the Gordon River road, to aid the development of hydro-electric power and to open up a magnificent scenic area, will the Minister advise the Senate whether the Commonwealth was informed that the State Government intended to restrict the use of that road and to impose a road toll upon tourists using that excellent scenic drive? If not, will the Minister inquire into this adverse restriction on the interests of State, interstate and international tourists?

Senator WRIGHT:
LP

– I feel quite sure that the Commonwealth Government would not be informed as to the proposal of the Hydro-electric Commission, under whose control this area is during the period of construction, to impose a road toll for the use of the Gordon River road. I have kept myself informed with regard to this matter and I wish to impart to my colleague that at the moment it is my opinion that the imposition of a road toll does not constitute an undue restriction on tourism. It is a charge made for the proper guarding and custody of the area, so as to ensure that during this period of construction people will be under control and there will be proper supervision. If my colleague has anything to add I shall be pleased to examine the matter further, but in my view it is a reasonable proposition.

Senator MCCLELLAND:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I preface a question which I direct to the MinisterinCharge of Tourist Activities by reminding him that the week before last I raised the question of his Department’s co-operating with the Cooma Municipal Council in the distribution of literature to encourage servicemen on rest and recreation leave to proceed to that district. The Minister told me at the time that he would soon be visiting Cooma and would discuss the matter with local government authorities in the district. I now ask him: Did he in fact proceed to Cooma? Did he have discussions with the Cooma municipal authority? Is he now prepared to indicate whether or not his Department is willing to co-operate with the local government authority in helping to attract people to the district in order to overcome or help to overcome many of the economic consequences facing the area as a result of disbandment by the Government of the Snowy Mountains Authority?

Senator WRIGHT:

– I had the very great pleasure of visiting the Cooma district last Thursday and Friday in company with my colleague, Mr Dugald Munro who represents the electorate of Eden-Monaro, and of attending a very enjoyable social function. I received a deputation from Mr Johnson and his colleagues in the Cooma Municipal Council who take a great interest in the tourist aspect. It was explained to me that the Council’s request was that the Australian Tourist Commission should ensure that prospective visiting American soldiers were provided with literature adequately to inform themselves of the attractions of the Snowy Mountains area before they left for Australia so that they could plan their visits after entering through the rest centre in Sydney. I was able readily to give an assurance that the Commission would do everything possible to ensure that American servicemen, before departure from Vietnam for Australia, were provided wilh literature relating to the- unique attractions of the Snowy Mountains area. The snow in that area on Friday was delightful.

page 524

QUESTION

UREA

Senator PROWSE:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I direct my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry. Am I right in my understanding of Senator Scott’s answer to the question asked by Senator DrakeBrockman that the recent increase in the price of urea has been due to an increase in the landed cost?

Senator SCOTT:
LP

– The question should have been directed to me. The honourable senator’s understanding is correct. As I have said, the cost to the consumer of urea landed in Western Australia in .1967 varied between $49 and $53 a ton. In 1967 the cost was S67 or $68 a ton. The present price is $67 or S68 a ton.

page 524

QUESTION

CREDIT UNIONS

Senator GEORGES:
QUEENSLAND

– By way of preface to my question to the Minister representing the Prime Minister I refer to an article in the August 1968 edition of the credit union journal ‘Credit Union Quest’ under the heading ‘Praise from the Prime Minister. Special Message’. It reads:

In a message from Canberra, the Prime Minister Mr John Gorton states: ‘A distinctive feature of the credit union movement is that it is based on the principle of self-help through co-operation.

This is a worthwhile and commendable foundation on which to operate. Credit unions, by linking together community groups with some common interest-

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! The honourable senator is giving a lot of information and his question is very long. I should like him to come to the question.

Senator GEORGES:

– This article gives high praise to credit unions. As this statement by the Prime Minister reflects an attitude directly opposed to that which he made clear so vigorously in the debate on the Homes Savings Grant Bil’] in the Senate in May last year, does it mean that he is now more responsive to the needs of credit unions? Will he now give favourable consideration to another approach by the credit unions to be recognised as. savings institutions under the homes savings legislation?

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– With great respect to the honourable senator, I think we would need to see both the substance of his document and the substance of the Prime Minister’s statement,’ as well as know the context: iri which’ the statement was made by the Prime Minister when he was a Minister in the Senate. I arn quite certain, from what I think the honourable senator was about to say when Mr President intervened, that the Prime Minister was- speaking in praise of credit unions -as - organisations. That could very well be in’ a different context from any change of government intervention in the credit union movement. I am sure the honourable senator will appreciate the different levels on which this question could be raised, and for that reason I do not feel competent to answer him at any greater length.

page 524

QUESTION

CLOF1BRATE

Senator ORMONDE:

– I address a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Health. Can the Minister give the Senate any information about the new antiblood clotting wonder - drug called Clofibrate? If this drug is proved, will it become available in Australia?- If so, when?

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:

– 1 do not know anything of the particular drug which the honourable senator mentions, but I can inform.. him that there are already a number of drugs, either available or on trial which prevent or dissolve blood clots. These include so called anti-coagulant drugs such as Heparin and several others which are listed as pharmaceutical benefits. 1 cannot give any information about the drug mentioned by. the honourable senator but I shall make inquiries for him.

page 525

QUESTION

TULLAMAKINE AIRPORT

Senator WEBSTER:
VICTORIA

– I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Civil Aviation. It is further to a question that was raised earlier with relation to Tullamarine Airport. Are there any plans to extend the runways at Tullamarine? Again, further to a question which I addressed to the Minister some 12 months ago, can the Minister assure the Senate that the provision made for a residential buffer zone at Tullamarine is adequate for present use and that it will be ample for future requirements?

Senator SCOTT:
LP

– I shall answer the second part of the question first, as I understand it is part of a question asked a week or two ago. The answer I have received from the Minister for Civil Aviation states that when the land was acquired for the airport at Tullamarine certain zonings applied to the land outside the acquisition boundary. These zonings had been applied by the Melbourne and Metropolitan Board of Works, the planning authority for Melbourne.

Providing these same zonings are retained, the Department believes that the buffer zone will be adequate for the present and for the future. There are, however, two qualifications to this statement. The first is that there is a relatively small area of approximately 25 acres which is under consideration at the moment which may have to be acquired or, alternatively, rezoned. The second concerns the area of land to the south of the airport which was the subject of some publicity recently. This land had been rezoned by the State from a rural to a residential zoning, and a subdivision was approved by the State Minister. It is believed that excessive noise levels could occur in this area when a parallel runway as provided for in the original master plan is constructed in some 15 or 20 years time. As to the first part of the question, I understand that the runways will be able to carry the Jumbo jets when they arrive in 1971.

page 525

QUESTION

SOCIAL SERVICES

Senator O’BYRNE:
TASMANIA

– I address to the Minister representing the Minister for Social Services a question relating to the large and growing numbers of sick, old and frail people throughout Australia who are waiting to obtain some form of care in special hospitals for the aged, or similar institutions, and the high charges made by private nursing homes for the aged. Because the provisions of the Budget are insignificant compared to the unmet needs of these elderly citizens of our so-called affluent society, would the Minister have a national survey made of the number of people on waiting lists who are in desperate need of geriatric care so that a full appreciation by the Australian public may be had of the extent of this great and growing social problem and so that a much more positive approach may be made to discharging our collective responsibility for the just, dignified and humane care of our aged citizens?

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:

– In the first moment of my reply to the honourable senator’s question, let me say that I disagree with his comment that the assistance given in the Budget is insignificant. That comment is quite incorrect. I believe that the Budget shows a very real concern for those people in the community who need care. I also inform the honourable senator that the Minister for Social Services and the Minister for Health, as they have said on more than one occasion, have a real concern for people who need this help - aged and ill people. A special welfare committee of Cabinet is considering these matters and is continuing to give consideration to the care of our aged citizens as raised by the honourable senator.

page 525

QUESTION

WATERFRONT EMPLOYMENT

Senator CAVANAGH:

– I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Labour and National Service a question that arises from the one asked by Senator Little. Will the Minister consider making the regulations under the Stevedoring Industry Act regarding suspension and discipline similar to, and just as beneficial to accused workmen as, the corresponding regulations under the Public Service Act?

Senator WRIGHT:
LP

Senator ANDERSON:

– It is apparent that the honourable senator’s question has touched the Opposition on the raw. The facts oflife are that the F111 fulfils a very important and significant role in the defence of Australia and will continue to do so. The decision to purchase it was, and still is, a good one. The Government has a responsibility in relation to the defence of Australia.I am quite satisfied that the people of Australia who, in the final analysis, are the important people recognise that the Government accepted its responsibility and has provided and is providing Australia with a very important link in our defences.

page 527

QUESTION

ELECTORAL

Senator CAVANAGH:

– Will the Minister representing the Minister for the Interior ensure that his colleague studies the evidence recently given in an action before the New South Wales Supreme Court to ascertain whether or not a breach of the Electoral Act has occurred? In evidence on oath it was stated that money was paid to a canvasser for the purpose of purchasing votes in the electorate of Eden-Monaro in the last Federal1 election.

Senator SCOTT:
LP

– I did notice a Press statement on this matter. At this moment I am not prepared to comment one way or another. The best way to obtain information is to place the question on the notice paper, andI ask the honourable senator to do that.

page 527

QUESTION

UREA

Senator SCOTT:
LP

– With the permission of the SenateI would like to correct an answer I gave to a question asked by Senator Prowse.

The PRESIDENT:

– There being no objection, leave is granted.

Senator SCOTT:

– Senator Prowse asked me this afternoon whether the price for urea that I gave in reply to questions by Senator Drake-Brockman and Senator Sim is its landed cost. I said that I believed it to be the landed cost. The fact is that the figure I stated to Senator Drake-Brockman is the cost of the material less the government subsidy at the port of arrival, and is the cost to farmers. In other words, in the early part of 1968 farmers were able to purchase urea at a cost of between $49 and $53 a ton, after allowance for the subsidy. The present price of urea is between $67 and $68 a ton, after allowance for the subsidy, but that figure may not necessarily be the landed cost.I do not have at my disposal at present details of the landed cost of urea at Australian ports.

page 527

QUESTION

VIETNAM

Senator ORMONDE:

-] ask the Leader of the Government in the Senate: Is the peace conference between representatives of the United States of America and North Vietnam still continuing in Paris? Is the Australian representative still present at those talks, or has he returned to Australia?

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

-I am not clear whether the Australian observer attending the Paris conference is still there. In the circumstances, in the interests of accuracy I think it would be best to obtain a reply for the honourable senator from the Minister for External Affairs. I hope to be able to give the answer to the honourable senator tomorrow.

page 527

QUESTION

CIVIL AVIATION

(Question No. 305)

Senator KEEFFE:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Civil Aviation, upon notice:

When will a major re-building programme take place at (a) Brisbane airport, (b) Mackay airport and (c) Townsville airport?

Senator SCOTT:
LP

– The Minister for Civil Aviation has furnished the following reply:

It is not possible at this stage to be precise about the timing of such programmes. However, I hope that all three will be included in the Department of Civil Aviation’s 5-year programme commencing in 1968-69. In the case of Brisbane, we still have some information to come from airline companies about their general requirements in the new terminal building. The information already available is being analysed and collated, and my Department and the Department of Works are in discussion about this terminal at the present time. When all the necessary information is available it is intended to go ahead with the planning and design.

As far as Mackay is concerned, you will know that approvals have already been given for the strengthening and lengthening of the main runway to take aircraft such as the DC9 and the Boeing 727. The need for improved terminal facilities is recognised but it does involve very considerable works in the construction of a new apron and the taxiways leading to it, as well as the terminal building and its supporting facilities. It is a major job which again will require a considerable amount of planning and design before the works can be commenced. I assure the honourable senator that the Minister for Civil Aviation and his Department are anxious to see this done as soon as possible, but Mr Swartz said quite recently that it must be some years yet before the’ new terminal could be put in hand.

In the case of Townsville,it is planned to make some improvements to the existing facilities during the current financial year. These will include an. enlargement and better distribution of the waiting room space and an improvement to toilet facilities. Just as in the case of Mackay, the development of new and permanent terminal building facilities at Townsville involves a major construction project. Much as the Department of Civil Aviation would like to do so,it is not possible to carry out at the same time all the many development works needed throughout Australia and I am afraid that it will not be possible to have the permanent terminal facilities at Townsville put in hand for some years.

page 528

QUESTION

SHIPPING

(Question No. 322)

Senator LAUCKE:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Trade and Industry, upon notice:.

Has the Minister’s attention been drawn to an article appearing in the ‘Australian’ of 27th May 1968 in which Mr Graham Keen, the chairman of the shipping section of the Adelaide Chamber of Commerce, is reported to have expressed dismay about delayin the answering of the requests of the section for restoration of regular K Line services to Port Adelaide, and to have said that the ship for the next sailing is already in Brisbane, and that a decision on whether it will carry on to Port Adelaide from Melbourne will have to be taken quickly?
Are South Australian shippers vitally concerned as to whether they will be able to fulfil contracts on this run with commodities that other States cannot supply?
Because of the extreme urgency, will the Minister make an immediate decision in this matter?

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– The Acting Minister for Trade and Industry has provided the following reply: 1.I am aware of the article which appeared in the ‘Australian’. South Australian exporters are now aware that the vessel ‘Tatekawa Maru’ has been programmed to load in Adelaide from about 19th September. This vessel was selected bearing in mind the advance notice which South Australian exporters said they would need in order to contact importers.

The programming of the vessel Tatekawa Maru’ has been discussed with South Australian exporters and I understand that they have made special efforts to take full advantage of this sailing.
In addition the Government will shortlybe undertaking a full review of the service in the light of an appraisal of the service by the K Line due to be received by the end of September. The position of South Australian exporters will be taken into account in this review.

page 528

QUESTION

NORFOLK ISLAND

(Question No. 335)

Senator KEEFFE:

asked the Minister rep resenting the Prime Minister, upon notice:

Is the person responsible for most company promotion schemes on Norfolk Island a former member of the Liberal Party in the House of Representatives?
Is this person still a member of the Liberal Party, and does the ‘ Government ‘approve of his activities?

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– The Prime Minister has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question: 1 and 2. I am informed by the Minister for External Territories that there is no provision in the law relating to the registration of companies in Norfolk Island which requires persons who are associated ‘ with such registrations to . state their political affiliations, either past or present. On 30th June 1968 a total number of 616 companies was registered in Norfolk Island and there is nothing to show that any one individual has been responsible for most company promotion schemes in the island.

page 528

QUESTION

WAR SERVICE HOMES

(Question No. 403)

Senator COHEN:

asked the Minister for

Housing, upon notice:

Are British ex-servicemen who have settled in Australia entitled to housing loans under the War Service Homes Act?
Are migrants from any other country who are ex-servicemen entitled to assistance under the War Service Homes Act?

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:

– The answer to the honourable senator’s questions are as follows:

and 2. The war service homes scheme is a repatriation measure to provide homes for certain classes of. Australian ex-servicemen and women, and ex-servicemen from other countries who have settled in’ Australia are. in general terms, not entitled to assistance under the War Service Homes ‘

Act. However, under the provisions of the Act persons who served in the naval, military or air forces of any part of the Queen’s dominions other than the Commonwealth are. eligible for assistance if, before their enlistment or appointment for service, they resided in Australia or a territory of the Commonwealth.

page 529

QUESTION

APPLES

(Question No. 422)

Senator SIM:

asked the Minister repre senting the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice:

Did the special committee on devaluation recommend that payment of the 50c compensation on apples for the 1968 season should be made to the grower?
Did the Government adopt the committee’s recommendation or alter it from grower to owner, or did the Apple and Pear Board change the decision of the Government and decide to pay to the owner, not the grower?

Senator McKELLAR:
CP

– The Minister for Primary Industry has supplied the following reply:

No. The Devaluation Reporting Committee recommended that the compensation be paid, through the instrumentality of the Australian Apple and Pear Board, to the owners of fruit exported to devalued markets.
The Government accepted the recommendation of the Committee.

page 529

QUESTION

RAILWAYS

(Question No. 430)

Senator LAUGHT:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Shipping and Transport, upon notice:

Has the Government decided to give financial support to the construction of a new standard gauge railway line from the trans-continental line near Kingoonya to Alice Springs, the urgency of which is reported to have been stressed by the Commonwealth Commissioner for Railways?

Senator McKELLAR:
CP

– The Minister for Shipping and Transport has supplied the following answer:

The question of the Port Augusta-Alice Springs railway line is being considered by the Government but no decision has yet been reached.

page 529

QUESTION

PAPUA AND NEW GUINEA

(Question No. 437)

Senator RAE:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for External Territories, upon notice:

Has the Free Papua Movement any known members or supporters in the Territory of Papua and New Guinea? If so, how many?
If the Movement has any known members or supporters in the Territory, are their activities regarded by the Minister and the Administration as being in the best interests of the Territory? If not, how are their activities viewed by the Minister and the Administration?

Senator WRIGHT:
LP

– The Minister for External Territories has now supplied the following answer:

and 2. Only a small number of West Irianese have been granted permission to reside in the Territory of Papua and New Guinea and in accordance with international practice their remaining in the Territory is conditional upon their refraining from engaging in political activities in connection with their homeland. For any of this group to engage in activities similar to those ascribed to members of a ‘Free Papua Movement’ would represent a breach of their undertaking and would not be permitted. Nothing is known to suggest that there might be support for such an organisation from other groups in the Territory.

page 529

QUESTION

NATIONAL SERVICE

(Question No. 438)

Senator ORMONDE:

asked the Minister representing the Acting Minister for Labour and National Service, upon notice:

Is the Government under pressure from employer organisations to reduce the size of military call-ups, in order to relieve labour shortages in industry?

Senator WRIGHT:
LP

– The Acting Minister for Labour and National Service has informed me that the answer to the honourable senator’s question is no.

page 529

SUPERANNUATION

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– On 20th August 1968, Senator Milliner asked me whether it is a fact that both superannuation and social service payments may on request be paid into bank accounts in the Australian Capital Territory but not in some States and whether the Minister can inform the Senate of the reason for this. The Treasurer has provided the following answer:

Superannuation and defence forces retirement benefits pensioners resident in the Australian Capital Territory have , recently been given ‘ the option of having their fortnightly pensions paid direct to a bank current account. This follows the transfer of the pensions payment system operated by the sub-Treasury, Canberra to computer processing. It is intended ‘ progressively to introduce the facility for superannuation and defence forces retirement benefits pensions paid in the various States as computer facilities become available, but firm dates for offering the option have not yet been established.

page 529

QUESTION

IMPORTED PEAS AND BEANS

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– On 14 August 1968, Senator Lillico asked me whether the importation of quick frozen, Surprise and other edible peas and beans from New Zealand had increased in volume recently. He asked me to procure for the Senate a return of the importations of these two commodites for each of the 5 years up to 30th June last. 1 wish to inform the honourable senator that, through the Minister for Trade and Industry, the Commonwealth Statistician has provided the following tables showing imports of frozen and other edible peas and beans from New Zealand for the years 1963-64 to 1967-68 and for each of the months of 1967-68. He has advised that he is unable to provide separate figures for imports of Surprise peas and beans as these are not separately recorded. He has also advised that, due to tariff and statistical classification changes, the figures supplied are not strictly comparable for the 5-yearly periods in question. This can be seen from the descriptions of the various items, which are as follows:

page 532

QUESTION

CZECHOSLOVAKIA

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– On 28th August 1968, Senator Gair asked me the following question without notice:

Will the Minister representing the Minister for External Affairs provide honourable senators with a copy of the statement in which -Hanoi declares support for the Soviet action against Czechoslovakia which, I understand, was broadcast on Hanoi Radio and reported in some Australian newspapers on 23rd August 1968?

Will the Minister ascertain whether Hanoi was the first Communist capital to publicly declare support for the actions of the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact regimes against Czechoslovakia?

I replied that if the document were readily available 1 would most certainly put to the Minister for Externa] Affairs the proposition that it should be published to all honourable senators.- The Minister for External Affairs has provided the following answer:

One cannot state definitely that- Hanoi. was the first Communist government, to declare support for the invasion of Czechoslovakia by the Warsaw Pact force* on 21st August 1968. but the Radio Hanoi report was issued the same-.morning-and was the first lo come io our attention here. The report on Radio Hanoi was as follows: (Excerpt) You are invited to listen to the TASS statement on the entrance into Czechoslovakia of troops of the USSR and a number of socialist countries. Since January of this year, the reactionary forces in Czechoslovakia have increased their anti socialist activities, seriously threatening the fruit of the revolution in Czechoslovakia and creating a danger for the regime and Slate structure of the Socialist Republic of Czechoslovakia, a success of (he socialist camp.

Recently, the conference of party and government leaders of these six socialist countries: the USSR, Czechoslovakia. Poland, Bulgaria, East Germany, and Hungary, held in Bratislava, issued a joint statement asserting the solidarity and unanimity of socialist ‘ allies in Europe and their determination to oppose all plots and subversive activities of imperialism and the hostile activities of counter revolutionary and anti socialist elements who had plotted to sabotage the Czech socialist regime and state.

Recently, these counter revolutionary and anti-socialist elements in Czechoslovakia have continued to increase their hostile actions, thereby making the faithful and firm members of the Czech Communist Party and political workers of the Socialist Republic of Czechoslovakill adopt counter ‘ measures by requesting the armed forces of the USSR and allies to help protect their socialist regime and stale.

To this noble end, on the morning of 2 1st August. 1968, the lighters of the armed forces of the USSR and its allies Bulgaria, Hungary. East Germany and Poland moved into Czech territory. Another announcer then read the text of the TASS statement.

page 532

QUESTION

TELEVISION

The Postmaster-General has authorised the establishment of two national translators lo be established at Mount Olinthus and Pillaworta Hill to serve the Cowell and Port Lincoln areas respectively. These two translators, which will relay signals of the Spencer Gulf North National station, ABSNI, are expected to be completed and operating by the first half of 1970.

With regard (o a commerical service for the area, the licensee of station GTS4, Port Pirie, Spencer Gulf Telecasters Limited, has been invited by the Australian Broadcasting Control Board to submit a formal application for commercial licences to serve the same two areas. Provision of service to these two areas will result in ari ‘ additional television population coverage of some 15.000.

There ure no plans at present for the extension of television service to the western areas of the Eyre Peninsula: these areas are relatively distant and sparsely populated and there are considerable problems, both technical and as to costs, relating to the provision of service to such areas. There are many areas throughout Australia similarly placed in respect of television. Whilst the Australian Broadcasting Control Board is continually examining ways and means whereby the television service might be further extended, there are regrettably no early prospects for the provision of television to western areas of the Eyre 1’emnsiiia.

page 532

IMMIGRATION

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Bull) - Is leave granted? There being no objection, leave is granted.

Minister for Immigration, its recommendations on the immigration programme for the ensuing financial year. These recommendations are based on the Council’s assessment of the capacity of Australia to absorb migrants and upon a realistic assessment of our ability to attract them. They are short term recommendations and therefore are, of necessity, conditioned by immediate economic and other circumstances.

With this in mind, the Immigration Planning Council was asked to project its inquiries further into the future and to investigate longer term economic and demographic trends both within Australia and abroad with a view to advising on total and net immigration requirements and possibilities several years ahead.

The Council has now presented to the Minister for Immigration a report covering the period 1968 to 1973. This report will be reviewed and refined each year and projected another year further forward. Lest there should be any misunderstanding, the Planning Council report does not purport to make specific recommendations in concrete terms about the actual numbers of migrants that Australia should seek in total or from individual source countries. Recommendations for each prospective year’s programme will continue to be made by the Planning Council in the light of circumstances actually obtaining at the time, and the Government will continue, as in the past, to determine the immigration programme from year to year.

What the Planning Council’s report does do is discuss, in realistic terms, what various alternative rates of immigration are likely to mean in terms of actual population growth and what action should be taken in relation to those economic and social factors within our control, if we wish to achieve established population goals. While the language of the report is generally moderate it nevertheless opens up some new lines of thought. These are commended to policy-makers and administrators in all spheres of activity, not only in governments at all levels but also in industry, the professions and trades, the universities and the community as a whole. For this reason, the Council’s report will be given a wide distribution and will be freely available to all those who may wish to use it for reference.

The members of the Planning Council are all very busy men who occupy positions of leadership in a variety of spheres of activity. They have devoted a great deal of time to the preparation of this report and they have produced a document that adds considerably to our knowledge of the problems we must face and solve if immigration is to continue to be the vital force in our national development that it has been during the last two decades. In its report, the Council has expressed the fullest confidence in Australia’s continued prosperity and economic growth and has submitted its recommednations in the knowledge that, since its inception, the immigration programme has received the unqualified backing of successive governments as a national policy. In tabling this report, I commend it to honourable senators for their serious consideration.

page 533

WRAPPING MACHINES

Tariff Board Report

Senator SCOTT:
Western AustraliaMinister for Customs and Excise · LP

– For the information of honourable senators I present the report of the Tariff Board on wrapping machines.

page 533

QUESTION

BUDGET 1968-69

Debate resumed from 10 September (vide page 490), on motion by Senator Anderson:

That the Senate take note of the following papers:

Civil Works Programme 1968-69

Commonwealth Payments to or for the States, 1968-69

Estimates of Receipts and Summary of Estimated Expenditure, for year ending 30 June 1969

Expenditure -

Particulars of Proposed Expenditure for the service of the year ending 30 June 1969

Particulars of Proposed Provision for Certain Expenditure in respect of the year ending 30 June 1969

Government Securities on Issue at 30 June 1968

Commonwealth Income. Tax Statistics, for income year 1965-66

National Income and Expenditure 1967-68

Upon which Senator Murphy had moved by way of amendment:

At end of motion add - , but the Senate is of opinion that the Budget is inadequate in that it does not make provision -

to lighten taxes and health costs for families and to increase benefits;

lo plan defence procurement and expenditure;

to meet the problems of Australia’s, capital and provincial cities; and

lo retain control and promote development of Australia’s mineral, fuel, land and marine resources’.

Senator DEVITT:
Tasmania

– When the debate was adjourned yesterday afternoon I was delivering myself of some observations on the performance of the Australian airline industry, with particular reference to the two-airline system, constituting as it does the internal commercial airline system of this country. In the few minutes available to me I attempted to make something of an analysis of the deficiencies and inadequacies of the system as I saw them. It is my view that there are very grave and growing deficiencies in the performance of the internal airline system. If we are not prepared to rise in this Parliament and direct attention to these inadequacies and deficiencies, rather than having what the Minister suggested yesterday was among the best airline systems in the world we will, unless we pull our socks up, have the worst airline system in the world, it will be no credit to us, as members of parliament responsible for the protection of the affairs of the Australian people, if we allow this to happen without having made criticisms and suggestions which, if followed, might lead to a better performance on the part of the airlines and, as a natural consequence, a better service for the people. That is, after all, what we are here for.

I believe that the trouble stems mainly from the concept of rationalisation about which we hear so much and which is tied, 1 think, closely to the idea that there is room in Australia for only two major airlines and that both ought to be preserved notwithstanding that they may not be serving the best interests of the people; that there may not be a proper level of competition; that there may not be a realisation - because of the way in which the system works - of the need to equip with the most modern aircraft available; that there may not- be a persistence of the idea of providing the best service; and that there may very well be a development of the concept that the lower level of service is the norm rather than the higher level of service which we have the right to expect of a system which has so much governmental backing.

Before I get deeply into this subject of rationalisation I want to say that I offer no criticism of the employees of either of the airlines concerned, Trans-Australia Airlines and Ansett-ANA, from whom I have always had the greatest courtesy and assistance when 1 needed it. These people are the victims of a system which the Government appears to condone and we are all liable to some sort of criticism for having allowed it to develop to an extent which is against the best interests of the people. Suffice for me to say that the staffs of these two airlines are endeavouring, tinder extreme difficulties on many occasions, to give to the community the type of service which they know to be necessary and which they have not been able to give fully because of deficiencies and lack of new ideas in the administration of the airline system.

So there is no criticism of the staff; the criticism is of the system. It is levelled at the management, at the administration nf the airlines, the area in which determination*; are made as to the type, of aircraft to be used, the number of aircraft to be used, when’ they will fly and where they will fly to. The protective screen which is erected to perpetuate the system operates in such a way as to dictate a downward trend in the level of service to the public. Although it was not the design that this should be so. in fact it is so. It is inevitable that in these circumstances the norm should be the lower level of performance rather than the higher level. I suggest that this is almost entirely the result of the practices which are followed in the airline system.

I want to give the Senate some instances of what I am talking about so that we can consider the matter in an analytical way and determine for ourselves whether what I am suggesting is the fact or whether there is some other explanation. In any event, it is my duty and responsibility to say these things because I have observed them in my own experience and they have been passed on to me by air travellers throughout Australia. I want the Senate to bear in mind that we in Tasmania are more vulnerable than those in other parts of Australia. Because we can discount as a means of fast, modern travel the shipping system which operates between the mainland and the m; in i si u nd of Tasmania - as we sometimes call it - we are left with the airlines as virtually our only means of transportation to the mainland.

In recent days 1 have had quite considerable difficulty in carrying out my parliamentary functions because of inadequacies in the airline system. On occasions I have remained in Canberra to enable very important parliamentary committee meetings to be held. On other occasions I have had to leave my .home in the middle pf a week-end to come to committee meetings and perform other functions associated with my parliamentary duty. In various ways I have considerable difficulty in obtaining accommodation on airline services to perform these necessary functions. If this is happening to me, how much more so is it happening to the general public.

I should like to make two points. The first is that each airline, as I understand it, has the same aircraft types. Of course there are a few exceptions where special arrangements are made for the operation of airlines between certain centres. I have in mind particularly the Beechcraft Queenair which operates in Tasmania. Incidentally, I am very disturbed to hear that it is under threat of removal from the service for some reason or other and I most earnestly hope that the Government will ensure that proper precautions are taken to avoid any possibility of this intrastate airline service being discontinued. The aircraft is operated by TAA. lt has given very valuable service ;o patrons of air travel in Tasmania.

Senator Cormack:

– Why is it being removed?

Senator DEVITT:

– I do not know. One suggestion is that parts for the aircraft are now becoming somewhat difficult to obtain. Mention was made of a part called an alternator, whatever that may be. The part is just about out of stock and when this one goes that is the end of it. I know that TAA was planning a couple of years ago to replace the Beechcraft with the Twin Otter which is now giving very good service in a number of places throughout Australia. It is a good type of aircraft and I hope that it will replace the Beechcraft in Tasmania when replacement becomes necessary. I think the people of Tasmania will be disturbed and will have something to say about it - I hope they do - if there is any threat to the service which has proved so beneficial to them.

The second point I want to make is that each airline operates a number of obsolescent aircraft. From time to time you see the old DC4, which now essentially is a freight aircraft, wheeled on to the tarmac and loaded with about seventy people and despatched somewhere simply because the re-equipment programme of TAA and Ansett-ANA has not kept up with modern trends. We even see the DC3, certainly a most reliable old work horse, an aircraft for which one cannot help but have a sentimental feeling, but you cannot run a good efficient service on sentiment; you must keep abreast of modern ideas.

My mind goes back to what Senator Scott said the other day about Australia having the best airline service in the world. If he believes that, then it is time he got out and had a look at some airline services in other parts of the world. The airline system in Australia should be re-equipped with modern aircraft.

Senator Prowse:

– Did you see the recent television film of planes flying around New York for 4 hours trying to land?

Senator DEVITT:

– Recently in New York and Washington I saw up to 17 jet aircraft lined up on the runway trying to get out and others circling for hours trying to get in. We are talking of something which is playing an important role in the lives of the people. Australia, with its vast distances, must ensure that it is abreast of the most modern trends. In the long run it is cheaper to equip with the more modern type of aircraft. That is one reason why T have raised this matter. In addition, if we are to have regard for all the things that go into making up a vigorous and developing community, such as we want ‘ to see in Australia, it is terribly important to direct attention to what I regard as the inadequacies of the system, particularly as they affect people who travel as frequently as we do in the course of our parliamentary duties.

One is stunned when things happen such as happened to me in Melbourne recently. On the Wednesday I had booked on a flight leaving Melbourne the following Sunday. When I got there I was told that it was not possible for me to travel on to Canberra that night and that accommodation arrangements would be made. Then there was a breakdown and the whole thing cost me $11.50. One thinks: ‘If this happens to me, what happens to the other air travellers in Australia who may be beset with similar problems’?’ People in the business world say: We have just about had the airlines. We are sick and tired of being put off for one reason or another’.

The latest excuse is that the airlines are equipping themselves with computers. Once upon a time when manpower was used you could make a booking and know several days in advance that you would be leaving Melbourne on flight 496 at 6.30 p.m. Now the computer is unable to handle this information until a few hours before you are due to leave. If that is the case - it has been put to me as an excuse for my bookings being fouled up from time to time - why not throw the computers out the window and revert to the use of manpower? At least we knew then whether we would be able to fly.

Each airline flies into and out of airports at virtually the same time. This is an aspect which has been the subject of a tremendous amount of criticism in the community. Odd reasons are given for this. You are told: ‘We fly into Devonport at midday because the people of Devonport like to fly at midday, but we fly out of Launceston, 60 miles away, at half past 8 in the morning because the people of Launceston like to leave at that time’. What rubbish. You could throw a rope from one airliner to another and tow it around Australia and no-one would know to which airline they belonged but for the fact that they had diff-rent company markings.

Senator Cormack:

– Those are the well known peculiarities of Tasmanians.

Senator DEVITT:

– This happens in other parts of Australia as well. I was standing with some friends at Melbourne airport the other night when an airliner fouled up and 70 people who were trying to get back to Tasmania had to wait for an engine to be replaced or for repairs to be carried out. When we saw a stream of smoke on the horizon we knew that a 727 was coming in and we were able to predict with monotonous accuracy that within 2 minutes another stream of smoke would be coming from a 727 belonging to the ‘opposition’ airline. The two aircraft had come from Adelaide and were running practically together and you could be sure that shortly after being cleaned and set up they would be flying on to Sydney. People have asked: ‘What kind of system is this when the two airlines play tiggy tiggy touch wood around Australia? Isn’t this supposed to be the most modern transportation system any country could possibly have?’

There is a higher demand for the services of one airline than there is for the other. Let me lay it on the line - TAA seems to be able to capture 4% or 5% more of the market than can the other airline. But that does not seem to make any difference because TAA is confined to the use of the same number of aircraft as is its opposition. When one flight is filled TAA becomes an agent for the opposition and additional passengers are fed to the other airline. That is pretty good when you look like getting stuck somewhere and they say to you: ‘We cannot take you but we will get you on the other airline’ and you reply: ‘Please do. I have no desire to be stuck here in the scrub in the middle of the night’. But surely if one airline puts up a better performance than does the other it should be able to obtain sufficient aircraft to handle the business offering. It must -be terribly demoralising and disheartening for the people in TAA to find that the fruits of their labours, are being fed to the opposition airline.

If one looks at this matter closely there is another aspect. Working in the realisation that once you fill an. airliner you know that you will get the business anyway, it is conceivable for ah airline to say: ‘Why the heck should we spend a lot of money trying to get the business?’ 1 am not suggesting that is the case but it could arise in the course of time that someone will say: ‘The Government is making darn sure that it will not give a better service to’ this country. We cannot have any more aircraft. Why should we bust ourselves because the passengers will come to us anyway’. I suggest that this is one of the things that could be bedevilling the airline industry in Australia at the present time. There is no real urge or incentive for higher performances on the part of either airline. There are two reasons for this. In the first place, it does not avail one of them anything, because it has only got limited seating capacity anyway. Secondly, the other knows that it will gel the business that is left over, so it has no need to worry.

I do not know whether you have had the experience, Mr Acting Deputy President, but 1 have found always at school holiday time that a tremendous problem arises. There is always the frustrating position where you do not know whether you arc going to be able to fly to perform the functions of Parliament that you want to perform, and which you are . required lo perform, because, there are not enough aircraft to service the needs of the school children travelling here and there throughout Australia. Incidentally. I think there ought to be more travelling on the part of school children. In fact, I think we ought to provide money to subsidise (he air passages of young people in this country who wish to travel overseas so that they will not make the same sort of mistakes that wc made; so that they can go and talk to their fellows in other parts of the world and learn something about what is going on. But let us come back nearer horrie. When you find the system so overloaded, so incapacitated when it comes to service to the Australian community, you wonder why this should be so. You wonder what sort of management is being brought to bear in the airline system of Australia. The general public would certainly bc entitled to level a tremendous amount of criticism al us if we did not get up in our places here and draw attention to these things.

The practice of transferring aircraft back and forth between the airlines also destroys the initiative of an organisation to provide a better service. I can recall what happened a few years ago when TAA had Viscount aircraft taken from it and was reequipped with DC6’s, the old piston engine aircraft, so that its competitor could come up to something approximating TAA’s performance - though 1 do not think that was the result. TAA put the DC6’s in wraps for a while. Then it was thought that there might be some business offering to a service in New Guinea. This service was started, and it began to pay straight away. Ansett-ANA immediately said: ‘We would like the aircraft back.’ But surely AnsettANA cannot have it both ways. I suggest that these arc the consequences of a system which takes no account of performance on the part of one or other of the airlines. 1 have dealt with the question of this computer. I would toss it on the scrap heap and use . manpower again. 1 have a great deal more regard for manpower because manpower has a great deal more regard for me, especially when certain circumstances arise. Let me mention a recent case which was very close lo myself. In this instance, it was necessary for people to travel together because of sickness on the part of one of them. The computer could not tell me whether I could get this sick person from Adelaide to Hobart. This particular booking was made on 1 1th August, and on about 2nd September I inquired to see how the computer was going. I found thai 1 could get as far as Melbourne but there was an element of doubt as to whether 1 could get this sick person to Hobart. But we got there, because I said: ‘Look, if you cannot book me, if the computer cannot talk to me, go and have a talk with the other airline which, 1 understand, still has not got a computer, because, just as likely as not, I will get on that airline.’ 1 did.

There is the suggestion that the Australian airlines system is based upon the payment of cheaper fares than obtain elsewhere. But this is somewhat of a fallacy, because if the aircraft system is so designed that there is no doubt that an aircraft is going to be as full as it possibly can be, and if the scheduling and the flying are so designed that you are going to get the maximum number of people offering on that aircraft, then surely you can reduce fares. You certainly ought to be able to reduce them. We are at a stage of development in this country where we ought to take more account of the needs of the people.

This airline system has been going a comparatively long time in terms of our history, lt has done a wonderful job for this country. We are very airminded people. There is a tremendous amount of air travelling done by the Australian people. But that is no excuse for allowing the system . to run down to the stage where it is on skid row, as I suggest it is now. If we permit it to go on in this way, we are going to finish up with the worst airlines system in the world instead of the best, as it used to be.

Then there are. other problems connected with this industry. I want to draw the attention of the Senate very briefly to a situation that arose recently when there was a clamp down on the operation of charter airlines to Flinders Island in the Furneaux group. Anybody who has no knowledge of the particular disabilities of these areas in Bass Strait would perhaps be inclined to say that this is quite all right, that we are subsidising the existing air services there pretty heavily and therefore we ought to chop down on the operation of charter flights. But this attitude takes no account of the special disabilities, the special circumstances and the special situations which can occur very rapidly indeed in these quasi-isolated areas of the country. 1 think this system has to be so geared that less dependence is placed upon the two major airlines. The main consideration should be service to the people.

Finally 1 want to refer to the fact that we have attempted by all means possible to sustain a two-airline system in Australia. It has worked pretty well. I have acknowledged that. But I do not think it is working very well at present, and 1 do not think there is any basis in law for the sustenance, maintenance and perpetuation of such a system. I would draw the attention of the Senate to the decision of the High Court in the IPEC case. There the High Court ruled that it was unconstitutional to limit the airlines of Australia. This is a very important point that people tend to forget. The only way that the Government could stop IPEC from equipping itself with its own aircraft to operate a hire service was to refuse to grant import licences. I repeat that the High Court has ruled that the system at the moment is unconstitutional. I am not a lawyer, but it would appear to me that the airport tax is an infringement of section 92 of the Constitution.

Let me wind up by saying that I hope that what I have said is of some value to the system. I am nol trying to pull the system down; I am trying to offer criticism which will cause people to prick up their ears and to say that perhaps we are not doing as well as we should. Heaven knows, there are hundreds of thousands of people throughout Australia who will back me up in this. So I say that if my few words can help in providing a better airline service, I shall be glad.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT - Order! The honourable senator’s lime has expired.

Senator PROWSE:
Western Australia

– This is in absolute terms. I am not referring to. the value of those incomes. One can . go through the whole range and find no evidence that the small farm problem is in :any way a new problem. It is no solution to the economic problems of farming today to say that we should .reduce the number of small farms. I think we. need to look rather at the effects of our taxation concessions on farming generally. I want to. refer to another of the anomalies evident to any observer of Australia’s farm economy and balance of payments position. From the Press, from the pulpit, from wherever , the demagogue can find somebody to listen to him, and from the so-called intelligentsia we hear lengthy fulminations about the population explosion and- the ever increasing’ danger of a starving world. There is a crescendo, of propaganda exploited by the protagonists of the pill. In the face of this situation we in this country and the people of every other country mainly dependent on agriculture are painfully aware of the fact that in almost every avenue of rural production we are faced not with food shortages, as the modern disciples of the discredited Malthus would have us believe, but with surpluses and depressed prices in respect of almost any product one could name. Surely this needs some study. When we look at the matter we find that the fallacy lies in the idea that the world’s population is increasing faster than its capability to feed itself. This does not square with the facts.

We can look at a situation where synthetics have reduced the, price of wool, cotton, silk and flax. Artificial butter and artificial milk threaten ruin for the dairy farmer. We are warned about attempting to grow more wheat. The pundits are alarmed at the enormous increase in our wheat acreages. In this regard I want to refer to one of the knockers of the wheat industry, our old friend E. J. Donath, who is the Assistant Lecturer in Economic Geography at the University of Melbourne. Apparently he gains some extra income by writing for newspapers which regard his views as having some value. In the Melbourne ‘Sun’ of Monday, 9th September, he published a graph showing the wheat acreages as having increased from approximately 8 million acres in 1958-59 to a probable figure of 25 million acres for this coming year. This ls a dramatic increase in wheat acreage and would appear to support his contention, but perhaps Mr Donath thinks that the wheat industry commenced only in 1958-59. If he had been honest - and I suggest seriously that he is dishonest in his approach - he would have given more accurate figures over a longer period of time. The point at which he commences his graph is just about the period when the lowest acreage of wheat had been sown for many years. In 1957 the production was virtually the same as in 1944, when we reached an all time low due to the lack of manpower because of the war. He did not say that in 1931, with horse-drawn teams, Australia grew 18 million acres of wheat. We did not reach that figure again until 1964. With all the modern equipment available it took us 35 years to reach the acreage that we bad achieved, mainly with horse-drawn teams, in 1931.

Senator Webster:

– Would you incorporate those graphs in Hansard, senator?

Senator PROWSE:

– I. do not know whether Hansard is equipped to handle such matters. Mr Donath has produced these figures to support his contention that an increased wheat acreage would ipso facto prove increased profitability of the wheat industry. In fact, historically the wheat industry has increased its acreages in response to a difficult economic situation. That is what happened in 1931, after a dramatic fall in the wheat price. Wheat acreages rose on the same basis that a businessman faced with rising costs tries to lower his unit costs. The wheat industry expanded production in an attempt to keep pace with increasing costs. That is exactly the situation today. The truth about tho agricultural position is that the ratio of prices received to prices paid has been falling steadily for the last 10 to 15 years. Falling prices against a background of increasing costs have meant that the wheat industry is less profitable. It is the same sort of result as in 1931. It is interesting to analyse the type of propaganda that is put forward about the wheat industry at a time when a new wheat agreement is under consideration.

Economists talk learnedly of economic land use, but they never come out of their ivory towers to tell us just what they mean by that term. They do not say in plain English what we should produce as an alternative to wheat. We are not told what to grow and sell profitably; certainly not sugar, rice, cotton, coffee, cocoa or tea. There is a world surplus of each of those products. Economists will agree that we can grow wool at any price, so long as we do not interfere with the free flow of wool to the market-place and the free flow of growers to the bankruptcy courts. They speak learnedly of efficient farming. When a Western Australian producer puts mutton on the. hoof onto the market, it is sold on a Monday at between 2.25c and 4c a lb. The producer finds 2 or 3 days later that mutton in the butchers’ shops is being sold at a price from 300% to 600% greater than his return.

If costs are to be reduced so. that our wage structure is not constantly inflated we need to examine the tremendous inefficiency of the retail processes of secondary and tertiary industry rather than to hammer away at the’ need for efficiency in primary production. The area of potential cost savings, is so much greater in our marketing procedures, our retail processes, than in our production structure. lt is fairly obvious that if we bad been able to keep retail prices down there would be no difficulty today in the marketing of our meat within Australia. We would not be subjected to variations as a reflection of the world situation. For example, speaking from memory, the consumption of mution in Australia has fallen from 121 lb a head 6 or 7 years ago to 84 lb a head, according to the most recent figures available. Our cost structure is being inflated because of inefficient marketing processes. I referred earlier to the anomaly of the existence of surpluses at a time when so many people are talking about a population explosion. World famine is pointed to as a bugbear, a bogeyman, as it were, to induce people to reduce the rate of population increase. But famines have existed since the beginning of recorded history, long before Joseph found it wise to store grain in Egypt. Famines bedevilled the world when the population was very much smaller than it is today. I submit that the food position in the world today is better than it has ever been and that the potential resources of the world are more than adequate for the foreseeable future.

We have been told that the great danger to the world today from a nutritional angle is a shortage of meat and proteins. I refer any honourable senator interested in this subject to the May 1968 edition of ‘Science Journal’, in which appears an article written by K. L. Blaxter, Fellow of the Royal Society, Director of the Rowett Research Institute at Aberdeen, Scotland. At page 58 of the magazine he demonstrates what increases in meat production have occurred over the last 15 years while the world’s population has increased by about 30%. In that period the production of beef has increased by about 60%, pork 90%, sheep and goat meat 50%, milk 45%, and eggs 60%. Mr Blaxter demonstrates clearly that the production of meat has increased at double the rate of world population increase. Over the same period, while the numbers of animals increased by 41% the production of meat increased by 73%. It is clear that each animal is producing more meat. A similar position obtains with milk and egg production.

The figures are even more striking in respect to food production in Great Britain when compared to the population of that country. Critics ask: ‘What about the less advanced countries?’ Last year India produced a surplus of grain because of the introduction of new dwarf varieties. Mexico, formerly a wheat importer, has an export surplus of wheat. Ceylon, largely due to money advanced by Australia under the Colombo Plan, hopes confidently to be self sufficient in rice by 1970. In the Philippines, IR8 a new rice variety, is claimed to be capable of doubling present yields under similar conditions. Israel is experimenting successfully with irrigation with saline water. There is a tremendous potential for an increase of the world’s food supply. 1 think we need to look at what can be done in the present situation. Australia needs more vigorously to pursue policies aimed at reaching world agreement on food production, as well as on prices. We should not have open-ended agreements on prices. The whole structure could collapse. We need to pursue a policy which has already been successfully demonstrated in respect of wheat agreements. I hope that those agreements will stand up to pressures. We will need to introduce with price agreements, agreements in relation to supply. Only. in this way will we be able to protect the interests of the under developed countries that so largely depend on agriculture. The ‘Financial Times’ in 1965 recorded that over an 8-year period the depression in the price of world primary products cost the underdeveloped countries $7,000m, during which time they paid an extra $3,000m for the products of industrial countries. This means that they were disadvantaged overall in terms of trade by $ 10,000m, which is more than all the aid that was given to them in that period. The underdeveloped countries do not need aid; they need a responsible programme so that they can be self-reliant, so that they can develop their economies on a sound basis without having that basis eroded by constantly depreciating prices for primary products. This is a problem for Australia and it is a problem for the whole world. We need to see to it that we assist by joining together with other primary producing countries to bring about a situation of stability in world prices of primary products. This is the only real way in which we will solve the problems within our own economy. . [Quorum formed.]

Senator DRURY:
South Australia

– 1 do not know whether Senator Gair was paying me a compliment by calling attention to the state of the House, but 1 appreciate his action anyway. First 1 should like to congratulate honourable senators who, during the Budget debate, have delivered their maiden speeches. I join wilh other honourable senators when I say that their speeches have indicated to the Senate that we can look forward to many fine debates in the future. I congratulate them on their very fine speeches from both sides of the chamber.

Government supporters have claimed that this Budget was framed responsibly, thoughtfully and honestly. We have been told that it was drawn up to ensure the nation’s stability and to make provision for its defence while at the same time helping the less fortunate in the community. This is a strange situation when we have been told over and over again by the Government that the nation’s economy is sound, that because of the discovery of vast natural resources the nation’s economy has never been more stable. Yet we find that in introducing the Budget in 1968 the Government announced that its purpose was to ensure the nation’s economic stability. Somebody is being led up the garden path and I feel that it is the Australian people.

Referring now to the Australian Labor Party’s attitude to defence, we agree that Australia should have adequate and the best possible defence, provided that the expenditure for defence is made in such a way that Australia receives the greatest value for the amount spent. We now have this very touchy issue of the Fills, in respect of which we pose this question: Will these aircraft, the price of which has skyrocketed to $266m since the contract was signed, play the role in the defence of Australia which is expected of them and for which the nation is paying such a large sum? We are not sure what the final cost will be, but whatever the cost of these aircraft 1 feel, and 1 believe that many members of the Labor Party also feel, that if they will play an important part in the defence of Australia the money will have been well spent. But the big question is whether they will do the job that we have been told they will do. Nobdoy seems to be sure about this. L draw the attention of the Senate to an editorial which appeared in the ‘Australian’ on Tuesday, 10th September, under the headline ‘Is it the Right Toy, Anyhow?’. The article states:

If any moral is to be drawn from that weekly cliffhanger, the Fill story, it is surely that an essentially small league nation like Australia should never have got mixed up with expensive big league defence toys in the first place.

With some reservations the Fill, especially its capacity for precision target bombing at low altitudes, is probably all that its US promoters claim it - the most sophisticated, self-contained weapons system in the world.

The editorial goes on to mention the cost and says there is more to come. Tt continues: . . the 24 Fills bought for the RAAF also make it the worlds most expensive weapons system and, in terms of production problems, one of its most i I (starred.

Further down the editorial states:

In fact. except for a strategic “-over of New Guinea - an unlikely requirement - the plane seems to be of no earthly value, to the likely requirements of Australia’s continental defence.

Senator Cormack:

– Who said that?

Senator DRURY:

– This is an editorial which appeared in the ‘Australian’ on Tuesday, 1 0th September.

Senator Sim:

– What qualifications does the leader writer have?

Senator DRURY:

– We have not been told what his qualifications are. The Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Anderson) said an hour or so ago that we could rest assured that this aircraft could be used for the defence of Australia, and yet this article appeared in a responsible Australian newspaper saying that nobody seemed to know what value it had for defence purposes. Which is correct? The editorial continues: lt is not merely that the Fill is a highly expensive piece of equipment: It requires a highly sophisticated and therefore highly expensive backup organisation. How and under what conditions is it to be used in a forward defence situation?

These questions have been asked but we are not getting any answers to the questions. We have been told that this is the plane which will fulfil Australia’s defence needs. If that statement is correct, I feel that no matter what money is spent on its purchase it will have been money well spent, but until such time as the Government assures us that the plane will do all that is expected of it I believe that we have a right to criticise the aircraft and to ask questions about it. I reiterate that these are questions that should be asked and are questions that should be answered as soon as it is possible to answer them.

We could go on to criticise the Government for giving to the United States what is literally an open cheque iri payment for these aircraft. We were told some time ago that the Fills would cost so much, but from time to time the cost has skyrocketed until now we do not know exactly what the final cost will be. There is not another nation or industrial organisation in the world which would purchase an item of equipment and give the business people from whom they are purchasing it an open cheque, saying: ‘When the equipment is ready, fill in the cheque and that will be quite all right so far as we are concerned’. The taxpayers of Australia are to. pay for the acquisition of these aircraft. I feel that they should have a greater say in the matter. They should be given some explanation as to why the costs are going up and up all the time. 1 refer honourable senators to the words of the Governor-General as they appear at the beginning of the Budget speech delivered by the Treasurer (Mr McMahon) on 13th August 1968. The Treasurer said:

It will be remembered that, when opening the Parliament on 12th March 1968, the GovernorGeneral said:

My Government will review the field of social welfare with the object of assisting those in most need while at the same time not discouraging thrift, self-help and self-reliance.

It k all right to say those things but it is another matter to put them into practice. I feel that the Government is not doing anything to encourage the very things which it supports, according to the Speech delivered by the Governor-General. There is nothing in the present Budget to encourage people to be thrifty. In fact, in some instances, as I will point out later, this Budget has the opposite effect. It has the effect of making people spend money.

I believe that one section of the community has been let down badly by the Government particularly in this Budget. The matter has been mentioned by other honourable senators here. I refer to people who, over the years, have deprived themselves of the little things and have lowered their standard of living so that they might save for their future by making payments to superannuation funds. Many of these people started to contribute to funds many years ago when money had real value. These people contributed to the superannuation funds in the belief that they were providing some security for themselves in their old age and that in fact they would secure their old age. I feel that, if the Liberal Government which took office in 1949 had honoured its election promise in that year to put value back into the £, these people would have gained some security from the payments that they had made over the years. But the Government, instead of putting value back into the £, or the $ as we now know it, has been lowering slowly the value of the $ and also the standard of living of these people. The purchasing’ power of money today is becoming less and less and, with steadily rising costs and inflation, these people are finding it very, very difficult to live on the superannuation benefits that they are receiving.

These people find that they now have been penalised for their thrift. At this stage I wish to give to the Senate an illustration of how the superannuated person has been disadvantaged. I take the case of a married couple without income either by way of superannuation or war caused disability pension. Let us assume that, apart from the home in which they are living, they have property consisting of real estate, bonds or shares to the value of $20,000 and are receiving $2.50 each per week in social service benefits. These people receive also the fringe benefits to which they are entitled under the Social Services Act. If this asset of $20,000 is in cash, they can invest - speculate - their money at a rate of say, 7%. That investment would return them $1,400 a year or approximately $27 a week. I use this figure of 7% but, knowing the interest rates that apply today, I believe that the money could be invested at a greater interest rate - up to 9% or 10% - so that these people would receive an even larger income than the one that I have quoted. I use the rate of 7% because it seems to me to be about the average rate of interest that is paid today.

This income of $27 per week does noi affect their pension in any way whatsoever. The only way in which it could have any effect at all would be if the people who were receiving that income saved some money out of it and from the little bit that they received by way of pensions and put this into the bank, so increasing their assets. This is the only way in which this would have any effect on their pension. I am not opposed to this sort of thing. I think it is good. The Government should do more in this respect. It should look at the people at the other end of the scale. It should consider the position of people who are receiving superannuation to see whether they can be brought into an area in which they wil’l receive additional benefits from the sacrifices that they have made in contributing to superannuation funds.

Let us look now at the married couple who are without any other income or assets over $S39 and who receive the same amount of $27 per week. Such a couple would be eligible for social service benefits at the rate of $7.50 each per week. This is only $10 per week more than the person with the $20,000 investment is receiving. Of course, if the assets of the couple exceed $839, the rate of pension is decreased. If the husband had taken out 20 superannuation units, which would return him approximately $42 per week, no pension would be payable at all. I believe that this sort of situation does not encourage thrift. Again 1 ask the Government to have a very close look at this matter to see whether in some way these superannuated persons can be assisted.

The same situation applies to those people who are receiving total and permanent incapacity pensions, service pensions or any other pension in respect of a war caused disability. For the purpose of the social services means test, these pensions are counted as assets. The people concerned are penalised because they are receiving benefits for war caused disabilities. The repatriation benefits are given to these people by a grateful government for the sacrifices that they have made in protecting the nation. I feel that it is not right that these benefits should be treated in this way. I appeal to the . Government to do something to help these people. It is not true to say that the TPI pensioner who is married and whose wife is entitled to some social service benefits will be $3 per week better off when the proposed increased payments come into operation. I admit that no means test is applied to the payment of war pensions. But a couple who are receiving $30.50 per week as a TPI pension as well as $4.05 as a wife’s allowance, would be able to receive S5.45 per, week by way of war service pension or social service pension to which the wife would be entitled. Despite all round increases in the TPI pension rate, the service pension rate and the social service pension rate, the married couple will receive $4.45 per week only which is $1 per week less than their social services pension. So, the overall increase in their pension would be $1.50, bringing the amount that they receive a week to $42.

It is only a fallacy to say that the rate of pension has been increased by $3 per week. The Government should do something to remedy the present situation. The Government gives this money to these people with one hand and takes it away with the other hand.

Recipients of the age pension are in the same position. They are to receive an increase of $1 per week. This will be taken away from them in increased costs which will be brought about by the increase in sales tax. No doubt exists that in the future pensioners who are fortunate enough to be able to afford to hire a television set will have to pay increased rentals because of the proposed increase in the television licence fee. lt is interesting to read in Hansard of 20th August 1968 the speech delivered by the Minister for Air (Mr Freeth) in which he criticised the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Whitlam) for advocating the payment of a universal pension to every person over the age of 75 years. He said:

Such a move would not satisfy any real need because it would bc a transfer of asset, - cash - from younger people to older people, lt would mean transferring cash from the pockets of the wage earner who may be married and may have a family of one or two children, and saying to him: ‘Your need is less than a man >f 65 who has reared his family, owns his own home and is not paying it off any longer and possibly has everything he wants in life’.

The rates of child endowment have not been altered in this Budget. A family with one child under the age of 16 receives 50c a week. A family with a student child aged 16 receives $1.50, which is an increase of $1 a week. A two-child family receives $1.50 a week. If one of the children is a student at the age of 16 the family receives $2 a week. A family with three children under 16 years of age receives $3 a week. After the first child reaches 16 years - if he remains a student - the family still receives $3 a week. Now let us look at the position of a four-child family. Before the first child reaches 16 years of age the family receives $4.75 a week. If the first child is a student at age 16, the payment reduces to $4.50. So it goes on. The child endowment received by a five-child family reduces from- $6.75 to $6.25 if the first child remains a student at. age 16. The child endowment received by a. six-child family reduces in these circumstances from $9 a week to $8.25 a week. These families with four, five or six children are the ones who need the money most. I cannot understand the attitude of the Government on this matter. It seems incredible that such a situation should exist, as it appears to be directly contrary to the whole principle which underlies the payment of child endowment.

I feel that despite what has been said in the Press on this Budget there are many anomalies that could have been put right. 1 do add that I was pleased to see the provision for children under the age of 16 years who are accommodated in homes for handicapped persons conducted by religious or charitable organisations which provide medical or paramedical treatment and nursing care. The benefit will be payable at the rate of $1.50 per child from 1st January 1969. This will meet a long-felt want. The Government is doing the right thing in making these payments available. I should like to think that I might have had something to do with this. Some time ago I asked a question in the Senate regarding payments in respect of these invalid children; I suggested that they receive an invalid pension. I received a very good letter from the Minister for Social Services, who said that the matter would be looked into. I should like to feel that representations by me and others may have influenced the Government to make this provision.

Let us look at the matter of education. Travelling throughout Australia one hears the same cry that education is not getting a fair go from the Government. It is true that in the Budget much money has been made available in the form of scholarships and other allowances for education, but there is still the cry that there is not enough money. One has only to look at independent schools. I will not go into the ethics of whether or not we should support them, but they are supplying a service to those members of the community who desire that their children receive the type of education that these schools provide, and there is no doubt that they are saving the taxpayers a lot of money. They are suffering, along with State schools, from lack of funds. Something should be done to help them. It is true that in the Budget the Government is making moneys available for libraries for non-governmental schools. I will not quibble about this, but I believe that the Government should have a look at some of the other facets of independent schools with a view to helping them to carry on their system of education.

I should like to say a few words about the. Chowilla dam. On 20th April 1960, Sir Thomas Playford, the then Premier of South Australia, said in a statement from Station 5 AD:

I am now in a position to release the preliminary plans for the major storage which the South Australian Government proposes to establish on the River Murray. These will be submitted to the River Murray Commission for investigation

It is not an exaggeration to say that South Australia’s future progress will largely depend upon the magnitude of its water resources. This is the same as saying that our development depends upon the quantity of water we can obtain from the River Murray, for this river is our only permanent source of any magnitude.

The River Murray Waters Agreement assures to this State certain monthly quantities in normal years and a fixed proportion of the limited supplies available in a drought year.

As I and other members from this side of the chamber have said previously, the building of the Chowilla dam is a necessity. It will not give South Australia any more water than we have received but it will store for use in dry seasons water which is now running to waste in wet seasons. The Government should do something about bringing down the report of the River Murray Commission about which we have heard so much, so that the Chowilla dam may be put into operation. I should like to quote from a speech by Mr J. R. Dridan former engineer-in-chief of the South Australian Engineering and Water Supply

Department, which was reported in the Chronicle’ of 5th September 1968. He said:

No-one could say that Chowilla was a perfect site for a dam. Foundation conditions are poor and evaporation losses would be considerable, but this is not important as the dam would be filled wilh water which would otherwise flow out to sea.

The speech was made at the opening of the annual meeting of the National Farmers Union of South Australia, held in Adelaide.

Senator Cormack:

– Did he say anything about the cost?

Senator DRURY:

– Yes. 1 have not time to read al) the report. Salinity seems to be one of the problems plaguing the Government. The report reads:

Referring to salinity, Mr Dridan said the suggestions which had been put forward that evaporation and salt content would provide major problems at Chowilla were ‘completely unfounded’.

He went on:

Floodwater was of excellent quality, but at present it was being completely wasted through being allowed to flow into the sea.

The sooner the Government lets us know the contents of the report and the sooner we get the Chowilla project under way again, the better it will be for South Australia.

Senator LAWRIE:
QUEENSLAND · CP; NCP from May 1975

– 1 congratulate those honourable senators who have made their maiden speeches during the course of this Budget debate, lt is obvious that the debating strength of the Senate has been increased by the influx of our new senators. I support the Budget and oppose the amendment moved by the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Murphy). 1 believe the Budget will maintain Australia’s economic soundness and development, our present full employment and our ability to absorb large numbers of migrants. In addition it will enable us to continue to attract overseas capital and knowhow and to carry out our defence commitments. Nineteen years of stable government and sound administration by the Liberal-Country Party coalition have made Australia attractive to overseas investors. We are one of the leading trading nations of the world. In fact, as a nation we have had 19 years of prosperity and unprecedented expansion.

With only a comparatively small increase in taxation, this Budget will enable Australia to maintain and increase its rate of development, to provide more’ for defence, to increase social service benefits and payments in relation to education and, among other things, to make special provision for our Aboriginal people. The allocation of $240,000 for the free postage of letters and voice tapes both ways between Australia and our troops in Vietnam will be well received. This is in line with the practice adopted in the Korean War and both world wars.

I should like to make special mention of the new benefit for children under 16 years of age accommodated in homes for handicapped persons run by religious or charitable organisations which provide medical or paramedical treatment or nursing care. The benefit will be $1.50 per day for each child. One very worthy home which will benefit is the Subnormal Children’s Home in Townsville, Queensland, which is run by a dedicated committee of , local citizens. The home provides special education for local children of the Townsville area and the whole of northern Queensland and provides, amongst other things, medical and nursing care for a number of them. Until now the home has had great difficulty. in carrying on. Although the benefit of $10.50 per child per week will not meet all the cost involved, it will enable the nursing section, of the home to carry on. A short while ago it was feared that it would have to be closed.

The appropriation of $10m for the Aboriginal Advancement Trust Account is a major step forward in providing assistance for our Aboriginal people. In his Budget Speech the Treasurer (Mr McMahon) mentioned that the Trust Account would be used for health, education, housing’ and productive enterprises. Large areas of land have been set aside in the northern parts of Australia as reservations for our Aboriginal people, but today very few nomadic tribesmen remain to use them. Most native people live in missions and government settlements and around towns and villages. 1 believe that the time has come to encourage individual ownership by Aboriginals of areas of land in these reservations. If this were done, those who desired to do so could build up their own farm or cattle raising enterprise with the assistance of the Government and so become self supporting. By this means large areas of land now lying idle and which, in many cases, are in a good rainfall belt but in their present state represent a defence hazard, could be brought into production. I hope that this Trust Account will become the nucleus of a scheme of that kind. I should like to refer also to drought bonds.

Sitting suspended from 5.45 to 8 p.m.

Senator LAWRIE:
QUEENSLAND · CP; NCP from May 1975

– When the sitting was suspended I was referring to the fact that provision was being made in the Budget for drought bonds. This is something which has been asked for by primary producers for a long time now, and especially by those producers in the drier areas who are unable to grow or conserve their own fodder and who are subject to recurring periods of sustained drought. 1 believe that this is a good move and I am. sure that many people will take advantage of the scheme.

Another .noteworthy help for primary industry is the proposed increase in the superphosphate bounty from $6 to $8 a ton and the inclusion of approved compounds of trace elements where they are incorporated with bountiable phosphate fertilisers. There is no doubt that this will bc of great help in increasing production in many parts of Australia. I only hope that before long we shall be able to develop and use more of our own known deposits of phosphatic rock and thus achieve a measure of self-sufficiency in this very valuable commodity. Further developments in the fertiliser industry include two new nitrogenous fertiliser plants, one in Newcastle and one in Brisbane, which are due to start production soon. There are also plans for a fertiliser works at Gladstone which will use Mount Morgan pyrites.

The Territory of Papua and New Guinea is to receive a grant of $87m this year. This represents an increase of $9m over the amount voted last year. Recently I visited all the principal centres in the Territory of Papua and New Guinea. The progress and development that 1 noticed everywhere were astounding and are a great credit to the Administration. As most of the expansion and development in the way of buildings, hospitals, schools and so on has taken place in the last 20 years since the war, the Territory has a great advantage over other places in that everything is comparatively new and up to date.

I was pleased to see the interest being shown by the mining group, Conzinc Riotinto of Australia Ltd, in a project which it is investigating near Kieta on Bougainville. If gone on with, this project will mean the establishment of a big copper mine which will provide a great deal of local employment. Another pleasing feature about the project was the part played by the Snowy Mountains Authority in designing a road up the steep mountain to the mine site. As honourable senators have probably noticed, Bougainville has been in the news in the last week or two because of the agitation there lo transfer the administration to the Solomon Islands. I think the Bougainville people are regarded as being more closely related to the Solomon Islanders than to the people of Papua and New Guinea. Bougainville is a long way from the seat of administration at Port Moresby and has only three representatives out of 90 members in the House of Assembly.

The Territory of Papua and New Guinea Administration is making every endeavour to build up its cattle population as quickly as possible. There are now about 56.000 cattle in the Territory and it is envisaged thai there will be about 138,000 there by 1 973- - five years from now. The population of the Territory is over 2 million. As the people there are now including greater and greater amounts of meat in their diet, increased numbers of cattle are an urgent necessity. 1 come now to broadcasting and television. After full investigation, the PostmasterGeneral has announced that the permanent television transmitter for the Cairns area will be on the summit of Mount Bellenden Ker, which is 5,000 feet high. lt is the second highest mountain in Queensland. Nearby Mount Bartle Frere is the highest. This, of course, is subject (o a favourable report from the Public Works Committee. The cost of this station will he substantial, but first class television reception will be available to Cairns city, the coastal plain from Mossman to Tully and the Atherton Tableland. In this viewing urea there are about 90,000 people. The. Cairns area, has presented more problems in the selection of a suitable site for a television station than any other area in Australia.

It is interesting to note that the construction of a road to the summit of Bellenden Ker has been ruled out and that a cableway will be built to provide for the erection and maintenance of the station. When this station has been established, it is hoped that the cableway, with a passenger car, will be used as a tourist attraction. Those who have been to Pago Pago in American Samoa will have seen such a car carrying about ten people running up to the television transmitter across the harbour and up a mountain only 2,500 feet high. There is no road up the mountain but the view from it is beautiful. On a clear day, it is possible to see western Samoa about 80 miles away. This cable car operates continuously and is hardly able to cope with all the people wanting to travel on it. I believe that a similar cableway up Bellenden Ker, a milehigh mountain, straight up from sea level, would provide a wonderful view and would be an invaluable tourist attraction for the Cairns district.

I notice also thai the PostmasterGeneral’s Department has given authority to the mining company operating the big open cut coal venture at Blackwater in central Queensland to install and operate at its own expense a television translator station to serve the people of the mining town of Blackwater. More of these translator stations should be established in towns in fringe viewing areas. I am still very concerned that it has not been possible to provide a television service for so many inland towns, particularly in western Queensland. I realise that the microwave relay now under construction from Townsville to Mount Isa will make television possible in the Mount Isa-Cloncurry area, and later on the Hughenden area, and later still in the main centres of :he Northern Territory, but there are many other centres in central western and south-western Queensland with populations up to 5,000 people who have no prospects of enjoying television reception at present. I believe these people should be provided with black and white television before expensive colour television is introduced into Australia’s big cities.

While dealing with Post Office matters, I should like to refer to the many small restricted-hours telephone exchanges in Australia. The Postmaster-General states that the number of telephone services con nected to telephone exchanges having restricted hours of manual service reached a peak of 60,260 subscribers in 1956 but at 30th June 1967 this number had been reduced to 37,000 services connected to about 2,500 small exchanges. This reductio” has been achieved mainly by conversion to automatic working. It is planned that by 1975 the number of subscribers with restricted hours of service will be reduced to 15,000 connected to about 800 exchanges. The Postmaster-General’s Department has thus made considerable progress in the elimination of this undesirable aspect of our country’s telephone service, but I would like to see this Department alter its order of priorities to enable all these part time exchanges to be eliminated by 1975. I believe that these telephone users of restricted hours should not suffer this disability any longer than is necessary, and 15,000 is a large number of telephone users to be still on restricted hours 7 years from now.

Senator Cormack:

– After 6 o’clock at night-

Senator LAWRIE:
QUEENSLAND · CP; NCP from May 1975

– I know that restricted hours telephone exchanges have many disabilities. The sugar industry is still suffering from low world prices. Later this month another attempt will be made at a conference to formulate a new world sugar agreement. The Minister for Trade and Industry, Rt Hon. John McEwen, and the Premier of Queensland, Hon. Johannes Bjelke-Petersen, are expected to attend that conference in company with the leaders of the sugar industry. The Australian delegation will carry the good wishes of most Australians in its efforts to achieve some measure of stability in world sugar prices and prosperity in the sugar industry of Australia. 1 wish to refer to some aspects of civil aviation that must cause concern. In the July 1968 issue, Volume 10, No. 7, of Panorama’, the journal pf Ansett-ANA which is placed in the seat pockets of all Ansett-ANA aircraft, ‘ there is an article headed ‘Ansett-ANA in the Next Decade’. Mr Frank Pascoe, the Executive Director and General Manager of the airline, is quoted as saying that the company expected to expand at the rate of 8%, compounding through , to. 1980. He said that by that year Ansett-ANA would be twice as big as it is today and would have as many as twenty-eight jet aircraft. He went on to say that it would be concentrating on major ‘ interstate services and reducing activity on rural routes. That is the statement to which I take exception. He also said that the airline would have moved into its true area of activity, which was to handle 90% of all its travel over 300 miles and about 10% under that mileage.

Ansett-ANA already has withdrawn from its Gulf stations run in Queensland, which has been a feature of its service in that area for many years. The Gulf stations run is now operated by Bush Pilots Airways Ltd. I might mention that the withdrawal is not confined to Ansett-ANA. TransAustralia Airlines has discontinued some of its country services. One of the discontinued services is that from Rockhampton to Longreach in Queensland. Many local authorities throughout Australia have spent large sums of money on their aerodromes in order to provide air services for their areas. Some of them have done that with Commonwealth help, and some without Commonwealth help. Air services to the smaller centres in Australia must be maintained, expanded and improved - not reduced.

I note that the appropriation for the Australian Tourist Commission in the Estimates is SI ,7 50,000 - an increase of $230,000 on last year’s expenditure. Much of this money is spent on promoting Australia’s tourist attractions overseas. We have many attractions that are well known overseas. Let me mention just a few. They include the Great Barrier Reef, Ayers Rock, the Snowy Mountains and the Gold Coast. I think the Minister-in-Charge of Tourist Activities mentioned the Great Barrier Reef today in answer to a question and pointed out how well known and what a wonderful attraction it is. Overseas promotion could and does highlight those attractions and many others. I believe that we should develop a system of allowing overseas tourists a discount on our internal airlines after a certain number of flights. This kind of discount is allowed in many other countries. It is a considerable attraction. It encourages tourists to move around more. It would encourage them to spend money in a bigger area and to see more of Australia. If this can be done in overseas countries, I do not see why it could not be done here.

Senator Devitt:

– Our airlines have not enough seats for the passengers offering now.

Senator LAWRIE:
QUEENSLAND · CP; NCP from May 1975

– I think such problems will be overcome. Many overseas tourists want to see Australia’s sheep and cattle stations and to see work being done with stock, such as shearing. 1 am pleased to see that several Queensland sheep and cattle station owners have now established on their properties facilities to cater for such tourists. These facilities have been established especially along the highways that the buses travel. The more typically Australian attractions we can establish- and publicise, the more overseas tourists we will attract.

With regard to our own people who desire to travel, as opposed to overseas visitors to this country, I am told that there is a tendency for some tourist agents and promoters to sell Australians short boat cruises rather than trips to see Australia first. I have been told that- the reason for this is that boat cruises involve fewer travel arrangements and fewer bookings, and therefore are easier for the travel agents to arrange. Tourism is such a good money earner in many Australian centres that we should make every effort to expand it, to encourage it and to build it up as an overseas currency earner.

The next matter to which I refer is the fact that the Queensland Government is planning to build a huge thermal powerhouse on the central Queensland coal fields. The object is to provide electric power at a price low enough to make possible the establishment of an alumina refinery in central Queensland for the further processing of the alumina being produced at Gladstone from bauxite from Weipa, instead of sending it elsewhere to be processed. There are large quantities of steaming coal in central Queensland. There is also coking coal. At Blackwater a seam of steaming coal overlying the coking coal has to be discarded at present. The powerhouse that I have mentioned will be very costly. Means of obtaining .finance are now being investigated.

The development of the prawn fishing industry in northern Australian waters and the additional population that mining has attracted to the area have focussed the attention of the Australian people on the great natural resources of northern Australia and the adjacent seas. The new 12-mile fishing zone, the continental shelf, our relations with other maritime and fishing nations and the control of the Gulf of Carpentaria waters have been headline news in recent months. The problems of the officials who administer our quarantine laws have also been highlighted. We as a nation are a party to several international conventions on fishing in territorial waters and on the continental shelf, as well as several other conventions. We have had it clearly defined and agreed by many nations in those conventions that our exclusive fishing rights extend to 12 miles from our coastline and 12 miles around each and every island off our coast which is above water at high tide.

We also have as our territorial waters certain internationally recognised historic bays which are more than 24 miles from headland to headland. But, so far, despite repeated efforts by the Queensland Government, we have been unable to obtain international agreement on recognising the Gulf of Carpentaria as territorial waters. We have control of the continental shelf to a depth of 100 fathoms, or 600 feet, covering oil, minerals and sedentary marine life. The continental shelf extends across all of the Gulf of Carpentaria. Recently some people have advocated our making a unilateral declaration that the Gulf of Carpentaria is Australian territorial waters. Those advocates are without understanding of all the problems involved. I believe that we are doing the right thing in persisting in our efforts to achieve this recognition by international agreement.

The upsurge of activity by foreign fishing vessels around our northern coast has made health and quarantine measures more difficult to police. The greatest threat to Australia’s economy, without doubt, is the possibility of the introduction of foot and mouth disease. If this should be introduced a very large part of the primary industry exports lo many countries would cease overnight. The commodities affected would include wool, wheat, sugar and meat. Every person in Australia would be affected. This, coupled with the fact that foot and mouth disease is already in western Indonesia, particularly Sumatra and even as far east as the island of Bali, must show the risk we run, especially on our northern coastline and in the Territory of Papua and New Guinea. There is an ever present risk of its introduction to Australia. This till adds up to the fact that we cannot be overcautious so far as quarantine measures in that area are concerned.

The Commonwealth Government, the State governments of Queensland and Western Australia and private enterprise have done much in the last few years to develop the northern parts of Australia. Certainly much more has to be done, but the mining development already has been staggering. To mention only some, there has been activity in the mining of iron ore, coking coal, bauxite, alumina, manganese, copper and nickel. Big water schemes already approved for the Ord and Emerald Rivers, beef roads, brigalow and railway development all are playing their part to bring the northern areas to full production. I would like to see high priority given to a road to open up the fertile areas in the Cape York Peninsula. Despite the big increase in mining development Australia still relies mainly on primary production exports to provide the funds for its raw materials for secondary industries and to meet its overseas commitments. Some of our industries, notably the wool and sugar industries, are suffering as a result of low world prices, and high local costs are making the position even more difficult.

The recent trip by the Prime Minister (Mr Gorton) to the north of Australia has highlighted the big developments I have mentioned. It would be almost impossible to estimate the amount of money which has been spent and is being spent on these projects. It is one of the best defence investments this country could make as it must help to get population into the areas concerned. People are still our most precious and our scarcest commodity. A larger population in the north would provide more markets for our industrial areas in the south. The Budget will carry on the development of our country in a balanced fashion and maintain our expansion and progress. 1 support the Budget and oppose the amendment.

Senator WRIEDT:
Tasmania

– The Commonwealth Parliament exists to serve the people of Australia. I am both delighted and honoured to be able to join in that task. I have been involved in politics for many years, but the real significance of one’s involvement becomes apparent only when one comes to this place and expresses one’s thoughts and ideals in the national parliament. Every man glimpses a truth. No one man has a monopoly of truth. For this reason, if for no other, I hope that I can make a worthwhile and positive contribution to the life of this nation. I think it would be quite wrong for anyone to come here with thoughts of setting right all of society’s wrongs and changing the course of history in his own lifetime, and with similar lofty intentions. We cannot achieve perfection, we cannot change the course of history just as we would like, but we must constantly be mindful of the ideals and the hopes of those who have sent us here. I believe it is an accepted principle in most organisations that those responsible for the proper functioning of such organisations should establish a set of priorities in order to determine the things that count most. Security for the individual, for his family and the nation is the dominant factor in the minds of most Australians. Domestic security is the right of every Australian - not security in the form of a pittance or a handout, but security which allows dignity and comfort. In Australian society today how many of us can look forward with certainty to security and dignity in our old age? For hundreds of thousands of Australians retirement means the age pension which, in turn, means a living standard little above the poverty line.

At the presentation of each Budget one of the main points of interest invariably is: How much will the pensioners receive? It is a main point of interest for two reasons; firstly because it is of direct concern to 800,000 Australians and. secondly, because there are hundreds of thousands of Australian workers and their wives who know that unless a radically new system of retirement, benefits is introduced before they retire, then what the pensioners receive today is what they can expect tomorrow. The crux of the whole problem is that those employees who are in a superannuation fund, whether government or private, are assisted in retirement by the contribution of their employers to the fund. This is not some magnanimous gift by the employer. In turn he passes the cost on to the com munity, a significant proportion of which is unable to enjoy similar benefits and thus is contributing to the eventual security of others. A national superannuation scheme is the only means of solving this problem. Handouts at Budget time are no solution. They never were and they never will be. By their very nature they serve only to emphasise the inadequacy of the whole system: An editorial in the ‘Sun Herald’ of 5th May this year is worth quoting. It reads:

Australia is one of the last advanced Englishspeaking countries to introduce some form of national superannuation.

A citizen who has given a lifetime of work to the nation, established a home and raised and educated a family, is entitled to look to a period of happy, carefree retirement on a regular and adequate income. Instead, Australia clings to an antiquated system of handouts iri the form of oldage pensions, by which the State shows not its gratitude, but its charity.

Another very important factor is the restriction that is placed on the individual who may desire to change his occupation or his employer after many years of service under a particular superannuation scheme. After 10 or 20 years of service, a contributor accumulates considerable benefits. In the situation that exists he may wish to change his job, but he will think twice before forfeiting those benefits in order to take up another position. Why should the freedom of Australians be restricted in this manner? As Sir Leslie Melville, a director of the Reserve Bank, stated in May of this year, employees are discouraged from leaving their present, occupations because of the superannuation benefits they would forfeit. Such restrictions can be met by transferability of superannuation funds, and this is one of the main attractions of a national superannuation scheme. Only ‘1.2 million Australians at present are covered by superannuation, but every Australian could be covered if we accepted our responsibility lo the whole community.

Both the United States of America and Sweden have had such Systems for many years. They cover all wage earners. If they change their employer or their job their benefits continue. They are not subjected to a means lest. One of Australia’s top experts on social accounting has proposed the introduction of such a scheme. He is Professor Downing, Ritchie Professor of Research in Economics at the University of Melbourne. Professor Downina has dealt extensively with this subject and it would bc impossible to go into all the details of his scheme. One point of interest which he makes, and a point of which we should luke note, is that so many pensioners have practically no supplementary income. This is largely a reflection of the fact that they had low incomes for most of their working lives. Many would have been unemployed during the depression years, lt is easy to understand how difficult it would be for them to accumulate reserves.

To overcome this problem Professor Downing suggests a scheme to include contributions by the employer, the employee and the Commonwealth Government. The scheme would ‘cover all wage earners not otherwise covered by private schemes. A distinct advantage of it is that, instead of a person retiring on a fixed income, the pension payable under the proposed scheme’ would increase as the contributions to the fund increased. That is a. means of overcoming the problem of fixed incomes. Naturally, difficulties would arise during the transition period but, even allowing’ for that factor, the introduction of such a scheme is becoming increasingly necessary for the Australian work force. I suggest that the Government should seriously consider the suggestion. 1 wish to deal now with the equally import anl question of national security. We live in a troubled and sometimes dangerous world, lt is unfortunately a world of nation states which place their own national interest and survival first and their place in the world community second.- 1 do not think thai is an unreasonable summary of the world situation. Abundant examples have been seen in recent years of well meaning agreements, both of an economic and military nature, between nations. The agreements have collapsed or have run into serious difficulties because one of the partners to agreement has felt that its own national interests have been at stake. But in the 1 960s we are confronted with three new factors, the first of which is -the emergence of a ureal number of newly independent nations, mostly poor and backward. The second factor is the technological revolution. The third factor is the nuclear bomb. lt is not of much wonder then that man, with his rather sorry record of dealing with much lesser problems, finds himself literally groping through this situation, staggering, as it were, from one crisis to the next.

The questions may well be asked: Security from what? Where- is the danger? Are the Red hordes from China about to descend on us? This is the general concept of most people who advocate greater expenditure on defence. I agree, as 1 said earlier, that as we live in dangerous times we would be foolish indeed not to provide for possible eventualities. But let us be sure that we know exactly what we are doing. We should not be diverted from the real dangers that come from another direction. I refer specifically lo the poor nations of the world, which provide the breeding grounds of political violence and unrest.

wish now to quote from a speech of Robert: McNamara, who until recently was the United Stales Secretary of Defence. Probably no man on the world political scene knows more about defence than McNamara. The speech from which I wish to quote was delivered in Montreal in June 1966 to the American Society of Newspaper Editors. Mr McNamara said:

From i he point of view of combat readiness, the United States has never been militarily stronger. We intend to maintain thai readiness. But if we think profoundly about the muller il is dear thai 1 his purely military posture is moi the central clement in our security.

A nation can reach the point al which il does not buy more security for itself simply by buying more military hardware - we arc al that point. The decisive factor is the character of its relationships wilh the world.

There is little or no uniform rate of development throughout the countries of the world, but all honourable senators are aware of the vast disparity between nations. For example, the World Bank divides nations into four categories on the basis of per capita income: The rich: the middle income; the poor; and the very poor. The rich possess 75% of the world’s wealth, although having only 25% of the world’s population. Since .1958 only one of the nations in that group has suffered a major internal upheaval on ils own territory. I ask honourable senators to observe what happens at the other end of: the economic scale. Among the thirty-eight very poor nations - those wilh a per capita income of under SI 00 a year - no fewer than thirty-two have suffered significant conflicts. Indeed, they suffered an average of two major outbreaks of violence per country in the period between 1958 and 1966.

The trend continues in the other two categories. In the same period 48% of the middle income nations, 69% of the poor nations and 87% of trie very poor nations suffered serious outbreaks of political violence. The figures illustrate the direct and constant relationship between the incidence of violence and the economic status of the countries afflicted. The trend of the violence is upward, not downward.

If a change for the better were evident in the relative economic conditions of these groups, it might be possible to look to the future with some confidence, but the fact is that the gap between the rich nations and the poor nations is widening, as all honourable senators are aware. I again quote Mr McNamara. He said:

The conclusion to all of this is blunt anil inescapable. Given the certain connection between economic stagnation and the incidence of violence, the years that lie ahead for the nations in the southern half of the globe arc pregnant with violence.

Until very recently a factor which appeared to be of paramount importance was the inability of the world to produce sufficient food to meet the growing population’s needs. A great deal of research on higher crop productivity has been done, mainly with United States backing. Only now the fruits of those great research programmes are beginning to be seen. But we would be foolish indeed to become complacent. The problems of the underdeveloped world cannot be restricted purely to food production. There is much evidence to suggest that even the spectacular increases in crop yield may not come in time to avert large scale famine in the 1970s.

Last year’s report of the United States President’s Science Advisory Committee - the definitiye work on the world food programme - pointed out that most of the increases in food production during the past decade in the underdeveloped countries have come from expanding the area under cultivation rather than from intensifying yields of cultivated land. The Committee, in discussing India’s planned increased production of grain to 152 million tons by 1976, made this comment:

In the light of experience in India and elsewhere, it is questionable whether food grain yields can be increased that rapidly. In fact, many will even question the practical feasibility of achieving a 4% annual yield increase over the next 9 years.

Tied up with the question of increasing crop yields is not only the result of scientific research, but also the hard economic fact of investment. Investment means money - somebody’s money. For example, the Indian Government, in order to put into effect its plan to increase food production in a programme extending lo 1986, will need to find $30 billion to invest. This figure does not include such ancillary expenses as those involved in food storage, processing and marketing, harbour facilities and so on. On top of everything is the general necessity of greater purchasing power of the population of such countries. No one country has done more in this field than the United States, assisted of course by other more fortunate countries such as Australia; but not even the United States has been able to alter the position in Latin America. In 1965 the charges on Latin America’s foreign loans more than equalled the total annual foreign aid envisaged under the alliance for progress in 1961. I mention that figure to emphasise the magnitude of the problem that confronts the Latin American countries alone.

A more recent publication entitled Famine- 1975’, which sets out in great detail the problem of population growth and world food production, has a similar warning. This book, written by two Americans, one of whom is an agronomist specialising in crop production in tropical countries, advances the argument that’ new discoveries in food production are simply too late to avert major famines during the 1970s. Perhaps the authors are not wholly correct in their assumptions. Let us assume that they are only partly correct. If. this is so, it can be said that time has not run out completely. Again the authors emphasise, as did Mr McNamara, the tremendous social and political upheavals that will come should large areas of the world.be struck by famine; in fact, they say that the countries affected will be ripe for revolution.

Not only can the United States justifiably claim to have done more -than any other nation to help overcome these problems, but of much greater importance .is the fact that the only real hope for the future lies in the tremendous economic wealth and technological knowhow of the United States, It alone has the economic, resources to divert to this most urgent of problems. How can the United States, with the tremendous strain on its economy aggravated by this futile and shameful war in Vietnam, possibly divert sufficient of its natural resources to meet this challenge? The answer, of course, is simple. It cannot. For all the magnificent work that has been done under the Food for Peace Programme - and let no one- be under any illusion on this because the United States with its wheat has saved India from this very catastrophe in recent years; not the Soviet Union and not Australia - for all the efforts the basic problem remains unresolved, lt is for this reason that both Communist China and the Soviet Union have adopted a hypocritical attitude towards North Vietnam. The Chinese leaders, especially, have rejected outright peace overtures by the best intentioned of world leaders, including U Thant, Pope Paul, Mrs Ghandi and many others. More could be said of these things, but there is not time. The Chinese leaders have urged Hanoi to keep lighting, to the last Vietnamese if necessary. They much prefer to see the war continue and the drain on America’s resources continue rather than see at least some of those resources diverted to furthering economic aid to the poor countries.

The United States tried last year to have the Vietnam question brought before the Security Council, lt was the Soviet Union that stopped that move, lt would have applied the veto. It would not even have the matter discussed by the Security Council. The Russians refused on technical grounds., as they said, but in fact they know that while the war continues, while the United States can be bled and bled again, time is on the side of the Communists. I am not apologising in any way for America’s policy in Vietnam. Even 50 years ago when asked what he intended to do about the wealth of the United States, Lenin replied: ‘Don’t worry about America, she will spend herself out of existence’. That America has not done so, as yet, is not the point, lt is the implication of the remark that is important. I can remember in 1950 when the Soviet delegate Vyshinsky said in the United Nations General Assembly in reply to an accusation by a previous speaker that the Communists were out to dominate the world: ‘Yes, we are out to conquer the world, not with the gun and the sword, but with our ideas and doctrines’.

While hundreds of millions around the world arc hungry, poverty stricken and without hope, those ideas and doctrines will find nourishment. In matters such as these our principal task is to recognise where our efforts must be directed. The world cries out for peace and human compassion. These are not idle words. Man’s destiny surely is not to destroy himself, either morally or physically; rather it is to uplift himself and find that destiny in tolerance and understanding.

Senator RAE:
Tasmania

– I rise to speak in support of the Budget. However, before referring specifically to the Budget, let me as a newcomer to this place, making his maiden speech in this chamber, make one or two introductory remarks. First 1 wish to assure the Senate and the people of Australia that I am fully cognisant of the honour which I now have. In fact, I think it true to say that the occasion fills me with some awe. However, I receive some encouragement from the way in which the other new senators have delivered their maiden speeches. I should like to congratulate them for their efforts and for the encouragement which they have been to me.

Parliament is an institution steeped in tradition. As a student I delighted in ancient Greek history. I have little doubt that the opportunity which I now have to address this, I believe, the most important chamber in our national Parliament, stems largely from the enthusiasm for the principles of democracy created by my university lecturers in ancient civilisations, political science and history. To them I say: Thank you. Tradition is, I believe, important, and the greatest traditions are to be found in this, the foundation and the touchstone of democracy - the Parliament. I treasure the opportunity to play a part in the working of a democratic parliament and I trust that I may, during the term or terms granted to me by the people of Tasmania, do all in my power to uphold and enrich the traditions of this place.

Let me refer also to another person to whom I owe a debt of gratitude. 1 think it is not an exaggeration to say that this Senate also owes a debt of gratitude to the same person. I speak of my predecessor, Sir Denham Henty. The Queen has honoured Sir Denham; the Senate has honoured Sir Denham; let me humbly add my own reference. Sir Denham served this Senate and Tasmania for a period of 19 years. He rose to the ultimate success in this House and was, for an all too short period, Leader of the Government in the Senate. He was, I believe, more than any other individual, instrumental in setting this chamber upon its road to one part of what may be its ultimate fulfilment. He, more than anyone else, stimulated the recent growth and use of the Senate select committee system. I have no doubt that one of the greatest functions which this chamber can fulfil is in the review of the need for legislation and, subsequently, in the review of the operation of that legislation.

Let me say how delighted 1 am to be given the opportunity to be a member of the Select Committee on Water Pollution. I believe that possibly this Committee has in its hands the future of our great nation. If we continue to despoil that with which God. and nature have endowed us, I believe that our future will be severely limited. We must work out a way, commensurate with the needs of our development and industry, to preserve pur natural waters and the life which they provide and sustain. We must stop turning our natural waterways into vast sewers filled with life destroying bacteria and chemicals. The move for the creation of this Select Committee came from Sir Denham Henty. It may well be that future generations will pay homage to the foresight of that man. I believe that not only did Sir Denham play an active and important part in the development of this nation during his term in this House, but that it may well be we shall all realise that his greatest contribution came in. the select committee system which he, more than anyone else, encouraged and nurtured. I wish Sir Denham well in his retirement. I trust that he will never have cause to regret his support of my candidature for election to this place.

Upon my arrival here, I received a letter of well wishes from a friend who is also one of Australia’s top union leaders’. In his letter, he said to me:

I know that you will bring to your parliamentary duties a sympathetic understanding of the problems confronting the working people of this country to the end that all citizens may have equal opportunity to attain a high standard of living.

To him I say that he has my assurance that I. shall strive to do everything in my power towards that end. But further, and more important, I feel that under our present Prime Minister (Mr Gorton) the whole country may rest assured that this Government will ensure that all citizens have equal opportunity to attain a high standard of living and that this standard will be attained. Although my union leader friend undoubtedly disagrees with my political views, as I do with his, I have no doubt that he knows that I have been and will continue to be interested’ in the lot of the workers whom he represents and who provide the muscles of our community. What I add tonight is that I believe that with the enlightened policies of the Gorton Government as evidenced in the Budget, rather than through the repressive Socialism which is espoused by other parties, we can with the help of at least the wiser and more progressive unions achieve this desirable objective. I trust that this help will not be denied. . ..

I understand, Mr President; that I am by some few years the youngest’ occupant of this place. 1 trust that 1 shall ‘ not bc regarded as brash if I make a remark as to age. But I feel that perhaps I can be excused for saying’ that I hope the existing tendency for younger men to be elected here will be a continuing one not only so that the younger section of the ‘ community is represented here but also so that younger men can obtain at the earliest possible opportunity some experience of this Senate. This reminds me of something ‘ that I heard the other day during the debate on the site for the new and permanent, parliament house. I was listening to the debate on this subject in another place. I heard one of the speakers say that he believed that the site on Capital Hill was unsuitable because it was too steep a climb for the; ‘pensioners, who might wish to demonstrate, .to get there. An interjector said: .’What , about (he senators? They would never make it either.’ Well, I hope and trust that- with the age of the senators as it is that sort of comment will not ever be truthfully. made. In fact, it might be an interesting comparison to establish the average age of members of the two places. ; ,

Speaking to the Budget, ‘may I say how enthusiastically I support the proposals for the increases in the age, invalid and widows’ pensions. I believe that it goes without saying that on both sides of the Senate and in the centre there is no-one who does not applaud any increase given to provide assistance to the persons for whom provision was made in this category. But it is one thing to applaud this action; it is another thing to achieve it. The demands upon the Treasury are great and varied to stimulate growth, to keep our shores secure and our development increasing and to provide adequately for those who depend upon us for their bread and butter.

In his Budget speech in another place, the Prime Minister said:

What we want to see is that the aged needy, the ill needy, those really suffering from some unfortunate circumstances through no fault of their own, are adequately provided for by the nation, but that this should be done without destroying the incentive to save and without destroying the incentive to self reliance.

The Prime Minister has started on his war on poverty. 1 believe that we may with confidence look forward to a continuing war but, in this case, a war which will have the approval of all sections of the community and a war in which we must be the aggressor. In passing let me add that there is another equally serious war; and I do not wish this to be taken as denigrating in any way the importance of our defensive war - that, too, continues at the forefront of the thinking behind this Budget. I emphasise the war on poverty because too often R is overlooked in the emphasis on the shooting war, made spectacular by the bloody deaths, as opposed to the lingering asphyxiation of poverty.

Whilst speaking on the shooting war in which we are engaged, let me make a comment upon an aspect of that war which is sometimes overlooked. There are, I believe, two objectives in our war effort. One is to help our allies repel the northern invaders from the soil of South Vietnam. As yet, this objective has to be achieved. But there is another and very important objective. This is the objective of containing Communism and of giving to the other free nations of South-East Asia the chance to develop and fo stabilise and the chance to build that social and economic structure which is I he best possible defence against Communism. 1» this objective, I believe that we arc obtaining a daily victory. It is a daily victory which tends to be overlooked in the discussions which take place about our defensive war. I say that it is a daily victory because every day that the forces of Communist expansion are kept occupied in South Vietnam is a day in which they are unable fully to infiltrate and undermine Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesia and the other countries of South-East Asia. As well known commentator on Asian affairs, Denis Warner, said a few days ago in speaking about the countries of South-East Asia:

Governments, living standards, regional cooperation and defence capabilities have all improved. The dominoes will take some toppling.

Turning my attention back to Australia, I mention in relation to the war on poverty that it must be two pronged. First, it must’ attack the immediate need for adequate sustenance and housing. As I have already mentioned, this Budget does carry forward that attack. In that way, I applaud it. But it must make long term plans to defeat that situation which breeds poverty. To attack that problem, it is necessary to carry out a full educational programme. Education is the armour with which we can attack poverty. I applaud the fact that this Budget also makes substantial provision for this armour. [ have been amazed to read the comments on the Budget which came from the Tasmanian Labor Minister for Education, Mr Neilson. He was reported in the Tasmanian Press of 24th August as having said: no real provision was made in the Federal Budget to meet the needs of education in the States.

Let me remind the Senate first of all that education is not, under the Commonwealth Constitution, a federal function. But, historically speaking, as the inadequacy of the provision which the States could make became more apparent and in recognition of the importance of this particular function, the Commonwealth Government in 1963 and subsequently has paid great attention to this area through section 96 grants, that is, through the provision in the Constitution which enables the Government to make special purpose grants to the States. So, let us for a moment look at the realities of the situation.

Tn 1967-68, the Commonwealth increased its education grant by 34%. This year, the estimates are for a further increase of 19% on last year’s figure which, if we use 1966-67 as a base year, is an increase of 27%. So if we take 1966-67 as a base year the increases on the provision in that year have been, first, 34% and then 27% . 1 suggest that these are substantial in anybody’s reckoning. Included in the Budget increase of 1.9% in overall education expenditure were many, perhaps more spectacular, increases. Two which I instance are university entrance scholarships, which are up by 25% and scholarships to colleges of advanced education, which are up by 33j%. 1 again remind honourable senators that theoretically education is not a Commonwealth function or a Commonwealth problem. I agree that that is only in theory these days. Nevertheless, the Commonwealth has made available to Tasmania - the State with which r am concerned at the moment - $l.4rn for science laboratories, and has promised a further $Um by 1971. I could not be more sympathetic to the needs of education but I ask: What greater increase can you reasonably expect than 34% in one year and 19% on top of that in the following year? 1 hope and trust that this sort of increase continues.

Let me take another remark that has been made about the education provision in the

Budget. Mr Barnard, M.H.R., is reported in the ‘Examiner’ of 28th August to have said that Commonwealth spending on education was misdirected and lacked any sense of priorities and that the provisions for libraries and training of pre-school teachers were mere frill’s on the education system. What he forgot to mention is that this year the overall 19% increase in expenditure on education was not limited to provisions for libraries and pre-school teachers. 1 agree that they are the frills. The real’ increases, the substantial increases, are in the perhaps more basic expenditures on scholarships and on capital grants for universities, colleges of advanced education and teachers colleges, to a total of $2 1 Om. lt is quite unreal to suggest that you can look at what are the frills and say that you have dealt with the real problem, when you have such a large percentage increase in basic expenditure.

For the real figures on the increase in expenditure on education in Tasmania, I refer honourable senators to table 68 on page 108 of that section of the Budget papers which relates to payments to or for the States. With the concurrence of honourable senators I incorporate that table in Hansard insofar as it relates to education.

Let me refer, before leaving education, to another aspect pf this problem. One of Tasmania’s very real problems in relation to education is the fact that its population is well distributed. Decentralisation is said to be an important policy in the develop ment of this nation and I certainly believe that it is. Regrettably, Tasmania has many problems, but one aspect in which it does excel is decentralisation. Tasmania has decentralised. Its capital city contains less than 33% of the State’s population. Its northern city and environs contain about 25% of the population and the DevonportBurnie area contains a further 25%. No other State has such decentralisation. But one of the disadvantages of this decentralisation is in respect of the university education available to the average citizen living in the Si a te.

In the other States the percentage of students in 1961 and the period since then who lived within a daily travel distance of a university varied between 70% in New South Wales and about 45% or 50% in Queensland. In Tasmania approximately 30% of students live within a daily travel distance of the university. This means that Tasmania’s problem of accommodating its advanced college and university students is far greater than that of any other State, and 1 implore the federal Minister for Education and Science (Mr Malcolm Fraser) to have regard to this, the real problem of education in Tasmania. 1 might say. ‘Please, sir, Tasmania has decentralised. Now give us some credit for this and compensate our students by giving an extra grant towards the provision of living away from home allowances and the capital cost of building residential colleges and houses’. There are many church : nd welfare groups in the community in Tasmania which are anxious to help if only the Commonwealth will give a lead in this respect by recognising Tasmania’s special problems through succeeding in decentralisation. Provision such as I have mentioned was one of the important recommendations of the 1967 Burton/Clark report on the extension of university education in Tasmania. Professor Scott, of the Geography Department of the University of Tasmania, in giving evidence to the inquiry, pointed to the fact that Hobart, with less than one-third of the population, provided 54% of the full time students at the university. He said:

The importance of accessibility as a factor in influencing opportunity for university education needs no underscoring.

One of the other recommendations of Professors Burton and Clark was for the provision of more adequate facilities for external studies. Unfortunately, regrettably for Tasmania, the State Labor Government has refused the university’s request for a special grant of $25,000 for each of the next 2 years to introduce an external studies Arts course. Such provision would have meant a great deal to many of the 70% of Tasmanians who have no university available to them whilst they remain living at home. To the teachers who wish to complete degrees whilst working away from Hobart and to the many others who cannot otherwise obtain a university degree, the provision of an externa) studies division is vital. In a budget provision of $2 1 Om, $25,000 is indeed a negligible sum. 1 ask the Minister for Education and Science: ls there not a way in which this Government could, outside the ambit of the Australian Universities Commission and without destroying its plans and balance, make a section 96 grant of $25,000 to Tasmania to provide an external studies department as *‘<t** university and so compensate Tasmania for ils success in decentralisation? The provision of funds for hostels and colleges is a matter for future planning, but the provision of this small amount for an external studies department is an urgent need if it is to be implemented in 1969.

In a budget which does so much and covers such a large field, it would not be possible to satisfy everyone. I am disappointed to find that no provision has been made for a nation-wide legal aid scheme to operate in conjunction with the existing State schemes. This is a matter which has been mentioned from time to time in both Houses of this Parliament. As one of those who have followed its progress with a keen and close interest, I was enthused to read what the then Senator Gorton, as Minister for Education and Science, said on 20th October 1967:

The Attorney-General (Mr Bowen) has reached a stage at which he is satisfied that he could introduce such a scheme for consideration by the Parliament except for one outstanding matter. Negotiations are proceeding on the difficulties of this one matter, which relates to the provision of legal aid in matrimonial causes. Other than on this matter, progress has been made to the stage at which the scheme is ready for presentation to the Parliament.

That statement made clear that this is not a subject in relation to which the Government has said that as a matter of policy it is not prepared to implement the scheme. In September 1965 the present AttorneyGeneral, then a back bencher, asked a question of the then Attorney-General, Mr Snedden, in the following terms:

Is the Attorney-General aware of the success of the legal aid scheme in the United Kingdom which has been in operation for many years, managed by the legal profession and assisted to a limited extent financially by the British Government?

He asked Mr Snedden to investigate the possibility of introducing a uniform system in Australia. I take it, therefore, that there is no need to persuade the present AttorneyGeneral of the advantages of and the necessity for such a system. The Law Council of Australia has supported the scheme and has done what was expected of it, and in fact all that it could do, by collating information, making suggestions and supporting the implementation of such a scheme.

Altogether the history of legal aid is a long one. lt goes back at least to 1494 when in England provision was made to permit such persons as are poor to sue in forma pauperis’. One of the fundamental and cherished rights of each member of our society is the right to have recourse to the courts of law to protect or enforce his or her rights either in relation to other subjects or in relation to the state itself. I believe that the provision of a legal system whereby all people may exercise this right of: recourse to the courts is primarily an obligation of government. In this regard there is still an opportunity for this Government to show that admirable lead which it has shown in so many other directions. I have no doubt that there are good reasons for the delay but I can only hope that ways will be found lo overcome any problems which exist so that the scheme may be implemented as soon as is possible.

Practically speaking, the present situation is as described by Mr Bowen on 22nd August 1967; it is a situation in which only the very rich or the very poor can seek recourse to the courts without jeopardising their whole financial position. Many young families just establishing themselves, with an interest in a home, a car and a few other things, are virtually precluded from having recourse to our courts. Another section of the community- whose access to the courts is very limited in some States are deserted wives and their children. This Government is making grants to the States towards the maintenance of deserted wives and children. This I applaud, but I suggest that it may be worth while to endeavour also to assist those wives and mothers to recover maintenance from their husbands. Why permit the husbands and fathers to escape their responsibility?

Under the existing schemes conducted by the legal profession with the very limited aid of State governments, a very high proportion - approximately 45% - of all applications for assistance relate to matrimonial problems involving, as they so often do, maintenance and custody. The provision of funds to assist in the recovery of maintenance from the persons by whom it should be paid may well result in an overall reduction in government expenditure by reducing social service maintenance payments to deserted wives and children. It might well be that a unified or, at least, a nationally related legal assistance scheme could well take over the functions of the Legal Service Bureaux which at present are costing the Government $160,500 a year. These two savings alone could well provide the wherewithal to pay for a national legal aid scheme.

Unfortunately, at present some of the legal aid schemes have an unsure future. This is another reason why I believe that it’ is urgent that steps be taken to ensure that none of the schemes presently in operation breaks down. For many years the legal profession has shouldered the greater percentage of the cost of providing the means, for the poorer members of the community to exercise their right of recourse to the courts. In a time of proportional decrease in professional incomes the schemes risk collapse by the withdrawal of the support of the members of the legal profession. Iti many States the profession provides more than 50% of the funds necessary to carry on the schemes. In other States the percentage is often higher. The provision of a legal system whereby all who may have good reason to have recourse to the courts may do so is an obligation of governments, both Federal and State, as well as of the legal profession. It should not be left to individual members of the community to conduct legal aid as a charity.

I urge, therefore, that steps be taken at the earliest possible opportunity to implement the scheme which the Government has indicated it will implement.

In conclusion let me say that although 1 regret the limitations placed on the Prime Minister’s war on poverty by the exigencies of balancing the Budget, 1 applaud the overall Budget and have much pleasure in supporting its adoption as a realistic attempt to place a reasonable limitation upon the taking of the spoils of taxation and to make a wise and generous distribution of the benefits derived from that taxation, a distribution which no doubt is directed not only to our great national development but also to the war on poverty. I urge the acceptance of the Budget and the rejection of the amendment proposed by Senator Murphy. I thank the Senate for the honour it has given me in permitting me to address it. I also thank the Senate for its indulgence.

Senator MCCLELLAND:
New South Wales

– At the outset I take this opportunity to congratulate all the recently elected senators who have spoken in this chamber for the first time. All of us at some time or other have had to go through the very trying ordeal of making a maiden speech. I am sure that those of us who have listened this evening and on previous occasions to the newly elected senators will agree that- they have come through the ordeal with flying’ colours and that each of them will be contributing much to the political life of this nation and to the debates that take place in this chamber.

Having made those laudatory remarks t now want to indulge in a few criticisms of the Government for allowing the Treasurer (Mr McMahon) to bring down a ‘ Budget which, at the very best, can be described only as dull and unimaginative. The Budget certainly does not inspire confidence on the part of the Australian people that the affairs of this nation are in the hands of a competent and dynamic administration. Significant and large sections of the Australian community are up in arms about the contents Of this Budget. State Premiers are crying out about the paucity of funds that have been made available to them. Age and invalid pensioner organisations are very hostile about the niggardly handout that they have received. The trade union movement is critical of the Government for failing to face up to and cater for the just needs and requirements of the wage and salary earners of this country. Defence experts are criticising the Government for its failure to face up adequately to our real defence needs.

The Budget certainly indicates negative thinking, on the part of the Government. The Government has displayed an abysmal ignorance of the real needs and requirements of the Australian people. The Budget portrays a lack of initiative by the Government in planning for the future properly balanced development of Australia. Summed up, it is a document which should give every encouragement to all Australian citizens to sack those who have been charged with the responsibility of guiding the destiny of this great . nation but w ho have been found lacking in foresight, initiative, drive and capacity to effect a more equitable and balanced distribution of Australia’s wealth.

Let me deal first with some of the problems confronting the elderly section of the community - the aged and the invalid sections of the community.’ We all remember that as he entered Parliament. House prior to delivering the Budget Speech in the House of Representatives, the Treasurer paused and kissed a pensioner - and then walked into the House and gave single pensioners a pension increase of $1. and married pensioners an increase of 75c each. Widows, likewise, get the magnificent sum of 75c. But last year, this section of- the community got nothing except, according to the Treasurer, his sympathy.

Senator Wilkinson:

– What about the year before?

Senator MCCLELLAND:

– The year before that, they got a very niggardly handout. Of course, there was an election in 1966. Really, instead of kissing them, the Treasurer was pulling their legs because, whilst he gave the single pensioners SI and the married pensioners ‘75c; ‘the ‘effects were somewhat different. We ‘ find that in the same document he has increased the general rate of sales tax from I2i% to 15%. We note that he proposes to increase postal charges. Then, within’ a week of the’ Government having introduced” its Budget, a member of the Country Party in the New South Wales Parliament, the New South Wales Minister for Housing, announced that, because of the Commonwealth-State housing arrangement that had been entered into, and because pensions had been increased by the Commonwealth Government the New South Wales Government had no alternative but to increase the rents charged to pensioners in New South Wales. So I reiterate that the underprivileged who received nothing from this Government lastyear and, who, since the introduction of the Budget last year have had to cope, as have other sections of the community, with increased postal- charges that were introduced in this Parliament last October are now getting further and further behind because this Government cannot appreciate or comprehend the economic problems confronting this particular section of the Australian community. 1 well remember the present Minister for Social Services (Mr Wentworth) - who was appointed to that portfolio at the time when the present Prime Minister (Mr Gorton) became Prime Minister - -just prior to the 1966 Federal election, when he was a backbencher writing leading articles in the Sydney ‘Sun’ newspaper crying out, pleading, to the Government to increase pension rates so that pensioners might enjoy a reasonable standard of living; pleading with the Government to do something about abolishing the means test. But, now that he is a Minister, all he is able to do through this Budget is to give the very niggardly handout that has been awarded to these people.

There is certainly nothing in the document for the wage and salary .earners of the community except additional indirect taxation. Admittedly there has been no increase in direct taxation since the 2£% surcharge was. imposed in 1965: but, as the cost structure has risen, so has the wage and salary earner moved into a higher income bracket, because of this rise in the cost structure and, because of his moving into a higher income bracket, has automatically moved into a higher taxation bracket. lt is interesting to observe that over the last 10 years the burden of income tax has increased substantially on the small wage and salary earner.

Let me cite by way of illustration the fact that 10 years ago the ordinary wage earner paid 4£ weeks of his annual wage in taxation. Today, the same man on the minimum wage standard finds that he has to work 6 weeks in any one year to pay his income tax. The average man, the man on the minimum wage with a margin for skill-

Senator Cormack:

– What is the minimum wage?

Senator MCCLELLAND:

– lt is $37.55 at the present time, and the Australian Council of Trade Unions has an application before the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission for it to be increased. 1 have only half an hour to put the case on behalf of the ordinary man and woman in the community so I will not be put off by Senator Cormack. We do not represent the big business interests that those on the other side of the chamber represent. Let me say that 10 years ago the average man on the minimum wage, with a certain margin because of the skill exercised by him in. carrying out his job, worked for 5i weeks in I year in order to pay his income tax, but today he has to give away 8 weeks’ wages in income tax.

Now there is imposed upon him an additional burden by way of an increase from 12±% to 15% in indirect taxation. This means higher costs and charges. Radio and television licence fees are being increased. Postal charges are also about to be increased by this Government. Increased costs resulting from all of these increases are going to be passed on to the wage and salary earner. Therefore, this man loses on all fronts. Under this Government, he cannot possibly win. When the cost structure goes up, he moves into a higher tax bracket because his wage increases. Further additional charges are passed on to him. His local government rates become heavy. Indeed, local government rates are an intolerably harsh burden on the wage and salary earners in the metropolitan areas of the large cities. Fares on public transport systems are increased, and he is the victim of lack of government planning as well as of the abject failure of this Government to understand and comprehend his enormous financial problems, which are growing day by day and which will continue to grow day by day while this Government remains in office.

Senator Ormonde:

– And housing.

Senator MCCLELLAND:

– Yes, the cost of housing is also increasing. The State Premiers are caught up in a desperate rush for money because of the niggardly and selfish altitude being adopted by the Commonwealth Government. The Premiers come to Canberra each June to lake part in the discussions al the Premiers’ Conference and at the Loan Council meeting. They beat their breasts in Canberra and adopt a mythical let’sgettoughwiththeGovernment policy, they engage in what is generally referred lo by the Press political pundits as astute bargaining, they get their handout from the Commonwealth, they go back home and say: ‘The Commonwealth did not give us enough money in order to meet our essential needs, therefore we must introduce additional taxation measures in our own States.’ All of these additional charges, as I have indicated, eventually come out of the pockets of the wage and salary earners.

We find that today the New South Wales Premier is reported to be contemplating further increases in rail and bus fares and in entertainment tax. Unfortunately, because of the attitude of the Commonwealth Government towards the needs of the States, the Premier of New South Wales is also contemplating introducing a receipts lax, as was done in other States, ls it any wonder that the Liberal Premier of New South Wales is crying out for more money in order to carry out his undertakings to the people of that. State? He finds that he just cannot meet his additional burdens in education. He finds that his Government cannot meet its hospital commitments. In the last week we have had the spectacle of the New South Wales Minister for Health showing pressmen over the Royal’ North Shore Hospital where, we are told, paraplegics and quadriplegics have had to be carried out on to the lawns and hosed with water during the hot summer months because the building is more than 1.00 years old and there is no air conditioning or cooling system.

While that situation exists the Commonwealth Government is indulging in this expensive luxury of the purchase of Fill bombers from the United States of America and this huge increase in expenditure to cater for the war in Vietnam. There is an overall 9% increase in defence expenditure. This year’s appropriation is $32m more than last year’s. One newspaper editor said recently:

The real trinh of the Budget is that the family man pays for the rise in defence expenditure and it is the family man who is paying for the war in Vietnam.

He pointed out that in .1964-65 the defence bill of this nation was of the order of $590m, and that was after a statement on a defence review had been made by the then Prime Minister, Sir Robert Menzies. The defence bill is now $1,21 7m - more than twice as much as it was 4 years ago when the Government made its last defence review. But the fact is - I think this is acknowledged by all - that despite the increase in defence expenditure of well over 100% in the last 4 years, in fact, we are no belter defended now than we were at the beginning of that period.

What is going on? The Fill bombe.s have become something bordering on a public scandal. We are told that all the bugs have been ironed out. Then the day after the first aircraft is delivered it /tas to be taken back into the hangar to have some other defect - whatever it may be - rectified. In the ‘Australian Financial Review’ of 16th August last we read:

Two top Washington officials, Ambassador R. McClintock of the State Department and General K. V. Wood of the Defence Department, met Ministers and officials of the Australian Defence and External Affairs Departments for important defence talks in Canberra.

I remind the Senate that this article appeared on 16th August, 3 days after the Budget was introduced in this Parliament. The article continued:

Details of the talks were secret, but they are believed to have centred on American use of the naval radio station at North West Cape in Western Australia and the proposed; use of the J200m space defence station the Americans are now completing at Pine Gap in Central Australia.

But the significant statement in that article is this:

Prime Minister Gorton, who actually met the men by chance on the steps of Parliament House, said he had no appointment with them and that their business was ‘other than Vietnam’.

One would have thought that if top American defence experts-ne an ambassador in the State Department and the other a general in the Defence Department - were coming to Australia to discuss top secret, defence matters the Australian Prime Minister certainly would have been told and would have known about them. But, according to this article, he met them by chance on the steps of Parliament House and said tha.t they, had no appointment with him.

Therefore one must ask rhetorically: What is going on? Who is running the show? What is it all about? I plead with the Government to take the lid off and tell the people the true story of what is going on in respect of the defence of this nation.

Now I wish to deal more particularly with one of the matters on which I have touched only lightly up to this stage, namely, the increase in radio and television licence fees that is about to take place as a result of this Budget. For a joint radio and television licence, the increase is S3 - from $17 to S20. Il is said that this is lor the purpose of financing the operations of the Australian Broadcasting Commission. Shortly after the Budget was presented 1 saw the Treasurer interviewed in a programme presented by the Canberra commercial television station. When asked lo comment on the increase in broadcasting and television licence fees, he said that the Government was not concerned about the manner in which the ABC might apportion its expenditure; that he and the Government had sufficient confidence in the Commission to believe that the money that was allotted to it would be used prudently and wisely: and that he had the utmost confidence in the Commission. THis is another instance in which the Government has put the cart before the horse.

Lel me say at this stage that I have a very high regard for the General Manager of the ABC. Mr .Duckmanton, and the officers of the Commission. Recently 1 flew from Sydney to Melbourne to give evidence on behalf of lbc senior officers of the Commission in an application which they had made for increases in salary and which was being heard by the Public Service Arbitrator. But when one appreciates the generally hopeless arrangements under which this Government requires the Commission to function, one appreciates that there arc inefficiency and maladministration, and consequently ‘ a general loss of morale.

I ask Ministers how they expect a national broadcasting and television commission to Operate efficiently with the Australian Broadcasting Commission’s present accommodation arrangements, lt is unbelievable that in the great metropolis of Sydney the Commission should be expected to operate from seventeen different offices- throughout the city and in Melbourne from no fewer than ten different offices. That was the position at the time of the presentation of the Commission’s annual report for 1966-67. According to its latest annual report, the present situation is somewhat similar. In its annual report for 1966-67. after setting out the situation that existed in Sydney, Melbourne and Tasmania, the Commission had this to say:

Effective supervision and control is not easy because of this division of personnel between widely separated locutions - a situation which, inhibits the necessary consultation between officers and the effective co-ordination of our varied activities. The Commission has an urgent need of new buildings in Adelaide, Sydney and Melbourne and il is hoped that in spite of other claims Parliament will find it possible lo approve the’ capital COStS involved.

Despite that warning by the Commission thai the best way in which it could overcome its operational difficulties was by the provision of centralised buildings in those places, the Government has nol given it the buildings but has decided to increase broadcasting and television licence fees in order lo meet the rise in expenditure brought about by the inefficiency. I notice that the recent annual report of the Commission, which arrived on my table at approximately 5- p.m., states:

In its last report the Commission drew attention lo the need for new buildings in several areas, particularly in Sydney, Melbourne and Adelaide. We have now established a long-range building programme incorporating a list of priorities, the first, of which is. a new radio and administrative building in Adelaide. Any extension of programme output in both radio and television is dependent in large measure on the provision of new buildings.

The Government’s capital works programme for the next 12 months indicates that nothing is being done to cater for the adequate and proper administrative needs Of the Australian Broadcasting Commission. Goodness only knows how many thousands of dollars are going down the drain because of the hopelessness of the arrangements. The Government has increased licence fees from §17 to $20 - another charge on the wage and salary earner. In typical fashion the Government has put the cart before 1 hehorse and made no arrangement to implement the capital works programme so urgently needed by the Australian Broadcasting Commission. Because of lack of administration by the Government, maladministration and lack of foresight the Australian people have to pay the bill.

I now refer to the lack of adequate country studio facilities. J cite the case of the very large, very beautiful and salubrious city of Tamworth in the north west of New South Wales. Recently I took up with the Chairman of the Australian Broadcasting Commission the matter of the provision of adequate studios in that city. On 13th May he wrote to me stating:

Neither the Department nor the Commission has authority to commit funds for television studio facilities in country areas. When Cabinet approved the establishment of national stations in country areas, it was on the understanding that they would be provided with programmes by relay from the nearest capital city. 1 ask my friends from the Australian Country Party to keep this matter in. their minds and to go to the Postmaster-General (Mr Hulme) to see that country areas are provided with adequate and reasonable facilities. On 14th June, in further correspondence with me, the General Manager of the Australian Broadcasting Commission said:

As you may be aware from previous correspondence, however, we have no TV studio facilities in Tamworth and the demands placed on our present technical facilities in Sydney limit what we can do in respect of programmes of special interest to the Tamworth district. 1 therefore regret that it is not possible to meet this suggestion at present.

In order to make this great national instrumentality efficient and in order to enable it to expand properly and present the type of programme that will give a lead to the commercial television stations, the Government should be intent on ensuring that inefficiency, which of .necessity must develop because of the lack of adequate facilities provided by the Government for the Australian Broadcasting Commission, is overcome in both metropolitan and country areas. I make it clear that 1 do not want to appear to be a knocker of the Australian Broadcasting Commission. I think that the Australian programmes are of an excellent standard. The documentary programme This Day Tonight’ is a very popular programme with Australian citizens. I think it does much to inform, educate and entertain the Australian community on national and international matters. 1 am certain that if proper facilities were provided by the Government for the Australian Broadcasting Commission much more could and would be done by way of production of variety and dramatic programmes for Australians and to present something of the Australian image to the rest of the world. Certainly it is not good for the Australian Broadcasting Commission to try to compete with the Australian commercial television stations which screen imported programmes from time to time.

On 29th May last the Minister for Housing (Senator Dame Annabelle Rankin), who represents the Postmaster-General in this chamber, provided me with figures concerning the budgetary allocation by the ABC for the production of dramatic and variety television programmes in each of the States for the financial year 1967-68 and the amount that had been spent on the production of such programmes. To that time, the Commission had spent $256,380 on the production of dramatic programmes and $1,719,500 on imported dramatic programmes. Of approximately $2m that had been spent on the purchase or production of dramatic programmes only about 10% was for Australian productions. I say to the Government and to the ABC that this percentage . is not good enough. If the Government expects and wants the commercial television stations to produce dramatic and variety, programmes in Australia - in fairness to some of the stations, I think I should say that they are doing a reasonable job having regard to the facilities available to them- the Government must ensure that the ABC does more. The figures quoted on 29th May last show that the ABC had spent $155,000, in round figures, on Australian variety programmes and $482,000 on imported variety programmes. Of $500,000 spent on variety programmes by the Commission only $155,000 had been spent on the production of Australian programmes. In my opinion the Commission has a much more important role to play for- Australia in the presentation, production and programming of Australian programmes than is indicated by the percentages stated in the answer given by the Minister on 29th May. The ABC has a clear responsibility to the Australian people and to the nation generally, lt might be that its hands are tied because of insufficient and inadequate accommodation. 1 say in fairness to Sir Frank Packer, because I have criticised him at length, that if the Packer station. Channel 9 in Sydney, and also Channel 7 in Sydney, can survive wilh up to 2 hours of Australian dramatic programmes over a 28-day statistical period, as they are required to do by the Australian Broadcasting Control Board, the Australian Broadcasting Commission should be able to do better than it has done to date, notwithstanding all the difficulties that I have mentioned, including inadequate accommodation. For instance, it seems to me that it was complete’ and utter foolishness to spend, as reported, $50,000 on the transmission by satellite link of the Indianapolis motor races, televised between midnight and dawn one day in June this year. That sum could have been better spent in providing employment for Australian writers, artists and producers. Films of the Indianapolis motor races could have been brought by air from San Francisco in about 24 hours and could have been shown in Australia within 30 hours of the event taking place. Somebody was somehow able to convince the ABC that it should use the satellite facilities to televise the programme direct from Indianapolis at a cost of $50,000, to be shown in Australia between midnight and dawn. That sort of expensive programming is engaged in while good Australian artists must go overseas to make their names and a living because they cannot get jobs in Australia.

These days there is too much foreign influence on our way of life. United States companies are taking over our industries and the American influence bears heavily on our advertising media. Too much is being spent on the purchase of imported programmes for viewing in Australian lounge rooms. As I have said, the Australian Broadcasting Commission has an important and vital1 national role to play. We of the Labor movement do not want to see the ABC as a cultural organisation only, showing only ‘Swan Lake’, the Edinburgh Festival or interviews with the Right Reverend Bongo Bongo. I have borrowed the words of a very well known Australian.

Senator Poyser:

– - What intellectual said that? “ Senator MCCLELLAND- 1. will inform my colleague in a moment. The Labor movement wants to see the expansion of the Australian Broadcasting Commission. We want to see it objective in its programmining and televising features that are truly Australian. We want programmes that not only are truly Australian, to educate, inform and entertain Australians, but which will also enlighten overseas countries about Australia. The well known Australian whose words I borrowed a moment ago also said:

But I want to have a chance to watch men walking down the streets of little western towns, reaching for their guns and saying, ‘Ah wouldn’ do thet if ah wuz yew, Toledo”. I want to have a chance lo watch a programme about a private eye. who gets bashed over the head with beer bottles and telegraph poles, but two minutes later is perfectly capable of taking on anything that ha may be required lo take on.

If I want lo watch that, why should I not be able to watch it without having it reduced in percentage by some superimposed body?

Senator Poyser:

– lt sounds like Mickey Spillane.

Senator MCCLELLAND:

Senator Cavanagh:

– We would use it for greater benefit.

Senator WITHERS:

– All that the Opposition can do is hare off on the FI 1 ls, but as Senator Greenwood asked this afternoon, have honourable senators opposite ever attempted to offer an alternative? Of course the answer is no. f come to the second item in the list of expenditures - Payments to or for the States. I take it that Opposition senators do not believe that this item should be reduced because they have jumped on the current bandwaggon with criticism that not enough money is going to the States. One could run through the whole of the thirteen items. There is the item, State Works and Housing Programmes - I take it that the Opposition would like more money spent on that, and more spent from the National Welfare Fund and on repatriation services, in addition to departmental running expenses. Has. there been any criticism of that? I doubt if any would come from the Opposition. What about external economic aid? We have had the Opposition preaching at us for years that the amount of external aid has been too low.

What about advances for capital purposes? What have Opposition senators ever said positively that they would do in each of these areas? They may like to seize upon the question of Commonwealth payments to industry. Do they think that that item is too high? Perhaps they do after an initial socialistic glance at it, until perhaps they peruse the items set out on page 16 of the printed Budget Speech. But is there among those items any one to which the Opposition is opposed because the payments are too great? Are the payments too generous on the raw cotton bounty, on the shipbuilding subsidy, the agricultural tractor bounty, the sulphuric acid bounty or the Melbourne to King Island shipping, service? I suggest that if honourable senators opposite feel that the items of expenditure as set out in the Estimates in statement No. 2 are not right or sufficient, or are in the wrong proportions, they should get up and say so. 1 suggest that they do not get up and say so because they have neither the ability nor the initiative to suggest anything else.

We have heard much in this place in recent weeks about the Government not doing enough in this direction or in some other direction. I suppose that this is fair comment from the Opposition, but I think it is also fair to say. to the Opposition that if it does not suggest an alteration to the proportions pf expenditure as between individual items, one must infer that it would increase the total amount of expenditure. This is fair enough, but having come to that conclusion I think the duty then devolves upon the Opposition to say how it would raise additional funds. If Opposition senators care to look at page 23 of the Budget Speech they will see statement No. 3- Estimates of Receipts, 1968-69. Again I ask: Which of these items would they increase or decrease? I ‘have not heard any Opposition senator suggest that customs duties should be decreased or that excise duties should be decreased. Sales tax has been increased. Honourable senators opposite have, been speaking about this item and have said that it is wrong to increase sales tax, although perhaps the increased revenue will be used to meet the added expenditure from the National Welfare ; Fund. Does the Opposition believe that income tax on individuals should be raised? Honourable senators opposite have skirted around this problem. They have ducked off and attempted to hide their own inadequacies by complaining about the out of date taxation schedules, but I suggest that this is not sufficient. One. would imagine, with the statistical information coming forward from lnc Commissioner of Taxation as to the areas in which the number of taxpayers reside, as lo incomes and the amount of tax raised within those groups, that it would not take any degree of intellectual effort to work out a new tax schedule. But here, again. wc get nothing hut carping criticism.

– 1 do not know about that. I note that the speech was on Thursday afternoon, lt ran for quite a while. Honourable senators will remember that when he sat down I look advantage of standing order 364 to move that Senator Keeffe lay on the table of the Senate the document from which he had been quoting. I moved that motion that he should table the document because I wanted the Senate to judge the truth or otherwise of the allegations which he said flowed from that document. Senator Keeffe said that he was delighted to lay the document on the table and did so immediately. If I may go back to what Senator Keeffe said about this document, or paper, or whatever it might he called, he commenced by saying that he had a copy of a circular: . . which is a confidential document distributed inside the Liberal Party.

He went on to quote from various parts of this document. My distinguished colleague, Senator Greenwood, interjected:

Did the honourable senator write this letter?

The answer came back:

No, it was written by a responsible member of the Liberal Party.

Senator Keeffe having said that. one imagines that he has a letter with a signature on it and knows the name of this responsible member of the Liberal Party. So, this sounds fair enough. We thought thai he must have had the letter as he said he did. He said that it was written by a responsible member of the Liberal Party. 1 take it that when one makes a state ment in this place one is able to back it. Later in his speech, Senator Keeffe went on to say:

This was pui out by prominent members of the Liberal Party associated with the new organisation, the Business Men for Democratic Government. . . .

Senator Keeffe again goes on and indulges in fairly large quotations. He finishes up by saying: lt is signed by the ‘Business Men for Democratic Government’.

At that stage, Senator Greenwood again interjected. He said:

The honourable senator said it was a Liberal Party publication.

Senator Keeffe replied ; instantly of course:

Of course it is a Liberal Party publication even though it is issued by a breakaway group.

Having inspected the document, paper, letter, circular, or whatever it may be, after it was tabled, I. discovered - and it is open for inspection by all honourable senators - that there is no evidence that this is a Liberal Party publication.

Senator Mulvihill:

– They are not Socialists, are they?

Senator WITHERS:

– Who wrote it? The interesting part, of this document, circular, paper, call it what you like, is that it bears no address of the author, ft also bears no date, lt does not. say to whom it is addressed. It commences ‘Dear . . .’ without any other mention of for whom it is intended. It is not even signed. It has typewritten on the bottom: ‘Business’ - what do they call themselves - ‘Business Men for Democratic Government’. This is the document or letter, call it what you will, of which Senator Keeffe had the audacity to say in this chamber: ‘Of course it is a Liberal Party publication’. Then he says: ‘No, it was written by a responsible member of the Liberal Party’. If such an allegation is made in this chamber, I think the person making the allegation is in duty bound to substantiate it. There is an obligation on Senator Keeffe either to prove the truth of the statement that, he has made or to withdraw the statement that he has made.

Let me deal again with the last reply that he gave to my friend, Senator Greenwood. Let me recall to the mind of the Senate what he said. Senator Keeffe replied to Senator Greenwood:

Of course it is a Liberal. Party publication even though it is issued by a breakaway group.

– It is a very high position within the Australian Labor Party, due to its peculiar attitudes and approaches to what, is a democratic, form of organisation in its relationship,’ to its parliamentary members. Therefore, one .should think that a statement flowing from this individual would be such that ohe could put some credence upon it. But if the Federal President of the Australian Labor Party and a Labor Party senator in this place uses the methods and tactics that he used in respect of this anonymous letter- and I say to the honourable senator who interjected that it can be no more than an anonymous letter in view of the fact that’ it has no date, no address, no addressee and no real signature - and uses this letter as evidence on which lo base an argument, surely this is final proof that members of this chamber need to be quite assured that the Opposition is going to stay on the Opposition benches for a long time to come. As to the Budget, I support it. As to the amendment, I oppose it.

Senator WILKINSON (Western Australia! [10.18]- Mr President, first of all may I offer my congratulations to all the new honourable senators who have made the it maiden speeches since the Budget session commenced. I have enjoyed listening to most of them. Sometimes I have not agreed with what has been said- this is quite understood - but, generally, I feel that the contribution made by the new senators has been very creditable. These remarks, 1 suppose, do not count for much because 1 am a pretty new senator myself. Still, I do feel that what I have just said describes the position. 1 am sorry to disappoint Senator Withers and not deal with all the matters which he has brought forward and which might be dealt with by the Opposition with regard to the Budget. When the Budget was brought down, 1 did have in mind that I would be dealing with education, the Post Office, rural industry, the Aged Persons Homes Act and social services, Up to a fortnight ago. this was my intention. But there has been a considerable change of thinking in the rural community in Western Australia which I feel must be brought before the Parliament at this time because it is directly concerned with the Budget.

– I have not finished yet. The figures [ have cited have not been plucked out of the air. They can be seen in the publication of the Commonwealth Bureau of Census and Statistics. I have here a copy of a letter written by Mr C. Holden, a practical farmer of Mount Barker, which appeared in the ‘West Australian’ of 9th September 1966. Mount Barker is about 150 miles from the area about which I have spoken already. Mr Holden said:

I do not dispute that there is more lamb on the market-

That is what I have been saying - and that the export market is poor, but tha estimate of the average price for fat lambs is not correct.

That is the price that was quoted in a letter that appeared in the newspaper 2 days previously. Mr Holden goes on:

Also, regardless of what price the farmer is getting, the margin between that and the price to the public is grossly in excess of what would be considered reasonable. Profit margins being kept to a minimum is pure fantasy.

I am a fat lamb breeder who this year ha* produced more than 1,000 fat lambs for market, none of which has come within $2 of ‘a livestock buyer’s’ quoted average of $5.35-

That means he has received less than $3.35 - and these lambs were good - averaging 30 to $5 lb dressed.

That is what these farmers are concerned about. I am not worrying. I do not have any fal lambs;. 1 am on wethers. T am only trying to put the point that these farmers are making. The letter continues:

Fellow farmers and I have been selling lambs such as these for as little as SI -80 and my average has reached only $2.40, or 8c per lb, dressed.

Many fal lamb producers I know arc now doubling their price for lamb by killing them and > selling litem direct to householders. One in particular is killing more than fourteen a week. 1 think that is probably illegal but thai is what they are doing. The model farmer to whom I referred a few moments ago is applying for a job with the Department of Agriculture in an effort to make ends meet. If anything, the situation is worse than I have stated. I went into the Balingup area and spoke to one farmer and his wife who are trying to make a living with fat lambs on a property of 400 acres. How on earth anyone can hope to make a living on 400 acres when only 200 acres of it is cleared, 1 do not know, I suggested to them that they gel off the place as quickly as they could. They said: ‘We can’t. We can’t even sell it’. These people have been in the area only 2 years. They came out from England as trained agricultural experts and bought the place after being advised by the vendors 4hat this was what they ought to lake on. They now find that they are really in extreme difficulties. I do not know how they are going to carry on. Why are people being led to buy properties like this? On the other hand, the Western Australian Government is going to proceed with the opening up of a million acres this year for further production, despite the fact that we have these farms in the condition I have described.

The position is extremely serious and these people need some sort of redress. It is also proposed in Western Australia to set up a six-man committee to discuss sheep. This is disclosed in the ‘West Australian’ of today’s date. It is to be a six-member State sheep liaison committee, and is to be established by the Minister for Agriculture, Mr Nalder. The chairman is to be Dr Gardiner, the Chief Veterinary Surgeon. Of the other five members, one is an officer of the Department of Agriculture and the others are farmers. What these people need is an agricultural economist, to advise them as to what ought to be done. That is the difficulty they are in. It is no use asking a farmer what ought to be done. The farmer is not an economist. Not only do the farmers need an economist to advise them, but they have to accept the advice of the economist. I know that we have had plenty of advice from different agricultural economists who have said that what ought to be done in the industry generally was to cut down production in order to keep prices up. I will not subscribe to this while 60% of the world is starving. I think we have to produce as much as we can. The big question is how we are going to do that and make it pay. 1 think it is the responsibility of the Government to find the answer.

Western Australian senators will have an opportunity of attending a very big meeting shortly. I note from today’s ‘West Australian’ that there is to be a meeting held in Perth to which all members of Parliament both State and Federal are invited. I presume that includes senators.

Senator Gair:

– And no businessmen.

Senator WILKINSON:

– I understand that no businessmen will be allowed to attend the meeting. It is to be a big meeting and it is to be held in Anzac House. They are also hoping that meetings will be held in Moora and other places. This is an extremely hot issue. It is something that we have to take notice of and do something about.

I propose now to offer a few suggestions. I spent an evening with an agricultural economist. Such visits are sometimes frustrating. Agricultural economists are frustrating people to talk to, but, nevertheless, they do come up with some good ideas at times. I was interested to hear what he had to say and I entirely agreed with some of the things he said. For example, he said that farms must be made more efficient. In saying that, I mean that you can have an efficient farmer with an inefficient farm, a farm that cannot be run efficiently. I believe that in such cases the farms have got to go, and the Government must have a look at this to see how it can help farmers who are placed in a position where they have to leave their farms.

There must also be an inquiry into the meat marketing scheme. Why it is that at the moment the farmer is selling meat at such a ridiculous figure while the consumer

In the city is paying such a high price? This has got to be looked at and sorted out. While these people are in such dire straits, we have to look at some means of giving them financial assistance of a temporary nature to get them out of their present situation. I would suggest, too, that the younger farmers will have to be retrained into other jobs while their farms are being taken over. 1 think there is a lot of merit in the scheme of the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Anthony) for the rehabilitation of the dairy industry, which involves the taking over of the small farms and the provision of assistance while this is being done. We must also try to encourage university based research into what is the best thing for rural industry as a whole. This includes banana farming, dairying and other things as well as sheep farming.

But there is another suggestion which I think is most important. To my way of thinking it is quite revolutionary, although many others may have heard of it. 1 refer to a scheme of negative income tax. Under the ordinary income tax scheme, a person makes out his income tax return and deducts from his income certain amounts for the. costs he has incurred. As a result of these deductions, he pays on a smaller amount of income. The amount of income tax paid depends on what the income is. If a man has so many deductions that his income is reduced to nil he pays no income lax. If his income gets to something less than nothing, as is the case with many of these farmers, he comes into the realm of negative taxation.

The system of negative taxation could be applied to those who are too old to be retrained. They could be assisted by having a negative income tax system made available to them up to the time of their retirement, and the farm would not be passed on to anybody else, lt would go to the Government. The Government would sell the farm at the normal price and from the proceeds recoun itself for what it. has paid out by way of negative income tax over the period in which it has helped those people who are too old to he retrained.

Senator Byrne:

– That scheme applies to companies. You buy out the taxation.

Senator WILKINSON:

– Shire councils operate a somewhat similar scheme in that they offer certain rate concessions to pensioners and recoup themselves from the estate after the pensioner dies. In this instance I am concerned about the farmers while they are retired and before they die. The Government could recoup itself from the proceeds of the sale of the farm. We arc faced with an immediate and pressing situation and something has got to be done about it. 1 offer those few suggestions as a basis for discussion and consideration by the Government. They are the result of discussions 1 have had with other people. My suggestion with regard to negative taxation it nol part of the Labor Party’s policy, lt is my personal opinion, and I think it is worthy of a considerable amount of thought. It is something that could be looked at very carefully by the Government. 1 regret that I have had to devote the whole of my time to a discussion of rural industry, but I feel that at this particular time that is more important to the people of Western Australia than anything else. For that reason, I have devoted my time to it. I have much pleasure in supporting the amendment moved by the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Murphy).

Senator BYRNE:
Queensland

– There is before the Senate a motion that the Senate take note of the Budget papers. Senator Murphy has moved an amendment. I formally advise you, Mr Deputy President, that for the present my remarks will not be directed to the main question. I propose to refer only to the amendment moved by Senator Murphy for the Oppositon. I foreshadow a further amendment and reserve my right to speak to the main issue, the motion, at a later stage. The reasons which prompt the Australian Democratic Labor Party, through me, not to support the amendment moved by Senator Murphy, are these:

We consider that the amendment does not recognise the urgent need to raise those in the community who are in a condition of actual poverty, including recipients of social service benefits of all classes, to a fair standard of living. There is no mention whatsoever of the real poor in the community in any of the heads of the amendment moved by Senator Murphy. We consider that the amendment demonstrates by omission no interest in those who are the victims of the means test and for whom some measure of alleviation is a matter of sheer and fundamental justice.

We consider that an extraordinarily narrow view is taken in the amendment and that the Opposition, in the terms of its amendment, does not extend its vision beyond the urban areas and gives no indication whatsoever of concern for improved population distribution over the continent - in the remote parts and in regional towns and areas. The reference to defence is of very great importance. We consider that in a situation in which defence is assuming more and more significance and deserves much more important consideration, the Opposition’s amendment approaches the urgent and important problem of defence only as one of financial administration and not as one of strategic requirement. Honourable senators will note the terms in which the reference to defence is couched, namely, ‘to plan defence procurement and expenditure’. That is actually a description of a proposition that could well have been drafted by an accountant or an auditor. It makes no reference whatsoever to the need for a broader, expanded or new concept of Australian defence.

Senator Anderson:

– It is a one-line comment on an appropriation of something like $ 1 , 200m.

Senator BYRNE:

– That is so. Without going at any greater length into the reasons that prompt the Democratic Labor Party to oppose the amendment presented by Senator Murphy, I now move on to indicate the amendment that will be presented to the Senate after the Opposition amendment has been disposed of in accordance with the Standing Orders. The amendment that I foreshadow is in these terms:

At end of motion add: but the Senate is of the opinion that the Budget should be withdrawn and redrafted because it:

fails to make any real attempt to eliminate the pockets of poverty developing in this affluent society;

fails to present any financial or economic policy which recognises the urgent need to stimulate the natural population growth and in particular:

to direct financial aid to larger families, which by their numbers are contributing greatly to the Australian population and which comprise some of the most extreme areas of hardship;

to provide increased child endowment payments for any families;

to provide financial support in that segment of education where it is most urgently needed to relieve the financial burden upon families, namely, primary education, including aid to independent primary schools.

fails to ameliorate in any way the restrictive operation of the means test;

fails to stimulate national development by increasing and developing substantial communities at the points of recent discoveries and natural resource exploitation and with the consequential reduction of the undesirable increase of urban population, particularly in the capital cities;

reflects the persistence by the Government in its policy of considering social services solely in political terms and its refusal to establish an independent tribunal of experts to determine and fix the level of social service payments;

fails to provide an expanded and adequate defence policy which is increasingly necessary in view of the threat to Australia’s security and world peace by the new strategic situation east of Suez, by (ho Communist aggression in Vietnam, by Communist pressure both internal and external on the free nations lying to the north of the Australian continent, and by the most recent demonstration of the aggressive militarism of Communism in Czechoslovakia.’

I reserve my right to speak on the main question at a later stage.

Senator COTTON:
New South Wales

-I congratulate the honourable senators who have made their maiden speeches in this Budget debate, particularly the two who have done so this evening - Senator Wriedt and Senator Rae. I listened with great interest to both of them. The Senate is to be congratulated on the accesssion to its number of two men with such obvious talent and ability and with such a thoughtful approach to a wide range of problems. The speeches by most of the new senators have been one of the most satisfactory features of this debate. Other than that, it has been a fairly unimpressive exercise.

I have been very disturbed to listen to this Budget debate in the Senate, which from the Opposition side has seemed to me to be very largely what I would call a nil picking exercise. Tonight we listened to a stock market report which was supposed to be part of the Budget debate. In this chamber we. have an obligation to take the Budget debate seriously, as it concerns a matter of important economic policy. While the main factors that affect the Budget are decided on earlier occasions, the framework of the Budget, what it means in terms qf economic policy and its implications are worthy of much more detailed attention to the principles and problems than has been given to them in much of this Budget debate.

This situation is really the product of a situation in which we are trying to manage an increasingly complex economy and to understand the problems that flow out of a mixed economy, lt is not good enough to stand up in a Budget debate in the Australian Senate and take some fragment of experience or some personal problem and hammer it to death in the hope that that will be regarded as a serious exercise in thinking about the financial problems of Australia.

Senator Wilkinson:

– Mr President, I raise a ‘.point of order. I .object to the references that are being made to my speech and the way that the honourable senator is making them. The matters that I raised are tremendously important to the people in the rural industries and I do not think they will appreciate those matters being described in this way.

The PRESIDENT:

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

Senator COTTON:

-] think Senator Wilkinson took my earlier reference to a stock market report much further than I hud intended it to be taken. What I was really concerned about was the broad level of the debate and the need to consider the problems of the private sector as well as those of the public sector and to learn, as best we can, how to mesh them together and how to manage the problems of this country by having regard to all of the factors with which we are concerned. If there is one chamber in all the parliaments in Australia that should be able, because of its talent, its time and, one hopes, its ability, to deal with the problems that are with us through the years, it is this chamber. The problems of economic policy, defence and development ate continuing Ones to which 1 would hope we would be able to give our attention, which we would be able to treat seriously and ‘on which we might be able to make some contribution that would lead to the solutions that we need to find. Those honourable senators who have had enough time to consider all of the material in connection with the Budget - I do not feel that I . have - will realise the immense complexity of Budget preparation.

Debate interrupted.

page 577

ADJOURNMENT

Commonwealth and State Financial Relations - Commonwealth Land Holdingsfrench Nuclear Tests - Nuclear NonProliferation Treaty

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! In conformity with the sessional order relating to the adjournment of the Senate, 1 formally put the question:

Thai the Senate do now adjourn.

Senator MULVIHILL:
New South Wales

– I think it is significant that, having listened to the debate on the Budget earlier this evening, my submissions should deal with a specific facet of Federal-State financial relations. 1 think everyone is aware of the almost united front adopted by the State Premiers against the existing pattern of disbursement to the States, i want to refer to a Cabinet decision and I hope that the Minister who replies will explain to me which Minister was responsible for the decision or whether it was a collective decision. I refer to an announcement made a few days ago by the New South Wales Minister for Lands to the effect that 175 acres of Sydney Harbour foreshore lands would be transferred from the Commonwealth to the New South Wales Government for the sum of $500,000. I. had canvassed the release of most- of these areas, including 32£ acres r.of. Georges Heights and 52 acres of Barrenjoey Headland. The Commonwealth Government is saying so magnanimously: ‘We are only charging open space value. We are not charging for any other category of land’. I am fortified in my criticism by no less a newspaper than the Sydney ‘Daily Telegraph’ of 2nd September .which says, among other things, that the Commonwealth has not been over-generous because the land was acquired gratis at the time of federation’ for defence purposes; Nobody disputes the right of the Commonwealth, at the time of federation, to acquire the land. But where is our sense of value and our sense of proportion?

If the transaction were a nation to nation transaction, such as in 1867 when the United Stales of America purchased Alaska from Russia for a considerable sum, that would be one thing. When the transfer is an internal! one, ‘ the Commonwealth has no justification for charging that sum. I will take this analogy with the United States a little further. Some .2 years ago the Nels Bombing Range in Nevada became redundant. This illustrates the difference between the attitude of our Minister for the Interior (Mr Nixon) and the United States Secretary of the Interior, Mr Stewart Udall. The parcel of land involved in the United States transaction was divided in half. One section was allocated as a wild horse range - for the equivalent of our brumbies. The other section was left for general recreational purposes. In each instance there was no imposition of transfer fees on the State of Nevada.

The Commonwealth acquired the Sydney land for nothing. No wonder people do not like to sec the Commonwealth involved in transactions of this kind. There is no excuse for the imposition of the $500,000. The ‘Daily Telegraph’ article points out that the Commonwealth still has custody of 1,750 acres of harbour land. So far as recreational land and all the other categories of open space land are concerned, I would have no fears if the Commonwealth Government retained control so long as the State or local municipal authorities safeguarded it and did not allow it to be leased to private landholders but kept it for communal use. I am not arguing that point. I emphasise that here is something that occurred at federation. Yet the Cabinet as a whole or some Treasury official has decreed that the State Government shall pay $500,000 for this land. Far be it from me to find myself allied to the Premier of New South Wales, Mr Askin, but I can assure honourable senators that on this issue I have the deepest sympathy for his Minister for Lands, Mr Lewis. He has his National Parks and Wild Life Service to administer. I have had correspondence from the Director of National Parks and Wild Life Services pointing out to me certain ideas for the development of the western division of New South Wales. The Commonwealth Government has allocated insufficient money.

It is not merely what Mr Weems, the Director of National Parks and Wild Life Services, said, but on one memorable occasion during the recess the Minister for Social Services (Mr Wentworth), Mr Max Fox, a Victorian member in the other place, and I presented a united front on conservation issues. We got into a long discussion on handouts from Canberra. J say this in deference to Senator Keeffe. Mr Wentworth and I agreed that if particular schemes were put forward we would be in agreement. The New South Wales Minister for Lands said: ‘Look, gentlemen, do not worry. If the Prime Minister comes good with overall disbursements to the States I do not want any money with a label on it. I will be able to do all 1 want to do’. This was during the week that the State Premiers were here in Canberra. What happened? As stated in the Sydney ‘Daily Telegraph’, out of the blue a charge of $500,000 was Imposed in relation to a purely StateCommonwealth transaction. The land was acquired gratis by the Commonwealth Government. My conception of the federal system - this three-tiered system of government, with municipal authority, State Government and Commonwealth Government - was that in circumstances such as these, by a stroke of the pen, as has happened in the United States under a federal system, the land would be transferred to the State at no cost.

I have mentioned the effects on a State Budget. I had the opportunity of inspecting the Sydney Harbour foreshores with senior officers of the Department of the Interior. On the very land about which I am complaining I said to one of the officers: T hope this will be the beginning of further acquisitions. With sophisticated defence systems, obviously much more of this land will become redundant’. That is mentioned in the ‘Daily Telegraph’ editorial. The officer said: ‘Look, senator, it is very unlikely’. I did not expect the officers to go beyond that. I would not put an officer of any Commonwealth Department on the spot. I prefer to question the Minister who if responsible, which is the right way of approaching the matter.

Forgetting my criticism about the imposition of the transfer fee, what will happen to the $500,000? On the other side of the coin, I wrote to Mr Nixon stating: ‘You have told me your plans for Tidbinbilla and for various park projects in other federal lands’. I have a letter from Mr Nixon, about 3 weeks old. I suggested to Mr Nixon that 1 wanted to visit the Mount Kelly region to see what is being done there. Dr Moseley, who is probably the leading Australian authority on the acquisition of national parks, has written a book in which he advances an excellent plan for the utilisation of Mount Kelly. I received a reply from the Minister for the Interior which stated that all the money this year will be used in the Tidbinbilla expansion. No money has been provided for Mount Kelly. 1 am not questioning the Minister’s motives or what he might do in a few years time in regard to Mount Kelly. But here is the travesty. The Commonwealth is to take $500,000 from the New South Wales Treasury. This money will go into Commonwealth funds. It will not be diverted to the Minister for the Interior to be expended on federal lands.

Having advanced the case so far as New South Wales is concerned, I now want to direct another plea to all the honourable senators who represent Victoria. I am fortified in my remarks by a statement in the Australian Parks’, which. is the journal of the Australian Institute of Parks and < Recreation. I have here the August issue. In either the June or July issue a plea was made for the Cheviot Beach area. I understand that Sir Henry Bolte and his senior Ministers have advocated that this area should be released from Commonwealth custody to the State of Victoria. That is a very laudable project. I have dealt with the 175 acres of Sydney Harbour foreshores and the price of $500,000. I am sure that Senator Poyser and other Victorian senators wilh whom I have discussed the matter will take some interest in it. I think that Senator Webster should be interested. I told the editor of this journal that if he wanted action he should energise the Victorian senators into supporting this crusade. My point is that if the Victorian Cabinet wants this land it will have to face the same iniquitous proposals that have been imposed on New South Wales by some Minister, not necessarily the Minister for the Interior. My point is that, without going into the legal ramifications of Federal-State relations, this is a specific issue. .

The Sydney ‘Daily Telegraph’ and other newspapers that are usually sympathetic to the Gorton Government have indicated that this is an undeniable injustice. I. would be grateful to hear from the Minister who answers the queries I have raised tonight which Minister made .the decision. Was it the Treasurer (Mr McMahon) or the Minister for the Interior? I also ask: At what stage did the Government suddenly decide on the policy that a State which had rightly surrendered land for the development of Australia as. a nation in 1900 would 68 years later be slugged for $500,000 to buy that land from the Commonwealth? I believe this is a complete prostitution of Federal and State relations. At this late hour I appeal for a correction of this miscarriage of justice, lt is fair enough for the Commonwealth to make its point, but is it going to press on with this in the face of the attitude of the Stale Premiers, if it was good enough for the United States of America to draw a sharp distinction between the acquisition of land from another nation and the release of land by the Federal authority to the States, it should be good enough for the Federal Government of this country to give a lead and dissipate a lot of the rightful indignation that has already been generated in New South Wales and which will spread to Victoria when Sir Henry Bolte seeks the acquisition of the Cheviot Beach area in that State.

Senator SCOTT:
Minister for Customs and Excise · Western Australia · LP

– When the Commonwealth Government buys land it acquires it on just terms from the owners. At the time of Federation a certain amount of land was handed over by the State governments to the Commonwealth for use for postal communications, defence, customs administration, lighthouses and quarantine areas. In 1905 a . meeting of Ministers was held to decide upon (he amount to be paid for that land, and an amount was fixed. Therefore the honourable senator’s charge that the States gave to the Commonwealth the land that the Commonwealth is now to sell to the States is founded on a false premise.

Senator Mulvihill:

– How much was paid at that time?

Senator SCOTT:
NEW SOUTH WALES · CP; NCP from May 1975

– I. do not intend to mention the amount.. The land was. acquired on just terms at that time. If the Commonwealth Government buys land today, it acquires it on just terms. That is the policy of the Commonwealth Government as it is laid down in the Constitution. Representatives of the New South Wales Government approached the Commonwealth Government to see if some of the areas of land originally acquired could be vacated. At that time the Minister for Defence set up a special committee to look into the matter. (n 1960 that committee recommended that the Commonwealth dispose pf 175 acres of land. Negotiations have been carried out between the New South Wales Government and the Commonwealth Government as to the price to be paid for the seven areas comprising a total of 175 acres. The Commonwealth Government representatives said: ‘We will not require from you the full value of the land. We will release it to you “on open space values, which are considerably less than the market values’. I think that was a reasonable gesture by the Commonwealth. The honourable senator in his speech cited figures gathered. from an article published in the Sydney .’Daily Telegraph”.

Senator Mulvihill:

– Some of them coincided with ‘ figures gained through my own research.

Senator SCOTT:

– A lot of it may have done, but a lol. of it may have been wrong too. I would , also inform the honourable senator thai not all of the areas of land around the Sydney foreshore still held by the Commonwealth Government have teen so held since . Federation. In fact, a large parcel of land has been purchased by the Commonwealth for its own purposes since Federation. All the land purchased by the Commonwealth for its own requirements has been acquired at full market value.

Senator KEEFFE:
Queensland

– I do not want lo detain the Senate for very long. 1 believe that the matter I am about to raise is of great public importance. All honourable senators are aware that for some time France has been conducting nuclear weapons tests in the Pacific area, lt has been said that the programme has been temporarily deferred, but there are further suggestions that it may be resumed this year, probably with the explosion of a third hydrogen bomb. If the resumption does not take place this year, probably it will occur early next year. I think that Australia should take advantage of the lull to make a positive protest against the decision of France to continue its nuclear testing programme in the Pacific area. To date the Commonwealth Government has not actively protested to the degree that it . should against the dangers associated with the French nuclear testing programme. Further, we have not carried out a series of reasonable safety tests. 1 wish to cover the history of nuclear weapons and of protests against nuclear testing programmes. On 5th April 1968 at Wellington. New Zealand, the ANZUS Council included the following statement in a communique issued after a meeting:

Noting the continued atmospheric testing of nuclear weapons by Communist China and France, the Ministers reaffirmed their opposition to all atmospheric testing of nuclear weapons in disregard of world opinion as expressed in the nuclear lest ban treaty.

From 28th August last, to 29th September a conference is being held in Geneva between representatives of non-nuclear weapon nations, lt is anticipated that mailers lo be discussed at the conference will include the peaceful uses of nuclear energy: disarmament measures: matters relating to the security of non-nuclear weapon states; and the treaty for the nonproliferation of nuclear weapons. Thai conference is a constructive conference. According to information supplied to me by the appropriate Ministers in answers lo questions I have asked, Australia lodged its last protest about the French nuclear testing programme with the French Government on 17th May last. Since then, two French hydrogen bombs have been exploded in the Pacific region and there is a possibility of additional nuclear explosions. This indicates a definite lack of interest by the Commonwealth Government in what could be a very dangerous exercise not very far from our shores.

I ask honourable senators to cast their minds back to 8.15 a.m. on 6th August 1945, when the first atomic bomb was exploded over Hiroshima. As a result 60% of the city was destroyed, about 100,000 people were killed and about 100.000 people were seriously injured. The radiation and fall-out effects of that explosion have continued to the present time. They may be seen not only in the victims of the explosion, but also in the children of those people who suffered shocking injuries in the first atomic explosion. lt can only be guesswork, but it is thought by experts throughout the world who have closely studied nuclear explosions that the strength of the latest French hydrogen bomb was equivalent to 500,000 tons of TNT. The first atomic bomb exploded over Hiroshima was only a baby in the family of nuclear weapons when compared to the last French hydrogen bomb. The danger radius from the latest French hydrogen, bomb explosion was recognised as 123 sea miles, but an area within 800 miles of the explosion was threatened by fallout, in the event of unfavourable winds, quite obviously that area could be greatly extended.

Recently I sought from the Minister for Housing (Senator Dame Annabelle Rankin), who represents the Minister for Health (Dr Forbes) in this chamber, information about fallout in the north Queensland area resulting from previous hydrogen bomb tests. I think it is significant that the figures that were quoted indicate that the fall-out was very much higher in the Malanda-Atherton Tableland area than it was in other parts of Australia. These are the questions and answers which I think should be read to support my argument. I asked: ls it a fact that the maximum thyroid dose (Iodine 131), millirad, accumulated in children during any 12 months period during 1966 and 1967, was 226 at Malanda, north Queensland, as compared with 20 at Hobart-Launceston Tasmania?

The reply from the Minister for Health was in these words:

Yes. The data quoted by the honourable senator were included by the National Radiation Advisory Committee in its report of December 1967 to the Prime Minister.

I should like to say at this point that when I included these figures in a public statement in Brisbane on 6th August 1967 it was suggested very fiercely in a Press report by Professor Titterton that there was no particular danger in the degree of fall-out. As a layman 1 disagreed with his assertion. It worried me considerably and I know that it is worrying many other people in Aus tralia. The next question of interest was in these terms:

Can the danger to children living in the north Queensland area, almost all of whom consume milk products derived from the Malanda-Atherton Tableland area, be avoided?

The reply from the Minister set out these details:

In 1965, the National Radiation Advisory Committee recommended a radiation protection guide for the concentration in milk of Iodine 131 due to fall-out. In concluded that there would be no significant consequence to health if the radiation doses to the thyroid pf the young child, accumulated in any 12 months period due to this component of fall-out, amounted to 840 millirad. In the report referred to in the answer to the first part of the question of the honourable senator, the National Radiation Advisory Committee noted that the maximum thyroid dose accumulated in any 12 months period during 1966 and 1967, due Co Iodine 131 in the milk produced in the Malanda area, was 27% of the radiation protection guide. In its report of December 1967 the National Radiation Advisory Committee, after considering the data on radiation doses to the whole body and lo the thyroid, concluded that fall-out over Australia from the 1966 and 1967 series of French nuclear weapon- tests in the South Pacific was of no significance as a hagan to the health of the Australian population. Thus, the National Radiation Advisor-y Committee has pointed out. that there was no danger to the health of children due to Iodine 131 in milk produced in the Malanda area.

I should think that there would, be experts in some parts of the world, arid perhaps even members of the National Radiation Advisory Committee, who would disagree with that interpretation. We were exposed to fall-out from the time of the first testing of bombs after the Second World War until recently when it was agreed that the atmosphere was pretty well riddled with the effects of atomic explosions. With al) due deference to the experts, 1 suggest that there is nobody who can be positive that the ‘effects of the various elements introduced into the atmosphere by the explosion of atomic bombs will not in the long term ‘cause serious damage, particularly to very young children. I am quite certain that 1 and -many of my friends in north Queensland will not allow our young children to drink milk for an appreciable period after bombs have been tested because of the possible long term danger. The Minister for Supply (Senator Anderson), who is also Leader of the Government in the Senate, said in a Press statement some time ago:

From lime to time there hits been public comment on what checks arc made to evaluate fall-out of radioactive material as a result of nuclear tests.

This comment has not been quite so evident during the current series of French nuclear tests in French Polynesia but I should like to explain the comprehensive nature of the Australian programme to monitor any such fall-out.

As with the previous two series of French tests in Polynesia, in 1&66 and 1967, some fall-out is expected to reach Australia.

In the earlier tests it was established that the level of radioactive fall-out was very low and not significant as a hazard to the health of the Australian population.

I refuse to accept as gospel the Minister’s statement in this regard, for the reasons thai I have previously outlined. In the final paragraph of- his statement the Minister said:

I would like to stress again that any radioactive fallout from (he current French tests is nol expected lo be a hazard to our population.

That is wishful thinking. The first French hydrogen bomb exploded was known technically as a dirty bomb, lt did not constitute any danger to France but it represented an element of danger to Australia, Japan and Tahiti and other places in the Pacific. One would wonder whether the Australian Government is guided by people outside this Parliament. Its actions in this matter amount to a whittling away of parliamentary responsibility. There is an increasing belief in the community that we should possess our own stock of nuclear weapons, ls the Government laying long term plans to establish a nuclear deterrent, perhaps manufactured in this country? As a consequence, does it wish to avoid taking a strong stand against other countries which may be conducting nuclear tests in Australia’s vicinity in case Australia herself might need to go through the same process at a later dale, and so that there would be no fear of violent public reaction?

propose to quote from a publication entitled ‘Shipping, Coal, Metals, The Harbour’ dated May 1968. This statement almost certainly mirrors the policy of this Government as expressed in editorials and leading articles in other journals. In a derogatory reference to the nuclear non- proliferation treaty, the statement to which I have referred reads:

Quite a number of members of the United Nations, including Australia, have looked askance at the so-called Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty which would engage all signatories except tha existing nuclear powers - the United Slates, Russia Britain, France and China - not to manufacture or otherwise acquire nuclear weapons. lt is no wonder. Even if the Treaty were ratified by all the nuclear powers and a sufficient number of votes in the United Nations organisation, it would be still only as valuable protection as an old brown-paper banana bag.

This is the sort of thing that leaders of commerce are saying about a treaty that has not earned the respect of any irresponsible nation and certainly has not earned the respect of the Australian Government.

The statement continues:

Red China is certainly not going to sign it. And a lot of African countries won’t sign it, because they yearn towards the day when the good Big Brother Mao may give them a few eggs to lay on their enemies.

The Treaty is doubly useless because it leaves all nations free to take part in the ‘fullest exchange of scientific and technological information’. West Germany, growing rapidly in strength, isn’t likely to agree to the plan and neither is Japan. Both, and especially West Germany, are racing ahead wilh plans to apply nuclear power to industry and West Germany is competing wilh the great American companies in supplying reactors on an international basis.

The guarantee of three powers - United . Stales, Russia and Great Britain - to protect all countries pledged not to acquire of their own will produce laughter right round the world.

I have been quoting from a magazine which virtually supports the Government’s policy-

Senator Cormack:

– What is it?

Senator KEEFFE:

– Perhaps Senator Cormack assisted in the writing of that article. Let me now quote from the Melbourne ‘Herald’ of 15th August 1968.

Senator Anderson:

– Stow down so that we may follow you.

Senator KEEFFE:

– If the Minister has time he may read my speech in Hansard tomorrow and get the name of the journal. The ‘Herald’ article reads:

The New Zealand Government is urgently investigating an allegation that the French administration in Tahiti has refused a request by islanders for New Zealand or Japanese scientists to study the effect of the present French nuclear tests.

The article is a Press release from Australian Associated Press, lt continues:

The 1’rime Minister, Mr Holyoake, announced the move in Parliament today in answer to a question from Opposition Labor member. Dr Martyn Finlay.

Dr Finlay told Parliament about an allegation by Mr Charles Brotherson, a French resident of Raiatea Island in the Society Group.

On Monday night Mr Brotherson told Rotarians in Christchurch that. French Polynesians and neighbouring islanders had been disastrously affected by the testing. They saw New Zealand as their main hope in halting the series.

One could not wonder at their attitude, because there would be little value in appealing to the Australian Government for assistance. The article continues:

Hie said strong yoting islanders attracted by the high pay relumed sick from test sites with their skin peeling ofl and their hair falling out.

He continued:

The French were taking almost no precautions to safeguard islanders and were testing within 200 miles of populated islands. ] suggest in all sincerity that the Government should lake a much more serious view of this matter than it is taking. The Government should arrange massive protests to the French Government if the French intend to pursue the testing of hydrogen or oilier nuclear weapons in this area.

I believe that there are insufficient monitoring stations in Australia and that their number ought to be increased, lt has been suggested I Ha t full scientific testing cannot be carried out in Australia and that some of the materials for testing have to bc sent overseas for the tests to be completed. The Government may not think the situation is serious enough to warrant the action 1 have suggested. I can see a couple of honourable senators who represent rural areas smiling quite broadly. They might be quite shocked if the value of their butter products declines. 1 include Senator Lawrie. If he is not interested in what happens, I am. I and a number of other responsible Australian citizens are interested in this matter. If Senator Lawrie thinks this is a great joke, then I suggest that he is not interested in what might happen to the next generation of Australians. 1 suggest that the Government should treat this as a serious matter and that proper monitoring stations should be established for the effective testing of fallout, particularly over north Queensland

21581/68- 424J

and north Australian areas where the prevailing winds have a tendency to carry greater fallout content than they do perhaps in the Victorian or Tasmanian areas.

Senator CORMACK:
Victoria

– I know that Senator Keeffe addressed himself to the Government, but we have had lo bear the brunt of his harangue over the last quarter of an hour.

Senator Marriott:

– We were lucky. We could not understand much of it.

Senator CORMACK:

– I have been noting he.re on a foolscap page what I thought to be the significance of what Senator Keeffe has been saying. His method of arguing reminded mc of a sandfly. Every time one tries to put one’s finger on a sandfly, k jumps somewhere else. The honourable senator has made a series of allegations of one sort or another. 1 do not know anyone in this Senate who does not acknowledge the seriousness of the unilateral action of the Republic of France in exploding fission bombs, fusion bombs, or fusion-fission bombs - whatever they are - in the south Pacific Ocean. But it is quite clear that this Government has made constant protests against the unilateral action of the Republic of France in exploding these bombs.

Senator Keeffe:

– The Government protested once, lt has not done a thing since.

Senator CORMACK:

– Can Senator Keeffe explain to honourable senators how any government could stop the French Government doing this when it has, in the United Nations Security Council for example, the right to veto any action that the United Nations may take and when it can defy the United Nations, which in essence it has done? What action can be taken by any government to prevent the French Government from doing this, however much its action may be deprecated?

What I deprecate in the allegations made by Senator Keeffe ‘tonight is his implicit suggestion that the Commonwealth Government is nol taking proper action to monitor the fallout from these French nuclear explosions in the south Pacific. In fact, a report of the National Radiation Advisory Committee is tabled in this Parliament each year, f was at the research establishment of the Australian Atomic Energy Commission at Lucas

Heights 6 weeks or 7 weeks ago and J raised this question with the atomic scientists there. I asked them what was the weekly rate of fallout which is checked by them constantly in Australia. They said - [ have no reason to disbelieve them, because they are scientists of high repute, consequence and capability - that the rate of fallout that has been detected in Australia is not inimical to the health of the Australian people. This fallout rate is checked constantly mainly in milk, as Senator Keeffe mentioned, and also in oysters.

Senator Keeffe went on to say that he did not believe the scientists. He said that he had other evidence, unquoted and undemonstrated, which denied the validity of the statements made by the National Radiation Advisory Committee which was appointed by the Government of the Commonwealth of Australia. I wish to say this: Far more danger exists in the hydrocarbons that are embedded in the milk which our children drink and in the butter and meat that they eat as a result of the lavish use of hydrocarbon pesticides in Australia. Senator Keeffe might have given us the benefit of his vast scientific knowledge tonight by dealing with the role of indigestible hydrocarbons in the Australian food that Australian children are compelled to eat at present. I can speak only for my own State of Victoria, where the sale of such food is forbidden.

T do not want to take up too much of the Senate’s time, so T come to the allegation that Australia has failed in its duty because it is very reluctant, or so Senator Keeffe says, to sign the Treaty on the Non.Proliteration of Nuclear Weapons. He said that Australia is reluctant to sign this Treaty because the Australian Government -is creating the conditions in which it may make its own nuclear weapons. But the real reason is not that Australia wishes to make its own nuclear weapons but that Australia believes it has the right to use nuclear devices for peaceful purposes. A restriction is embedded in the suggested terms of the Treaty. If Australia, as an illustration, wishes to use an atomic device, either fission or fusion or fission-fusion, to shatter impermeable rocks or to extract oil from permeable rocks, it cannot do so without the help of the United States of America, the United Kingdom or the Union of Soviet

Socialist Republics, or perhaps the People’s Republic of China. The essence of the Treaty is that the only people who can use nuclear devices for any purpose are the three nuclear powers.

Senator Cavanagh:

– The honourable senator knows that is not correct.

Senator CORMACK:

– In this instance 1 happen to know what 1 am talking about and Senator Keeffe does not know what he is talking about. We all want to go to bed at night, but I suggest we should not. go to bed with the nightmares that Senator Keeffe is trying to conjure in the minds of the Australian people.

Senator ANDERSON:
Minister for Supply · New South Wales · LP

– Before we go to bed, I feel I have a commitment to reply to the initial remarks made by Senator Keeffe. 1 do not intend to follow .him into the defence debate that he started in the later part of his speech during this debate. Indeed, Senator Cormack has picked up those points and dealt with them adequately. I am sure it is quite fair that Senator Keeffe should express deep concern at the testing of nuclear devices by France in the South Pacific. The fact is that Senator Keeffe asked me a question on this subject on 21st August. On 28th August I tabled the note verbale that the Australian Government had sent, to France in relation to the explosions that had taken place, lt contained a protest by the Australian Government. It is a document of the Parliament and it is incorporated in Hansard. If the honourable senator and other honourable senators will look at it they will see that it referred, not only to the explosions that had taken place but it also contained Australia’s protest at explosions that were scheduled to take place in the Pacific. To that extent it covered not only explosions that had occurred but those that were scheduled for the future.

Australia has been a signatory to the treaty that places a partial ban on nuclear tests since 1963, but France is not. This was, of course, one of the points that Senator Cormack made. Whilst France is not bound, Australia as one of the signatories made a formal complaint through the proper diplomatic channels to France in a note verbale, which I tabled and had incorporated in the Hansard of this place on 27th August. In fact, that document referred to any firings that may be made in the South

Pacific in the near future. So quite clearly it was linked to the programme that was in contemplation by France. Senator Keeffe then went on to develop an argument on what he considered to be the inadequacy of the programme for the monitoring of radioactive fallout. I tabled in the Senate on 20th August the very latest report in relation to this matter, which comes within the responsibility of my Department. When Senator Keeffe quoted from this statement, he said that he was not prepared to accept what I said. I wanthim to appreciate that this was not what I was saying;I was giving the report that the Government had received from the Atomic Energy Commission.

The programme is operated by my Department for the Atomic Weapons Tests Safety Committee, whose Chairman is Professor E. W. Titterton. I went on to say:

Many organisations, public and private, co-operate in the collection of samples. Officers of the Bureau of Meteorology make a major contribution in the operation of fall-out stations. Radio-activity measurements of samples are made in Australiaby the Commonwealth X-ray and Radium Laboratory, but laboratories in Great Britain and the United States also contribute.

I gave the sum total of the findings that were made. The finding which Senator Keeffe said he did not accept was that there was no significant danger involved in radioactive fall-out from the current French tests. He made a point about the number of stations that were’ established and said that in his view at any rate there should he more in north Queensland. I would like quickly to remind the Senate of what was in the statement which honourable senators may again read in Hansard tomorrow if they want to do so:

The deposition of fall-out from the French tests is monitored in Australia and New Guinea at thirty-five stations.

Senator Keeffe says that that is not enough; that is a point of view. The statement went on:

Three types of equipment are used: Gummed films which collect all types of particles, including fall-out, which impinge on them; they are located at twenty-six sites. Pumping systems, which collect airborne particles on highly efficient filters, are installed at five major population centres. Polythene funnels with ion exchange columns operate at sixteen sites; they collect rain and all particles falling into the funnel, and allow only water to escape.

I do not want to repeat all of it. I take on board the point that Senator Keeffe made about more observation stations. He is stacking his view against the view of the Government’s advisers who say that as a result of their continuing tests they are of opinion that there is no evidence of significant fall-out.I am sure that we are all as one in not accepting the French approach to this matter and would like these firings to stop. I am sure that we would agree that if they did stop it would be in the very best interests of Australia. We would all want to think that France will ultimately subscribe to the treaty in relation to firings as other countries have done.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Senate adjourned at 11.44 p.m.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 11 September 1968, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1968/19680911_senate_26_s38/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant

Senate11 September 1968

DEATH OF THE PRINCESS MAKINA

The PRESIDENT:

CZECHOSLOVAKIA

Petition

QUESTION

TASMAN1AN’ SHIPPING SERVICES

Senator WRIEDT:TASMANIA

Senator SCOTT:Minister for Customs and Excise · WESTERN AUSTRALIA · LP

QUESTION

HANSARD

Senator CAVANAGH:SOUTH AUSTRALIA

The PRESIDENT:

QUESTION

DROUGHT BONDS

Senator ORMONDE:NEW SOUTH WALES

Senator McKELLAR:Minister for Repatriation · NEW SOUTH WALES · CP

QUESTION

SHIPPING

Senator GAIR:QUEENSLAND

Senator SCOTT:LP

QUESTION

GREAT BARRIER REEF

Senator LAWRIE:QUEENSLAND · CP; NCP from May 1975

Senator WRIGHT:Minister for Works · TASMANIA · LP

QUESTION

WEAPONS RESEARCH ESTABLISHMENT

Senator BISHOP:SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Senator ANDERSON:Minister for Supply · NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

QUESTION

NAURU !

Senator CORMACK:VICTORIA

Senator ANDERSON:LP

QUESTION

BIAFRA

Senator WHEELDON:WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Senator ANDERSON:LP

QUESTION

ANTARCTICA

Senator LAUGHT:SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Senator ANDERSON:LP

QUESTION

NIGERIA

Senator MURPHY:NEW SOUTH WALES

Senator ANDERSON:LP

QUESTION

UREA

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Senator SCOTT:LP

QUESTION

ELECTORAL REDISTRIBUTION

Senator MULVIHILL:NEW SOUTH WALES

Senator SCOTT:LP

QUESTION

TULLAMAKINE AIRPORT

Senator GREENWOOD:VICTORIA

Senator SCOTT:LP

QUESTION

WATERFRONT EMPLOYMENT

Senator LITTLE:VICTORIA

Senator WRIGHT:LP

QUESTION

UREA

Senator SIM:WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Senator SCOTT:LP

QUESTION

TOURIST ACTIVITIES

Senator RAE:TASMANIA

Senator WRIGHT:LP

Senator MCCLELLAND:NEW SOUTH WALES

Senator WRIGHT:

QUESTION

UREA

Senator PROWSE:WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Senator SCOTT:LP

QUESTION

CREDIT UNIONS

Senator GEORGES:QUEENSLAND

The PRESIDENT:

Senator GEORGES:

Senate
11 September 1968

Senator WRIEDT:
TASMANIA

Senator SCOTT:
Minister for Customs and Excise · WESTERN AUSTRALIA · LP

Senator CAVANAGH:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Senator ORMONDE:
NEW SOUTH WALES

Senator McKELLAR:
Minister for Repatriation · NEW SOUTH WALES · CP

Senator GAIR:
QUEENSLAND

Senator SCOTT:
LP

Senator LAWRIE:
QUEENSLAND · CP; NCP from May 1975

Senator WRIGHT:
Minister for Works · TASMANIA · LP

Senator BISHOP:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Senator ANDERSON:
Minister for Supply · NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

Senator CORMACK:
VICTORIA

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

Senator WHEELDON:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

Senator LAUGHT:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

Senator MURPHY:
NEW SOUTH WALES

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Senator SCOTT:
LP

Senator MULVIHILL:
NEW SOUTH WALES

Senator SCOTT:
LP

Senator GREENWOOD:
VICTORIA

Senator SCOTT:
LP

Senator LITTLE:
VICTORIA

Senator WRIGHT:
LP

Senator SIM:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Senator SCOTT:
LP

Senator RAE:
TASMANIA

Senator WRIGHT:
LP

Senator MCCLELLAND:
NEW SOUTH WALES

Senator PROWSE:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Senator SCOTT:
LP

Senator GEORGES:
QUEENSLAND

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

Senator WEBSTER:
VICTORIA

Senator SCOTT:
LP

Senator O’BYRNE:
TASMANIA

Senator WRIGHT:
LP

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

Senator COHEN:
VICTORIA

Senator KEEFFE:
QUEENSLAND

Senator SCOTT:
LP

Senator SCOTT:
LP

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

Senator SCOTT:
LP

Senator LAUCKE:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

Senator McKELLAR:
CP

Senator McKELLAR:
CP

Senator WRIGHT:
LP