Senate
25 November 1969

27th Parliament · 1st Session

  1. Senate
  2. 27th Parliament
  3. 1969

page 5

OPENING OF THE PARLIAMENT

The Senate met at 11 a.m., pursuant to the proclamation of His Excellency the Governor-General.

The Clerk read the proclamation.

The Deputy appointed by His Excellency the Governor-General for the opening of the Parliament - the Right Honourable Sir Garfield Edward John Barwick, G.C.M.G., Chief Justice of the High Court of Australia - having been announced by the Usher of the Black Rod, entered the chamber and took his seat on the dais.

The Deputy, through the Clerk, directed the Usher to desire the attendance of the members of the House of Representatives, who being in attendance,

The DEPUTY said:

Members of the Senate and Members of the House of Representatives:

His Excellency the Governor-General, not thinking fit to be present in person at this time, has been pleased to cause letters patent to issue constituting me his deputy to do in his name all that is necessary to be performed in declaring this Parliament open, as will more fully appear from the letters patent which will now be read. (The letters patent having been read by the Clerk)

The DEPUTY said:

Members of the Senate and Members of the House of Representatives:

I have it in command from the GovernorGeneral to let you know that after members of the House of Representatives shall have been sworn, the causes of His Excellency calling this Parliament will be declared by him in person at this place; and it being necessary that a Speaker of the House of Representatives shall be first chosen, you, members of the House of Representatives, will retire to the place where you are to sit, and there proceed to the choice of some proper person to be your Speaker; and later this day you will present the person whom you shall so choose to

His Excellency at such time and place as he shall appoint. I will attend in the House of Representatives for the purpose of administering the oath or affirmation of allegiance to honourable members of that House. (The Deputy and members of the House of Representatives then retired. The President took the Chair).

page 6

COMMISSION TO ADMINISTER OATH

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Sir Alister McMuIIin) - I have received from His Excellency the Governor-General a commission to administer to honourable senators the oath or affirmation of allegiance.

Commission laid on the table and read by the Clerk.

page 6

NEW SENATORS SWORN

The PRESIDENT:

– I inform the Senate that I have received certificates of the choice at the election held on 25th October 1969 of senators to fill casual vacancies in the representation of the States of South Australia and Victoria. The certificates will be laid on the table and read by the Clerk.

The Clerk then laid on the table the certificates of election of Donald Newton Cameron for the State of South Australia and Ivor John Greenwood for the State of Victoria.

I also inform the Senate that, following the death of Senator S. H. Cohen, Q.C., the Governor of the State of Victoria had been notified of the vacancy caused in the representation of that State, and that a certificate has been received notifying the choice by the Parliament of Victoria, on 19th November 1969 of William Walter Charles Brown to fill the vacancy.

Senators Donald Newton Cameron, Ivor John Greenwood and William Walter Charles Brown made and subscribed the oath of allegiance.

page 6

CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES

The PRESIDENT:

– I have to inform the Senate that I have received a letter from Senator Drake-Brockman resigning the office of Chairman of Committees, consequent upon his appointment to the Ministry.

page 6

ELECTION OF CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES

Motion (by Senator Anderson) agreed to -

That the Senate do now proceed to elect a Chairman of Committees.

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
Minister for Air · Western Australia · CP

– 1 move -

That Senator Thomas Louis .Bull be appointed Chairman ot Committees.

Senator Anderson:

– I second the motion.

Senator MURPHY:
New South WalesLeader of the Opposition

– I propose Senator Fitzgerald to the Senate, for its Chairman of Committees, and move -

That Senator Joseph Francis Fitzgerald be appointed Chairman of Committees.

Senator Willesee:

– I second the motion.

The PRESIDENT:

– Are there any further nominations? There being no further nominations, I invite the two candidates to address the Senate.

Senator BULL:
New . South Wales

– I submit myself to the will of the Senate.

Senator FITZGERALD:
New South Wales

– I submit myself to. the will of the Senate.

The PRESIDENT:

– There being two nominations, in accordance with the Standing Orders a ballot will be taken. (A ballot having been taken)

The PRESIDENT:

– The result of the ballot is: Senator Bull, 29 votes; Senator Fitzgerald, 27 votes. I declare Senator Bull elected Chairman of Committees.

Senator BULL (New South Wales) - Mr President, I take this opportunity to thank honourable senators for the confidence they have shown in me in electing me to the office of Chairman of Committees. I know that this office has quite considerable responsibilities. I shall endeavour to carry out those responsibilities to the best of my ability. I am also aware that I follow in the footsteps of a very able and efficient Chairman of Committees in the person of Senator Tom Drake-Brockman. I assure honourable senators, whether they sit on the Government side or on the Opposition side, that I shall discharge my duties with the utmost impartiality. I look forward with confidence to occupying the-office of Chairman of Committees. I also look forward to receiving the co-operation of all honourable, senators in order that 1 may be able to do so- with dignity. I thank you.

Senator FITZGERALD (New South Wales) - I congratulate Senator Bull on his election. We on this side of the Senate are cognisant of the responsibilities that he is undertaking. If he follows in the tradition of his predecessor in the position to which h» has just been elected, we on this side ot the chamber will have no objection to him. I feel confident in -saying that we will bo prepared to co-operate with him. We look forward to his impartiality, which he mentioned in the course of his speech. Again 1 congratulate him.

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

– On behalf of the Government parties, I extend our congratulations to Senator Bull on his assumption of the office of Chairman of Committees. I know that he will carry out the duties of his office with dignity and impartiality and that he will have a regard for the Standing Orders and for the decorum and procedures of the Senate. On behalf of all Government senators, 1 offer to him our loyalty and our obedience to the procedures of the Senate. On behalf of the Government parties, I extend to Senator Fitzgerald our thanks for the graciousness with which he has taken the result of this election.

Senator MURPHY (New South Wales - Leader of the Opposition) - On behalf of the Opposition, I congratulate Senator Bull on his election to the high office of Chairman of Committees. We would have preferred a member of our own Party, which is now clearly the majority party in this chamber. That is the reason why we submitted a candidate. Nevertheless, we are confident that Senator Bull will do his best to carry out the duties of this office. We have a respect for him. We have observed him in his carrying out of the duties of Temporary Chairman of Committees. We are sure that he will do his best to carry out the duties in the way he has indicated.

I take this opportunity to say that the Senate was indebted to Senator DrakeBrockman for the manner in which he carried out his duties as Chairman of Committees and as Acting President during the time you, Mr President, were absent from this chamber. The tradition that the Chairman should be impartial was respected very greatly by Senator Drake-Brockman, and I have no doubt that it also will be by Senator Bull.

Senator GAIR:
Leader of the Australian Democratic Labor Party · Queensland

– On behalf of my colleagues, and on my own behalf. I sincerely congratulate Senator Bull on his elevation to the important and arduous position of Chairman of Committees of the Senate. We have held Senator Bull in very high regard. As a Temporary Chairman of Committees he has impressed me considerably as a man who constantly has attended to his duties and one who has delivered his decisions when the Senate has been in Committee in a very clear and unmistakable manner. At least he could be heard by all honourable senators, which is a very important factor in the deliberations and work of the Senate. My colleagues and 1 believe that he is a very suitable selection for the position. He is a man who, I am sure, will give this position the dignity, the efficiency and the attention that it merits.

The Chairman of Committees in any Parliament has a very important job because it is in the Committee stages that Bills are amended, altered and added to. It is imperative, therefore, that a Chairman of Committees should at all times be alert to any amendment or likely amendment that is about to arise in the course of the process of legislation. Since I have been in this place Senator Drake-Brockman has occupied the position of Chairman of Committees and, as previous speakers have said, he has carried out his duties with distinction, with credit to himself and with advantage to the Parliament. I am sure that it would not be out of place for me to say at this stage that we congratulate him on his elevation to the Ministry. Also I congratulate Senator Cotton on his elevation to the Ministry. I have no doubt that the selection made this morning was a wise one and that we confidently can repose the Committee work of this chamber in the hands of Senator Bull.

Sitting suspended from 11.45 a.m. to 3 p.m.

page 8

GOVERNOR-GENERAL’S SPEECH

His Excellency the Governor-General entered the chamber and, being seated, with the President on his right hand, commanded that a message be sent to the House of Representatives intimating that His Excellency desired the attendance of honourable members in the Senate chamber forthwith, who being come with their Speaker,

His Excellency was pleased to deliver the following speech:

Members of the Senate and Members of the House of Representatives, this, the First Session of the 27th Parliament, has been summoned, following the return of the writs for the general election of Members of the House of Representatives on 25th October.

Your attendance has been required in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution which require that the Parliament should be summoned this year and for the discharge of necessary formal business.

My advisers intend to seek the prorogation of the Parliament and it is proposed that you will be called together again as soon as possible next year. At the .opening of the Second Session of the 27th Parliament there will be laid before you fully for your consideration the way in which my Government will implement its policies comprising, among others, matters relating to the defence and development of our country, to the education, health, housing and social welfare of our people and to the encouragement of the arts.

I now leave you in the faith that Divine Providence will always guide your deliberations and further the welfare of the people of Australia. (His Excellency the Governor-General and members of the House of Representatives retired.)

Sitting suspended from 3.15 to 4.30 p.m.

The PRESIDENT took the chair at 4.30 p.m., and read prayers.

page 8

MINISTERIAL ARRANGEMENTS

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

– by leave - Mr President, the new Ministry was sworn by the Governor-General on 12th November 1969 and is as follows:

Prime Minister - the Right Honourable J. G. Gorton

Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade and Industry - the Right Honourable J. McEwen, C.H.

Minister for External Affairs - the Right Honourable William McMahon

Minister for Primary Industry - the Honourable J. D. Anthony

Postmaster-General and Vice-President of the Executive Council - the Honourable A. S. Hulme

Treasurer - the Honourable L. H. E. Bury

Minister for Shipping and Transport and Minister Assisting the Minister tor Trade and Industry - the Honourable Ian Sinclair

Minister for Supply and Leader of the Government in the Senate - Senator the Honourable Ken Anderson

Minister for Defence - the Honourable Malcolm Fraser

Minister for National Development: - the Honourable R. W. C. Swartz. M.B.E., E.D.

Minister for Labour and National Service and Leader of the House - the Honourable B. M. Snedden, Q.C.

Minister for Education and Science - the Honourable N. H. Bowen, Q.C.

Minister for the Interior - the Honourable P. J. Nixon

Minister for External Territories - the Honourable C. E. Barnes

Minister for Health - the Honourable A. J. Forbes, M.C.

Minister for Housing - Senator the Honourable Dame Annabelle Rankin, D.B.E.

Minister for Immigration and Minister Assisting the Treasurer - the Honourable Phillip Lynch

Minister for Social Services and, under the Prime Minister, Minister-in-Charge of Aboriginal Affairs - the Honourable W. C. Wentworth

Minister for Works and, under the Minister for Trade and Industry, Minister-in-Charge of Tourist Activities - Senator the Honourable R. C. Wright

Minister for Civil Aviation - Senator the Honourable R. C. Cotton

Minister for Customs and Excise - the Honourable D. L. Chipp

Minister for Air - Senator the Honourable T. C. Drake-Brockman, D.F.C.

Attorney-General - the Honourable T. E. F. Hughes, Q.C.

Minister for Repatriation - the Honourable R. McN. Holten

Minister for the Army and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister - the Honourable A. S. Peacock

Minister for the Navy - The Honourable D. J. Killen.

The first thirteen Ministers named will comprise the Cabinet. 1 shall be the Leader of the Government in the Senate and the Leader of the House of Representatives will be Mr Snedden. I shall be the representative of the Prime Minister in the Senate and shall also represent the portfolios of Trade and Industry, External Affairs, Treasury and Defence. The other representational arrangements in the Senate will be: Senator Dame Annabelle Rankin, the portfolios of Immigration, Social Services including Aboriginal Affairs, Health and PostmasterGeneral; Senator Wright, Labour and National Service, Education and Science, Attorney-General and External Territories; Senator Cotton, Interior, National Development, Shipping and Transport and Customs and Excise; Senator Drake-Brockman, Primary Industry, Army, Navy and Repatriation. Ministers in the Senate will be represented in the House of Representatives as follows: The Minister for Supply by Mr Malcolm Fraser; the Minister for Housing by Dr Forbes; the Minister for Works by Mr Chipp; the Minister for Civil Aviation by Mr Swartz; and the Minister for Air by Mr Killen.

page 9

LEADERSHIP OF THE OPPOSITION

Senator MURPHY (New South Wales)by leave - Mr President, I have the honour to announce that on 12th November 1969 the Federal Parliamentary Labor Party appointed me as Leader of the Party in this chamber, Senator Willesee as Deputy Leader, Senator O’Byrne as the Opposition Whip and Senator Poke as the Deputy Opposition Whip.

page 9

GOVERNMENT WHIP

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

– by leave - I desire to inform the Senate that Senator R. G. Withers has been chosen as the Government Whip in the Senate.

Senator Cormack:

– Mr President, 1 wish to ask a question of you for the purpose of elucidation. In the context of the governance of the Senate, is the position of Deputy Whip on either the Government or the Opposition side recognised as an official position?

The PRESIDENT:

– I must make it perfectly clear that I do not have any control over these matters at all. If somebody stands up and makes an announcement 1 take note of what he has to say, but that is all I do.

page 9

LEADERSHIP OF THE AUSTRALIAN DEMOCRATIC LABOR PARTY

Senator GAIR:
Queensland

– by leave - I would like to say that the Australian Democratic Labor Party, as a successful participant in the Federal election on 25th October 1969, remains unchanged in principle, policy and personnel. Unlike the officials of other parties, the Whip and the Deputy Whip of my Party do not receive any remuneration at all. I suppose that position will continue until there is a change of heart by the Government.

page 9

DEATH OF SENATOR SAMUEL HERBERT COHEN, Q.C

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

– The death of Senator Samuel Herbert Cohen, Q.C., has already been formally announced to the Senate but it is proper that honourable senators should now be given the opportunity to record their condolences. Senator

Cohen’s sudden death, in Adelaide on 7th October at the age of fifty was a great and tragic shock to as all.

Senator Cohen was born in Bankstown, New South Wales, and was educated in Melbourne at Elwood Central School, Wesley College and the University of Melbourne, from where he graduated B.A. and LL.B. Senator Cohen was elected to the Senate for Victoria in the general election of 1961 - he took his place on 1st July 1962 - and the subsequent Senate election in 1967. He was a member of the Senate Select Committee on the Encouragement of Australian Productions for Television in 1962-63, and a member of the Senate Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances from 26th August 1965 to 3 1st October 1966. He was appointed to the Council of the Australian National University in 1968. and he was appointed Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate on 8th February 1967.

As Leader of the Government in the Senate I had a closer association with Senator Cohen in the conduct of our parliamentary affairs than most honourable senators. For a period of time during the absence overseas of the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Murphy), Senator Cohen acted as Opposition Leader and, as honourable senators would appreciate, the late Senator Cohen in his capacity as acting leader had cause for daily contact with me as Leader of the Government. I found him as acting leader of the Opposition always to be steadfast in his own political convictions but aware always of the need for co-operation with the Leader of the Government in the good conduct and management of the Senate. During that period particularly and on subsequent occasions when he acted as leader for short periods we did succeed in building up a sense of companionship without prejudice to our separate political convictions, which was a great joy to me.

Senator Cohen was given a State funeral in Melbourne and the service was held at the Beth Nachman Synagogue in Kew. It was a most impressive service and the oration delivered by Rabbi Schreiber was of great eloquence. I would like to quote several passages from this oration which I believe pinpointed Senator Cohen’s reputation for integrity and social consciousness amongst his many friends. Rabbi Schreiber said:

In the wider fields of the general and Jewish community’s multitude of activities he assisted in its work. His wise guidance, his tranquil leadership, his mature judgment and his ready co-operation made of him a tower of strength in the councils of Melbourne Jewry’s foremost institutions.

Sam Cohen was truly a type in whom the Jewish community might well take pride, for his mode of conduct, professional and social, never failed to reflect credit upon the fair repute of his people, a repute he was always zealous to guard and eager to uphold.

On behalf of all senators and others associated with the parliamentary institution, I wish to express to Mrs Judith Cohen, her daughters and other members, of the late senator’s family, our deep and heartfelt sympathy. I move: - That the Senate expresses its deepest regret at the death of Senator Samuel Herbert Cohen, Q.C, a senator for Victoria since 1962, and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, and places on record its appreciation of his long and distinguished public service, and tenders its sincere sympathy to his widow and family in their bereavement.

Senator MURPHY:
New South. WalesLeader of the Opposition

– I support the motion which has been moved by the Leader of the Government (Senator Anderson). The death of Senator Sam Cohen on 7th October in Adelaide was sudden and unexpected. His death was a deep personal loss to me. I think all honourable senators know how close we were in this Parliament. Many times outside this House people would call me ‘Sam’ and him ‘Lionel’, so close were we. His death was a blow not only to those who were close to him here but also to the. Jewish community of which he was a most distinguished member, to the rest of those in Parliament, to his many friends, who were legion in all sorts of institutions and to people who were not connected with institutions but who were ordinary persons in this community and who had come to know and love this man for his human qualities.

We are going to miss him in this chamber because, in our own Party, he could be turned to at any time - and was - for advice and counsel. He was tolerant and patient not only with us, but with everybody in the Parliament. He was a man who made a great contribution to this chamber because of his personal qualities. He had those qualities of tolerance, of fairness, and of endeavour always to persuade. He was not bitter in argument. He never used his great talents to destroy or injure or leave any mark on his opponents. Rather did he try to sway the minds of others by logic, by fair arguments, and by the use of the intelligence and education that he had. He was a very fine man.

I think he showed these qualities to a degree which is not shared by many in this chamber. The late Samuel Herbert Cohen cherished these virtues of compassion and commitment. This was evident from his early years as a student at the University of Melbourne when he began to devote himself to the creation of a better future for all people. Before he finally turned to the bar and politics he began his lifelong involvement with educational progress. He never relaxed his attempts to advance education in Australia, whether in the Australian Labor Party, in this Senate, the Council of the Australian National University, or on the public platform. This, and his lifelong concern with human rights in Australia and abroad, were his ruling public passions. It is a tragedy that the educational vision he placed before the Australian electorate as Labor’s shadow Minister for Education and Science was never to assume form while he lived. When that educational transformation is achieved it will stand as a monument to the commitment of Sam Cohen.

Some day thousands of Australian students will have cause to spare a thought for the senator who was the architect of their new deal in education. Because of this commitment with education, Sam Cohen will be mourned among intellectuals and on the campus as much as he will be mourned by Australian Jewry and his legal and political colleagues. Despite his untimely death, his work within and without the Labor Party in Parliament to reform the structure of our education system will have a strong influence on its future. Sam Cohen was Chairman of the Australian Labor Party Education and Science Committee, a member of the ALP Communications and Arts Committee and a member of the National Advisory Committee on Education. He was dedicated to the concept of creating an educational system which would be adequate to meet the challenges of a future society where the science fiction of today will be the reality. His philosophy was expressed during his Curtin Memorial Lecture at the University of Western Australia in 1967. Then, speaking of the educational system of the 1970s, he said: lt must also ensure that the student of tomorrow does not become the dehumanised prisoner of a frenzied drive for efficiency and material achievement in a world of technology and invention. Our education system must be concerned with people and therefore with the quality of life. The 1970s will require not merely a quantitative response to national needs for trained professions in many fields. What will be needed is a capacity for understanding both ourselves and the peoples of other countries, especially those in our part of the world, Asia. Australia cannot live in a vacuum and massive’ changes are taking place not only in our country but among all our neighbours. The products of our education system should be’ trained for living in this new world and capable of coming to grips with its realities. They will be living in a comparatively wealthy country in an area where millions upon millions of people go to bed hungry every night; where the battle against poverty, disease and illiteracy is only just beginning. They will be living in a world whose population . . . will double by the end of this century … So the student of tomorrow must come to feel part of a new environment with new challenges. The narrow utilitarian concept of acquiring knowledge and skills useful in earning a living can be no more than a part - an essential part, of course^- of the education of Australians in the future.

This demonstrated Sam Cohen’s hope for the future, for a time when great skills would be tempered by greater humanity, when compassion would illumine knowledge.

He was more than a dedicated public man. He was a tender and devoted husband and father; a considerate friend to all his family. He was deeply aware of his Jewish heritage in all its aspects and was as knowledgeable and imaginative in the history and aspirations of his race as he was of those of the Australian people. Sam Cohen held great distinction in the Jewish community. He was the first Jew ever to sit in the Senate, the fifth ever to sit in the Commonwealth Parliament and the first ever to be elected to the rank of deputy leader of his Party in the Senate. Yet he was modest and approachable. He was good humoured and wise in helping those who sought his counsel. He was a gentle man who devoted himself to the causes of others, denying to himself riches or self-advancement. His causes were the causes of humanity- of the poor and underprivileged.

He sought for everybody the opportunity to fulfil his or her talents to the utmost. His record of achievement was one of which his family may be proud, of which the community may be proud and of which Australia should be proud. Sam Cohen used his great ability in a just and fair way. In these ways he was a public man, a man who gave great service and was often very serious when seriousness was called for. I think that we, his colleagues in this chamber, will1 remember him for many of his very human characteristics. He had a wonderful sense of humour. I suppose I will never forget how we used to meet in our Senate offices after the evening’s sittings. What amused us more than anything was his talent for mimicry and impersonation. He would often send me up and give an imitation of me making a speech in the Senate or doing other things. He would have us all in fits of laughter. He had the talent for mixing gaiety with work. It was a very fine talent. He was a well loved man and we all’ will miss him very greatly.

The regard for him was illustrated by the tremendous gathering at the service in Melbourne and at his graveside, where more than 1,000 people came to say farewell to him. On this day when we speak of Sam Cohen and his achievements, our thoughts also will go out to his wife Judith and his two young daughters, Suzanne and Sally. Rarely can it be true to say that an empty place mourned by a close living family also stands surrounded by sorrowing mourners of the whole community. I support the motion.

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMA:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA · CP; NCP from May 1975

– BROCKMAN (Western Australia - Minister for Air) - I support the motion moved by the Leader of the Government (Senator Anderson) and seconded by the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Murphy). I wish to associate the members of the Australian Country Party with it and the sentiments that have been expressed by the two leaders. As Senator Murphy said, the passing of Senator Cohen represents a very sad loss to the Australian

Labor Party. No doubt it is a loss that will be felt by the Labor movement throughout Australia for some time to come.

My relations with Senator Cohen were very cordial. Perhaps the ones I remember most were those outside this chamber. As members of the Senate Select Committee on the Encouragement of Australian Productions for Television, we travelled around, visiting the capital cities in Australia and hearing evidence from those who wished to give it to us, and I got to know him very well. I found him to be a likable man, an understanding man and a man who was very fond and proud of his wife and two daughters. In the Senate we members of the Country Party found Senator Cohen to be a very tough opponent but a very fair one. We had very great respect for him. On behalf of the members of the Country Party, I extend to his widow and his daughters our very sincere sympathy.

Senator GAIR:
Leader of the Australian Democratic Labor Party · Queensland

– The members of the Australian Democratic Labor Party desire to be associated with this motion of condolence. Like all other senators, we were greatly shocked by the untimely, unexpected and sudden death of Senator Sam Cohen. I think all that could be said of anyone has been said. However, I would like to say that it was evident to me that Sam Cohen, as a member of the Opposition, was a very dedicated and assiduous member of his Party and a very intense type of member of the Senate. But to his credit it could be said with truth that he bore no ill will.

Frequently we engaged in conflict with him in the course of debate, but I found that afterwards in the corridors he showed no ill will or resentment of the fact that there had been a bit of a donnybrook in the course of a debate. That is a fine spirit. I have been in politics for a long time - for too long, I suppose, in the opinion of some people. The fact remains that it is a test of a good parliamentarian that he can not only give it but take it. But the major consideration at this stage is the wife and children of the late Senator Cohen. I assure you, Mr President, with all sincerity, that our hearts go out to his devoted wife and his beautiful girls in the loss of a devoted husband and a good father.

Senator KENNELLY:
Victoria

– I wish to associate myself with the remarks of the Leader of the Government (Senator Anderson), my own Leader (Senator Murphy), the Leader of the Australian Country Party (Senator Drake-Brockman) and the Leader of the Australian Democratic Labor Party (Senator Gair). We all were tremendously shocked that a man of 50 years of age whom we knew so well should be taken away from our midst so suddenly. Sam Cohen was a very kind man. There were times when, quite candidly, I. would have liked to have seen him be a little tougher in presenting his case. Sam was liked by us all. There was no need for him to have come into the Parliament of this nation; his only thought in doing so was to serve. The material advantages that he left when he entered Parliament were greater than he could expect to receive here. But his thought in life was to help the less fortunate people in the community. This he did over the years to the best of his ability.

I was delighted when Sam Cohen was elected to follow me as Deputy Leader of this Party in the Senate, In the years before he came into this place 1 had known of bis ability and J felt certain that as Deputy Leader he would do honour not only to the Senate but also to the cause that he espoused. I believe that his work here showed that my confidence in him was not misplaced. I know of no person who could have been more respected by his own people. The Jewish community of Melbourne which attended the services held for him paid him probably the greatest respect that could be paid to any person. I commend the Leader of the Government in the Senate for reciting some of the excellent words spoken by the rabbi who conducted the service. The two speeches which were made at the Melbourne cemetery showed to the people generally what we all thought of this great man. It is a tragedy that a delightful woman, one who would be liked by anybody who met her, has lost her helpmate so early in life. I have spoken to Mrs Cohen about various matters since this unfortunate happening and all I can add, as a colleague from his State, is that I tender to her and to her daughers my sincere sympathy and, I am certain, the sympathy of all honourable senators.

Senator POYSER:
Victoria

– I wish to be associated with the remarks on this matter which have been made by the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Anderson), the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Murphy) and other honourable senators. Senator Sam Cohen was a friend of mine for many years before either of us came into this place. We had a long and close personal family relationship. I knew Sam not only in this House but in his home with his family. He was a man who loved his family and one who was loved by his family. He was a man of tremendous integrity, compassion and humanity. My wife and I, and all who associated with Sam Cohen in the way that I did, have missed him greatly. 1 extend my sincere sympathy and . that of many other people to Judith, Susan and Sally.

Senator O’BYRNE:
Tasmania

– I wish to associate myself with the motion. I agree with the very fine sentiments that have been expressed by the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Anderson), the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate (Senator Murphy), the leaders of the other Parties, and my colleagues. I feel that two or three matters concerning Sam Cohen’s character should be placed on the record of the Senate. I. refer first to his great humanitarianism, reflected by his continuing interest as a member of the Jewish Council against Fascism and Anti-Semitism. In the days immediately after World War II, I was closely associated with Sam Cohen. That was before he became a senator. I realised his great qualities in seeking to ensure that the lessons of history were not lost, after the terrible holocaust of Europe.

He also showed his great humanitarianism in his opposition to hanging. This was another indication of his very deep respect for his fellow man. He was very strongly opposed to racialism and was greatly concerned at the spread of that ugliness in countries that should have outgrown the harbouring of such a negative attitude. He had great respect for the inherent right of people to human dignity and their right to aspire to that dignity and to achieve and maintain it. He believed in peace as the only hope for mankind. In his attitude to the solution of international problems he obeyed the commandment, ‘Thou shalt not kill’. He was very conscious of the threat hanging over mankind through the proliferation of nuclear weapons and it was his fervent hope that international agreement would be achieved on this most important matter.

Sam Cohen was a man of so many humanitarian qualities that the respect and admiration of people grew into affection for him. To his wife Judith and their two daughters I join with other honourable senators in extending my very deep sympathy.

Question resolved in the affirmative, honourable senators standing in their places.

Senator ANDERSON (New South Wales - Minister for Supply)- I ask that as a mark of respect for the late Senator Cohen the sitting be suspended until 8 o’clock tonight.

Sitting suspended from 5.7 to 8 p.m.

Senator Murphy:

-I rise to order. The Standing Orders do provide that time shall be made available for questions without notice, and although I realise that questions without notice have been dispensed with at the beginning of some sessional periods for the convenience of honourable senators it seems highly doubtful, to say the least, that an opportunity to ask questions without notice will be made available if they are not asked now. I would ask you, Mr President, to indicate that there will be an opportunity to ask questions without notice in accordance with the Standing Orders.

Senator Anderson:

– It is true that the order of business as circulated did not include questions without notice, and I must accept the responsibility for suggesting this to the Clerk. This was done on the basis of long standing practice in relation to the opening day of the Parliament. However, I will be the first to concede that the Standing Orders provide for questions without notice. I will not attempt to resist the procedure if the Senate wants questions without notice. I will be in perfect agreement with you, Mr President, if you call on questions without notice.

The PRESIDENT:

-I call for questions without notice.

page 14

QUESTION

CIVIL AVIATION

Senator MULVIHILL:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is directed to the Minister for Civil Aviation. Has the Minister examined the circumstances of the recent attempt by two prisoners to hijack an East-West Airlines Fokker Friendship, which attempt could have endangered the lives of passengers? Will he request State prison authorities either to cease their cheese-paring practice of providing insufficient numbers of guards in such prison transfers or, alternatively, to seek other means of transferring prisoners from one gaol to another?

Senator COTTON:
Minister for Civil Aviation · NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

-I have taken an interest in this question of hijacking, but it is rather early days for me to be an expert on the forcible taking of control of aircraft in flight. I will be looking at this matter and hope to have some information for the honourable senator. State prison authorities are outside my jurisdiction, but I will be endeavouring to see what we can do to bring this matter under better control.

page 14

QUESTION

F111 AIRCRAFT

Senator BISHOP:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question is directed to the Minister for Air or to the Minister representing the Minister for Defence. It concerns the F111 aircraft. When is it likely that the Government will allow senators and members of the Parliament to discuss the report of the mission led by Sir Henry Bland which recently made investigations of the F111 and made recommendations to the Government in connection with the confirmation of the F111 transaction? Will we be given particulars of the deficiencies of the aircraft and will the Parliament have a chance to debate the report of the mission?

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– In the circumstances I think it proper that I should take the question. It is true that before Parliament was dissolved there had been a mission to the United States. It is equally true that a ministerial statement was made about the terms and conditions under which the Government would take delivery of the F111C. All I can add at this point of time is that at the appropriate time when the next session of Parliament is called I hope there will be an opportunity in the background of events to have any debate that the Senate wishes about the F111. At this point of time it is proper to say that I know of no new circumstances in relation to the requirements that the Australian Government has laid down for the acquisition of this aircraft.

page 15

QUESTION

NUCLEAR WEAPONS

Senator MURPHY:

– My question is addressed to -the Leader of the Government in the Senate. Is the Minister aware of reports that the Presidium of the Supreme Russian Soviet is expected to ratify the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons? Is it also reported that if Russia takes this important step President Nixon will also ratify the treaty which America has already signed and to which I understand the United States Senate has given its advice and consent? Is it also correct that a number of nations, including our near neighbour New Zealand, have indicated their acceptance of the treaty?

Senator Cormack:

– I rise to a point of order. The Leader of the Opposition has fallen into the habit of giving information and not asking questions. This is not in accordance with Standing Orders and 1 require you, Mr President, to correct the Leader of the Opposition.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! I do nol uphold the point of order.

Senator MURPHY:

– Will the Minister indicate to the Parliament for how much longer the Australian Government is going to delay its consideration of whether the treaty should be ratified? If the Government is going to continue to delay ratifying the treaty would the Minister tell us what possible reason there can be for the Australian Government failing to sign the treaty as evidence of its good faith, even though it might require further time to determine whether it should ratify it?

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– Time has moved on but apparently the line of attack in the country of the Opposition has not changed. As far as the Government is concerned, its attitude with relation to the nonproliferation treaty was quite clearly stated during the election campaign. The Government’s view has been quite clearly expressed. The Government’s policy is quite clear. It will not sign the treaty until it is satisfied, as it has a responsibility to be, that the signing or ratification of the treaty would be in the best interests of Australia. The Government has declared that until it is satisfied about those matters it will not sign or ratify the Treaty.

page 15

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN BROADCASTING COMMISSION

Senator McMANUS:
VICTORIA

– I desire to ask a question of the Minister representing the Postmaster-General. Has it been the practice of the Australian Broadcasting Commission to allocate free time on television and radio to political parties at previous federal elections and strictly adhere to that allocation? Why did the ABC at the 1969 federal election ignore this practice and grant additional time on two programmes of ‘Four Corners’ at a vital period 1 week before the election to the Liberal Party and the Australian Labor Party? Why were the Country Party, the Democratic Labor Party, and other Parties contesting the election denied this additional opportunity to publicise their policies? Which of the Liberal or Australian Labor Party representatives on the ‘Four Comers’ programme objected to the inclusion of the Democratic Labor Party? Was it in accordance with the ABC’s professed impartiality for the pre-election ‘Four Corners’ programs to invite the Liberal and Australian Labor Party representatives to express their opinions antagonistic to the Democratic Labor Party, and in some cases deny its right to exist when the Democratic Labor Party has been refused any opportunity tq defend itself?

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:

– The honourable senator has asked me a series of detailed questions. I shall take up with the Postmaster-General the matters he has raised and let him have whatever information I receive.

page 15

QUESTION

THE PARLIAMENT

Senator FITZGERALD:

– For the benefit of honourable senators would the Leader of the Government in the Senate advise us of the Government’s proposals for the meetings of the Parliament this week? On what date in 1970 will the Parliament resume? Is it the wish of the Government to rule by administration rather than by the introduction of legislation into the Parliament?

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– The honourable senator’s question presumably relates to the order of business of the Senate for this day. The business paper which has been circulated sets out certain items of business and concludes with an adjournment. It is my understanding that we will be able to complete this day the business that we have been called here to do in relation to a special constitutional requirement. It is my intention to move - and I hope it will be the will of the Senate, as expressed by the numbers to agree to - a substantive motion, later in the evening, that we be called together again at a time and place to be ordered by the Presiding Officer. The date of the calling together of what will be regarded generally as the autumn session of the Parliament, I am not in a position at this time to indicate but as soon as the information becomes available to me it will be made available to the Senate.

page 16

QUESTION

POLITICAL PARTIES

Senator MARRIOTT:
TASMANIA

– I address my question to the Leader of the Government in the Senate because I presume he would know what political parties are represented in this chamber and who their leaders are. Has the Minister any indication whether the Australia Party, following its annihilation at the last general election for the House of Representatives, has been disbanded and, if it has been disbanded, whether the Leader of the Australia Party in the Senate went with it? If not, is it proposed to continue its existence?

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

-I am afraid we will have to wait for the arrival of the selfdeclared Leader of the Australia Party in the Senate to find out his position. At the present time I am unaware of it.

page 16

QUESTION

NATIONAL SERVICE

Senator RAE:
TASMANIA

– Is the Minister representing the Minister for Labour and National Service aware of newspaper reports that a spokeswoman for the Australian Labor Party has advocated national service for all young men and women? Has the Minister received from the Australian Labor Party any formal notification that it desires to move for an amendment of the National Service Act to provide for compulsory national service for all young men and women? . . .

Senator WRIGHT:
Minister for Works · TASMANIA · LP

– I have not had any indication from the Minister for Labour and National Service of the receipt of the information to which my colleague refers; but it is credibly reported in widespread newspapers that the wife of the Leader of the Opposition-

Senator Cavanagh:

– Mr President, I raise a point of order. I ask whether a question is in accordance with the Standing Orders if it is based upon a newspaper report.

The PRESIDENT:

– The Minister may answer the question as he desires.

Senator WRIGHT:

– I remind the honourable senator that the question did not refer in the slightest degree to newspaper reports. The second part of it, to which I was about to address my mind, was whether the Minister had received any formal notification of this new policy announcement from the feminine wing of the Labor Opposition. As far as I am informed, the Minister has not received any such formal notification; but it is really significant to find in the credible newspaper reports that Mrs Whitlam is advocating national service not only for young men but also for young women. I see no reason for Senator Cavanagh to be sensitive about that news item.

page 16

QUESTION

F111 AIRCRAFT

Senator WRIEDT:
TASMANIA

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Defence. Has the Royal Australian Air Force sought Cabinet approval to purchase several tankers from the United States for in-flight refuelling of the F111? If so, by what margin does the RAAF now consider the F111 will fall short of its previously declared range capability? Has the Government acceded to this request? If not, on what grounds has it been refused?

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– Quite clearly,I will need to seek information in relation to the series of questions asked by the honourable senator. So I ask him to place his questions on the notice paper. Let me add that when a question is put on the notice paper and it is possible for me to obtain an answer and despatch it to the honourable senator concerned, I certainly will do so before the next sitting of the Senate.

page 17

QUESTION

NATIONAL SERVICE

Senator GREENWOOD:
VICTORIA

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Labour and National Service. Is the Government aware that the United States Senate has adopted a call-up system for the United States national service scheme similar to that which has been in operation in Australia for a number of years? Does the Government consider that where defence preparedness requires a national service training system for young men the merits and essential fairness of the Australian system have been vindicated by the United States action in adopting a similar system?

Senator WRIGHT:
LP

– It has been known for a considerable time that the United States Administration was examining the merits of our system of call-up for national service as compared with its official and local selection of national service draftees. I think it is a considerable compliment to the essential fairness of the Australian system to know that, after consideration, the United States Administration has determined to adopt our system. I should think that a moment’s reflection would indicate to everybody that where you have a total quota of about 80,000 personnel from whom 8,000 or 10,000 are required, rather than leave it to official decision they would be more fairly selected by taking the luck of the draw. The United States has adopted that principle.

page 17

QUESTION

WHEAT

Senator POYSER:

– I address a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry. Can the Minister inform the Senate whether any moneys have been made available to the State of Victoria for the construction of temporary storage for above-quota wheat? Can the Minister advise the Senate also whether there is any conflict between the States and the Commonwealth on the repayment to the Australian Wheat Board of the $10m which the Minister for Primary Industry announced prior to the recent election would be made available for this purpose?

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
CP

– I would have to get the details to answer that question. I ask that the question be placed on the notice paper.

page 17

QUESTION

NAZI PARTY

Senator KEEFFE:
QUEENSLAND

– Is the Minister representing the Minister for the Army aware that a national serviceman, who is also a member of the Nazi party, recently underwent a training course at Canungra training camp in Queensland and took advantage of the opportunity to distribute Nazi literature and to obtain subscriptions for his party journal? Does the Minister approve of this activity? If he does not, what action has been taken by the Minister?

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
CP

– Again I would not know the details of that matter. I ask the honourable senator to place his question on the notice paper.

page 17

QUESTION

IMMIGRATION

Senator GEORGES:
QUEENSLAND

– I address a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration. Is the Government negotiating with Communist Yugoslavia to accept migrants to Australia from that country? Does the Government intend to advise any such migrants that because of its attitude they are likely to be refused citizenship?

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:

– I believe that the first part of the honourable senator’s question has received attention in this chamber before tonight, particularly in reply to questions asked by Senator Mulvihill who over a period has shown an interest in this matter. I inform the Senate that negotiations have been proceeding over the last 2 years between Australia and Yugoslavia for an agreement on the residence and employment of Yugoslav citizens in Australia. The Yugoslav Government has proposed, and it has been agreed, that a delegation from Yugoslavia should meet an Australian delegation in Canberra on 25th November 1969 for final negotiations. This is the point that the discussion has now reached. The further question asked by Senator Georges concerning naturalisation has been replied to by the Minister on previous occasions.

page 17

QUESTION

UNITED STATES DEVELOPMENT IN AUSTRALIA

Senator WHEELDON:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– 1 address a question to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. Is the Government aware of the statement made at the beginning of this month in New York by the Western Australian Liberal Minister for Industrial Development. Mr Court, in which he said that although Australia, like the United States, had conservationists and antipollutionists, the Western Australian Government would not spoil American development in Western Australia by acting too early? Does the statement by Mr Court reflect the attitude of this Government towards pollution and conservation in Western Australia? If not, will the Government repudiate Mr Court’s statement?

Senator Scott:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA · LP

– He contradicted that statement himself.

Senator WHEELDON:

– No, he did not.

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

-I saw a report of his statement in the Press but I thought it covered some aspects that the honourable senator has not referred to. I think it would be most improper for the honourable senator, for me or for any honourable senator to make a judgment on this matter without the advantage of the full text of Mr Court’s comments. I would be the last one in the world to denigrate the magnificent work done by Mr Court, the Western Australian Minister for Industrial Development, for the development of Western Australia. Before I comment on this matter I would like to have the advantage of reading the full text of what Mr Court said.

page 18

QUESTION

F111 AIRCRAFT

Senator TOOHEY:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I address my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Air or the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, whoever is the appropriate Minister. It follows the question concerning the F111 aircraft asked earlier this evening by Senator Bishop. I refer the Minister to a report in yesterday’s ‘Sydney Morning Herald’ suggesting that the Australian Governmentcould be involved in cost of over $100,000 for storage in addition to the ever escalating purchase costs of the F111 aircraft. Can the Minister inform the Senate whether this amount wilt be paid by the Australian Government or the United States Government?

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
CP

– The matter referred to by the honourable senator is at present the subject of negotiations between the United States Defence Department and the Australian Government. Until the negotiations are concluded I cannot add to what has already been said about this matter.

page 18

QUESTION

QUESTIONS ON NOTICE

Senator MULVIHILL:

– In addressing my question to the Leader of the Government in the Senate I remind him that a question asked by Senator Cavanagh earlier this evening is to be placed on the notice paper and that this morning I submitted for the notice paper thirteen questions dealing with immigration and oil pollution. If Parliament is to be prorogued within the next few days, will answers to those questions be supplied to honourable senators before Christmas?

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– It is my understanding that proroguing within the life of a parliament is one thing and proroguing when there is to be a general election, as there has just been, takes on a different character. I am sure other Ministers will support me in saying that in those cases where we can get answers from departments we will do so and send them to honourable senators before we meet again for the autumn session.

page 18

QUESTION

INDUSTRIAL STOPPAGES

Senator CAVANAGH:

– I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Labour and National Service: As the stoppage of work at the Ford motor works in Victoria is in its third week and the view has been expressed by the newly appointed Minister for Labour and National Service that he expects industrial unrest to increase, is this situation not a reason why this Parliament should continue this session to try to introduce an industrial measure that will give industrial justice and will prevent the dislocation to private lives that strikes occasion?

Senator WRIGHT:
LP

– I could not think of a more inappropriate suggestion that that Parliament should introduce legislation specifically to deal with an individual industrial dispute. If Senator Cavanagh has a proposal for the amendment of legislation that is fit to be considered by Parliament, let him make it known so that it can be considered by the Government, which will take the earliest available opportunity to submit appropriate legislation to the Parliament.

page 19

QUESTION

PAPUA AND NEW GUINEA

Senator KEEFFE:

– Can the Minister representing the Minister for External Territories advise the Senate of the total number of lives lost during the recent epidemic of Hong Kong influenza in the Territory of Papua and New Guinea? Can the Minister also inform honourable senators of the number of times that the Minister for External Territories visited the Territory during the epidemic and which areas he visited?

Senator WRIGHT:
LP

– lt is estimated that about 2,300 deaths have occurred during the epidemic, mainly from pneumonia complications, and mostly in the mountainous areas where severe conditions of cold have been ‘ experienced. I atn not. in possession of information as to how often the Minister visited the Territory during this period, but the programme put into effect to combat the outbreak is an indication of the attention that - the Minister has given to the matter. The programme consists of a vaccination programme, an increase in the Commonweatlh Department of Health field staff, radio stations alerting the people to seek early advice, medical patrols penetrating remote areas, the establishment of an influenza relief committee and assistance being given by the armed Services, specialist medical personnel, the Commonwealth Department of Health and the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories which has supplied . 335,000 anti-influenza doses.

page 19

QUESTION

PAPUA AND NEW GUINEA

Senator MURPHY:

– I ask a question of the Minister representing the Minister for External Territories. It touches the matter raised by Senator Keeffe about the recent influenza epidemic in the Territory of Papua and New Guinea.

Senator Prowse:

– Was it Hong Kong flu?

Senator MURPHY:

– I understand that it was, no doubt due to the habits of people travelling to and from such outlying places. I ask the Minister whether he can tell the Senate what precautionary measures were taken against the likelihood of such an epidemic in Papua and New Guinea in the light of the fact that the main cause of death among the people of Papua and New

Guinea is respiratory disease, including simple pneumonia. Will the Minister state what assistance other than Commonwealth assistance was sought and particularly whether any application was made to the World Health Organisation for the use of its facilities and for the benefit of its experience in such problems? Will he state whether the Government intends to seek the assistance of the World Health. Organisation if any similar outbreak occurs, especially in the light of the fact that part of the Territory is a United Nations Trust Territory?

Senator WRIGHT:
LP

– From February 1969 the question of a possible outbreak was under consideration by the Commonwealth Department of Health, by the National Health and Medical Research Council and lately by the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories. An assessment of the position was made as it developed. I am not informed whether any application was made to the World Health Organisation, but I shall seek that information and pass it to the honourable senator at the earliest possible opportunity.

page 19

QUESTION

BIAFRA: AUSTRALIAN AID

Senator WILLESEE:

– I ask the Minister representing the Minister for External Affairs whether he can give an approximate figure for the value of aid sent from Australia to Biafra or, alternatively, the number of despatches. Can he tell me whether there is any aid in the pipeline at the moment or whether there is any intention by the Government to send any more aid to Biafra? I am encouraged by the fact that he is now looking at some papers in front of him. Can he state the type of aid given, if he has that information available?

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

- Mr President. I think I should indicate first the nature of the documents 1 have in front of me. I have something like 66 pieces of information from the Prime Minister’s Department. 30 from the Department of Trade and Industry and about 20 from the Department of External Affairs. I have had a quick look through these documents to see whether I have any information concerning Biafra, which is a subject which is frequently raised in this House and one with which the whole of the world ?s most concerned. Although I may not be able to obtain all the information that the honourable senator seeks. I should think that I would be able to obtain basic answers to some of his questions. As soon as I obtain that information 1 shall relay it to the honourable senator.

page 20

QUESTION

THE PARLIAMENT

Senator GEORGES:

– 1 direct a question to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. I ask: Will he prepare a glossary of terms explaining parliamentary activities? In particular, will he pay attention to the words ‘frog belly’ and ‘chief spore’, which are now freely used in Government circles?

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– I must move in a different circle from that of the honourable senator because I have never heard those words used.

page 20

QUESTION

VIP AIRCRAFT

Senator TOOHEY:

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Air. Is there any substance in widespread reports that the Australian Government intends to sell two VIP aircraft to the United States of America? If there is any substance in these reports will the Minister indicate whether any organisation in Australia was permitted to tender for these aircraft or whether any consideration was given to converting them for use by the Royal Flying Doctor Service or any other mission in this country?

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– I think 1 should answer the honourable senator’s question. The situation is that two Viscount aircraft which were part of the VIP Flight have been disposed of by the Department of Supply. I have been informed that the aircraft were declared surplus by the Department of Air and, as a result, their disposal was arranged by my Department. Tenders were called for their disposal. I understand that seventeen tenders were received from all over the world. Tenders for the aircraft were invited in Australia as well as overseas. 1 understand that the purchaser of the aircraft proposes exporting them. The Department of Air decided that it had no further gainful use for the aircraft and, as a result, they came up for disposal.

Senator Bishop:

– What about the Australian operators?

Senator ANDERSON:

– All Australian operators were invited to tender. Tenders were invited in Australia as well as other parts of the world. Before the sale was made it had been established that there was no governmental requirement for the aircraft. Senator Toohey raised the question of whether some organisation in Australia, outside of the Government, may have had a use for the aircraft. That is a judgment that such an organisation would obviously have had to make when tenders were called.

Senator Toohey:

– What was the purchase price?

Senator ANDERSON:

– The two aircraft were sold for $173,600. Of course, Viscount aircraft are almost unsaleable at present. 1 understand that Trans-Australia Airlines is having difficulty disposing of some of its Viscounts. Indeed, the general situation throughout the world is that Viscount aircraft have become superseded and it is very difficult to dispose of them. I repeat that these aircraft, which were from the VIP Flight, were sold for $173,600.

page 20

QUESTION

BROADCASTING AND TELEVISION

Senator McCLELLAND:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Postmaster-General. Is he aware that a commercial television station has paid $64,000 to the wife of a convicted and escaped train robber for the exclusive rights to her life story? Does the Minister think it ethical that a commercial television station which operates under a licence issued by the Government should be able to pay such a colossal sum for a story of this nature when the unfortunate English train driver who was the victim of the robbery is now an invalid and apparently living in a very humble manner under difficult financial circumstances? Will the Minister request the Australian Broadcasting Control Board to prepare a report on this matter? Will the Government view the matter seriously when the commercial station’s application for a renewal of its licence is under consideration?

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:

– I shall bring the points the honourable senator has raised concerning this matter to the attention of the Postmaster-General.

page 21

QUESTION

ELECTORAL

Senator GREENWOOD:

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for the Interior, ls the Minister aware that the Australian Labor Party’s publicists and apologists have been recently stressing the merits of a first past the post voting system in contrast to the preferential system of voting which has existed in Australia for over 50 years? Does the Minister consider that there is any merit in a first past the post system of voting whereby a government may be elected on a minority of votes and contrary to the majority of opinion which is expressed through primary votes and preferences? Will the Minister assure the Senate that there will be no change from the present system of preferential voting? Is the Minister aware of any merit in first past the post voting under a compulsory voting system other than the enabling of the Australian Labor Party to defeat the express will of the majority of the Australian people?

Senator COTTON:
LP

– I thank the honourable senator for his question. It will not be my policy to answer questions on behalf of the Minister for the Interior without first referring back to him for information.

page 21

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN AIRCRAFT INDUSTRY

Senator BISHOP:

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, who is also Minister for Supply. I ask: Is it a fact that a group of people representing the aircraft industry in Australia is at present visiting the United States of America in order to obtain for Australia the right to manufacture a number of the defence items that are manufactured in that country at present? If so, is the Government’s aircraft industry represented in this group? In order to keep the defence establishments in Australia productive, does the Government intend to ensure that Government Aircraft Factories are able to obtain the right to manufacture some components which are at present supplied by the United States of America?

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– An officer of the Department of Supply is always a member of missions of this nature which go overseas. Indeed, an officer of the Department is stationed in Washington to deal with defence procurements overseas. The Government is most concerned at all times with obtaining work for our own aircraft factories. At times the response is disappointing but at other times we feel that we are making headway. The Government feels that the Government Aircraft Factories and the Commonwealth Aircraft Corporation should do some of this work, as well as the Hawker organisation, which has done some in the past. If I may be permitted to do so I would like to write to Senator Bishop and outline to him the present position. The honourable senator has always shown an interest in these matters. Some progress has been made. I am disappointed that I cannot be more confident in my answer at this stage. However, I would like to obtain from the Department of Supply up to date information on the progress which is being made. I shall be happy to forward that information to the honourable senator in due course.

page 21

QUESTION

INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

Senator O’BYRNE:

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Labour and National Service. Is he aware that a major motor car manufacturing organisation has taken unto itself the right to impose penalties in the form of deductions from the pay of its employees without reference to the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission? Is the Minister aware that the introduction of this practice may trigger off a nationwide strike which could affect all sections of the Australian economy? Is the Government aware that the introduction of a principle tolerating deductions from pay in the form of penalties, under whatever guise they may be imposed, is unacceptable to the trade union movement of Australia? Finally, will the Government use its offices to inform the overseas owned organisation that these provocative industrial practices are alien to traditional employer-employee relationships, and will the Government keep the Parliament in session until this industrial crisis is resolved?

Senator WRIGHT:
LP

– I can see no purpose in having Parliament hovering about pending the settlement of an industrial dispute such as this. Senator O’Byrne is a shining example of the inappropriateness of an individual parliamentarian to make any contribution to the solution of industrial disputes. With regard to the interpretation that Senator O’Byrne has put upon the claim of the company, when he says that this is an imposition of penalties on workers without the sanction of the industrial tribunal, that is an interpretation which I just take note of for the time being without canvassing it. There are, of course, other understandings of the matter, but all I wish to say is that there are ample numbers of industrial tribunals constituted for the solution of this industrial problem. They have specialist experience, to them this Parliament has committed this function and we can rely upon them and the good sense of those concerned in industry to seek a solution.

page 22

QUESTION

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES

Senator GREENWOOD:

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Labour and National Service. Is he aware that the current strike which is taking place at the Ford motor works was originally initiated by workers who were covered by the Amalgamated Engineering Union? Is he further aware that that strike has been extended as a result of Amalgamated Engineering Union officials moving into the affairs of the Vehicle Builders Employees Federation of Australia contrary to the expressed wishes of the officials of that Union? Is he further aware that the secretary of the Amalgamated Engineering Union is one Laurie Carmichael who is a national committeeman of the Communist Party of Australia? Is he also aware that the current waves of industrial unrest are part and parcel of the pattern laid down by the Communist Party, as published in its newspaper, and about which the Australian Labor Party has maintained a discreet silence?

Senator WRIGHT:
LP

– The essential gravamen of the question is that Laurie Carmichael is taking an active part in the agitation behind this dispute. I think his record is well known and I wish to make no other comment upon the matter.

page 22

QUESTION

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES

Senator CAVANAGH:

– I direct my question to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. My question arises out of the answer I received to my earlier question to the Minister representing the Minister for Labour and National Service. In view of the invitation of the Minister to present to the Parliament any proposals that I have for the prevention of industrial unrest, will the Government keep in operation the people’s legislative chamber for the consideration of any proposals, that I or my Party are prepared to submit to give the industrial justice that will eliminate the need for strike action and the resultant public inconvenience?

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– I think 1 have already answered questions as to the Government’s proposals for the current sessional period. I would add that it is quite obvious that questions of industrial problems are provided for by the laws of the land, namely our laws of conciliation and arbitration, and I would have thought that opportunities for the Parliament to discuss such matters would be amply provided when we reassemble.

page 22

QUESTION

THE SENATE

Senator KENNELLY:

- Mr President, I desire to ask you a question. Is it competent for a senator to get up here without any documentary or other proof and to ask a question as was asked by my colleague from Victoria, Senator Greenwood, in relation to an industrial dispute now existing at the Ford works? Is it competent for me or anyone else to get up and put our own interpretation on what we think is the case? If it is, it is just making a farce of question time in this Senate. At least I suggest that when a responsible ‘ member asks such a question, then out of respect to you, Mr President, and to the Senate some proof ought to be given that the statements contained in the question are true.

The PRESIDENT:

– I want to say quite distinctly that the responsibility for the information given by a senator asking a question is his entirely. I have no way of checking statements contained in these questions. If I were to undertake to do that and refer them to some other authority I would rule half the questions out of order. I think that is the position. It is not my responsibility to establish the accuracy of information contained in a question. This is entirely the responsibility of the senator asking the question.

page 22

QUESTION

INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS

Senator WHEELDON:

– I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Trade and Industry. Is the Minister aware that in the 7th November issue of the periodical ‘Overseas Trading’ published by the Department of Trade and Industry there appears an article titled ‘South Africa Attracts Manufacturing Ventures’ written by R. T.. Anderson, the Australian . Trade Commissioner in Cape Town and that in this article reference is made to the African population of South Africa by the title Bantu’? Is he aware that the word ‘Bantu’, which is used by the racist government and its supporters in South Africa to refer to Africans, is a word which is found offensive not only by the African inhabitants of the Republic of South Africa but also by other independent African nations? Does the Minister not agree that, apart from any other moral considerations, if Australia is to adopt the insulting terminology used about the African people by the South African Government this could in fact be extremely damaging to Australia’s relations with independent African countries?

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– I have not had the advantage of reading the article referred to by the honourable senator, but what I will do, and all I can do in the circumstances, is to refer the honourable senator’s question and comments to the Minister for Trade and Industry.

page 23

QUESTION

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

Senator MULVIHILL:

– I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for the Interior. By way of preface I refer to the proceedings on the last day of the previous Parliament when Senator Scott, who was representing the Minister for the Interior, assured me that the Minister for the Interior would give me an answer to a question about the establishment of a biological centre on the western slopes of Black Mountain. Is it true that apart from an acknowledgment in response to my follow-up letter to the Minister on 15th October no information has been forthcoming? Will the Minister endeavour to get me an answer in view of the fact that the information was apparently available on the last day of the last Parliament?

Senator COTTON:
LP

– I will obtain the information for the honourable senator as quickly as I can.

page 23

QUESTION

COMMONWEALTH CENTRE, ADELAIDE

Senator BISHOP:

– My question is directed to the Minister for Works and it refers to the matter of a Commonwealth Centre in Adelaide. Has the Minister no further information in relation to comments he has made at various times in answers to me in respect of the proposition that a Commonwealth Centre ought to be built in Adelaide to house some of the twenty-seven Commonwealth departments which are situated around the metropolitan area? Can he say whether the project is still a live one. as he said some months ago, or whether it has been discarded? - Senator WRIGHT - I can assure the honourable senator that the question is under active consideration by not only one department, but several.

page 23

QUESTION

WHEAT

Senator POYSER:

– Can the . Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry advise the Senate whether any of the $1Om promised by the Minister for Primary Industry for temporary wheat storages has been paid to any State in Australia? If the answer is no, can the Minister tell the Senate the reasons for the non payment of this money, particularly in view of the fact that this season’s wheat harvest is now well under way?

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
CP

– I will draw the attention of the Minister for Primary Industry to the honourable senator’s question, obtain an answer for the honourable senator and write to him as soon as possible.

page 23

QUESTION

SECULAR MARRIAGES

Senator GEORGES:

– I direct a question to the Minister representing the AttorneyGeneral. Is the Minister aware that in spite of the promise made by the previous Attorney-General facilities for secular marriages in Queensland have not been improved? Are we likely to be able to expect more effective action from the new Minister during the long period of executive control which lies ahead?

Senator WRIGHT:
LP

– I have not been either officially or personally made aware of the difficulties still confronting those seeking the assistance of secular marriages in Queensland. Whether some of our folk have to go abroad to obtain those facilities, 1 would not know. I shall direct the Attorney-General’s mind to the question and I have no doubt he will take the earliest opportunity of informing the honourable senator of the present position.

page 24

QUESTION

PAPUA AND NEW GUINEA

Senator KEEFFE:

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for External Territories. Can the Minister inform the Parliament how many doses of antibiotics were made available to combat pneumonia contracted as a result of the Hong Kong flu epidemic in the Territory of Papua and New Guinea? If antibiotics were made available, on what dates were the supplies received by hospitals and medical teams in the Territory?

Senator WRIGHT:
LP

– When it comes to medical terms I distrust my competence to use them. I cannot add to the information I gave in answer to a previous question when I said that there were 336,000 doses of anti-flu vaccine supplies. I understand the honourable senator is now directing his attention to antibiotics. I shall ascertain the information and provide it to the honourable senator.

page 24

QUESTION

WORLD HEALTH ORGANISATION

Senator MURPHY:

– I ask the Leader of the Government in the Senate in his capacity as representing the Prime Minister whether he is aware that an institute of public health has been established in Saigon under the auspices of the World Health Organisation and that such institute will be available for many useful purposes, including the training of medical and para medical persons for the treatment of the Vietnamese people. Is he aware that contributions have been made towards the establishment of this institute by the United States and, I understand, by Japan, and Holland, and that New Zealand has offered to pay for the services of an architect for the construction of a building which would cost approximately $1½m? Will the Government consider assisting the people of Vietnam by paying the comparatively small sum required for the construction of something which will be invaluable for the people of that country?

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– The Leader of the Opposition directs the question to me in my capacity as representing the Prime Minister. My feeling is that this is probably the responsibility of the Minister for External Affairs under our foreign aid grants. In any event, I will direct the question to both the Prime Minister and the Minister for External Affairs and so make certain that this matter will receive consideration. My own memory is that aid to the World Health Organisation is incorporated in the total figure provided in the Budget for foreign aid grants. A certain allocation is made within that ceiling. It is an interesting and important question and I will see that it is properly processed so that answers are obtained for the Senator.

While I am on my feet, may I ask the indulgence and co-operation of the Senate with relation to question time? Could we very soon come to the next item of business?

page 24

QUESTION

GREAT BARRIER REEF

Senator GEORGES:

– I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for National Development. Has the Minister been informed of a recent public opinion poll in Queensland which showed that 94% of the people questioned were against drilling on the Great Barrier Reef? Will the Minister take urgent action during the prolonged recess, to protect the Great Barrier Reef against those responsible authorities which seem determined to destroy it?

Senator COTTON:
LP

– I will address the question to the Minister for National Development whom I represent in this place. I will try to get the information for the honourable senator as soon as J can and I will write to him if I have it before we resume.

page 24

QUESTION

ANSETT AIRLINES OF AUSTRALIA

Senator BISHOP:

– I ask the Minister for Civil Aviation whether he is in a position to give any information concerning a report that Ansett Airlines of Australia intends to apply for permission to compete with the Australian national airline Qantas Airways Ltd in international flights. If he is not in a position to give this information at the present time will he investigate the rumour and reassure the people that Australia’s Qantas Airways Ltd will be properly protected by the Australian Government?

Senator COTTON:
LP

– I thank the honourable senator for his question which is a most interesting one. Once or twice in the past J have seen references to this effect. I did not see this one.I shall try to find out about it and get to the bottom of the matter.

page 25

QUESTION

TURKISH MIGRANTS

Senator MULVIHILL:

– I direct a question to either the Minister representing the Minister for Labour and National Service or the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration because it is one of these hybrid questions. By way of preface I refer to an article in the Sydney ‘Bulletin’ of 22nd November on page 35 about the plight of Turkish migrants who are residents of Governments hostels and the reconciliation of the hostel menu with their Moslem faith which forbids the eating of pork. Will the Minister examine the composition of the menu in those hostels where Turkish migrants reside?

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:

– I shall be pleased to place this matter before the Minister for Immigration, obtain all the information 1 can for the honourable senator, and advise him accordingly.

page 25

ASSENT TO BILLS

Assent to the following Bills reported:

Universities (Financial Assistance) Bill (No. 2) 1969.

Income Tax Bill 1969.

Income Tax (Partnerships and Trusts) Bill 1969.

Air Navigation (Charges) Bill 1969.

States Grants (Universities) Bill 1969.

Slates Grants (Aboriginal Advancement) Bill 1969.

States Grants (Aboriginal Advancement) Bill (No. 2) 1969.

Nitrogenous Fertilisers Subsidy Bill 1969.

Fishing Industry Research Bill 1969.

States Grants (Advanced Education) Bill 1969.

States Grants (Advanced Education) Bill (No. 2) 1969.

Book Bounty Bill 1969.

Customs Tariff Validation Bill 1969.

Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 1969-70.

Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 1969-70.

States Grants (Dwellings for Aged Pensioners) Bill 1969.

Northern Territory (Administration) Bill 1969.

States Grants (Independent Schools) Bill 1969.

States Grants (Petroleum Products) Bill 1969.

Tasmania Grant Bill 1969.

Public Works Committee Bill 1969.

Income Tax Assessment Bill (No. 2) 1969.

Social Services Bill 1969.

Repatriation Bill 1969.

Seamen’s War Pensions and Allowances Bill 1969.

Airline Equipment (Loan Guarantee) Bill 1969.

Loan (Australian National Airlines Commission) Bill 1969.

Loan (Drought Bonds) Bill 1969.

Income Tax (Drought Bonds) Bill 1969.

Income Tax Assessment Bill (No. 3) 1969.

National Health Bill 1969.

page 25

BUSINESS OF THE SENATE

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

– I understand, Mr President, that Senator Gair and Senator Murphy intend to seek leave to move certain motions. With your concurrence, I think it would be convenient for the Senate to deal with them now.

The PRESIDENT:

– Very well, that course will be followed.

Senator GAIR:
Leader of the Australian Democratic Labor Party · Queensland

– by leave - I move:

That it is desirable that a select committee of the Senate be appointed to inquire into and report upon drug trafficking and drug abuse in Australia.

Senator Murphy:

– If I may interrupt at this stage, Mr President, let me say that I propose to ask for leave to move a motion in similar terms. If my request for leave is granted, I suggest that the two motions be dealt with together.

The PRESIDENT:

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

Senator MURPHY:
New South WalesLeader of the Opposition

– I move:

  1. That a select committee of the Senate be appointed to inquire into and report upon drug trafficking and drug abuse in Australia and, in particular -

    1. the incidence, distribution and causes of drug abuse;
    2. the extent, organisation and methods of drug trafficking, including the sources of supply;
    3. the adequacy of existing Commonwealth and State legislation and administration;
    4. the adequacy of present educational programmes against drug abuse;
    5. the adequacy of existing international agreements affecting Australia;

  2. the effectiveness of existing international law enforcement agenciesand methods in regard to Australia, and to make such recommendations as it may think fit, on -

    1. legislative and administrative measures by the Commonwealth to prevent and deal with drug trafficking and drug abuse;
    2. the desirability of further international agreements or improvements in existing international law enforcement agencies and methods so far as they affect Australia; and
    3. the treatment and rehabilitation of persons dependent on drugs;
  3. the select committee to consist of 7 senators, 3 to be appointed by the Leader of the Government in the Senate, 3 to be appointed by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate and 1 to be’ appointed by the Leader of the Australian Democratic Labor Party, such appointments to be made as soon as practicable;
  4. that the committee elect as chairman one of the members appointed by the Leader of the Government in the Senate. The. chairman of the committee may, from time to time, appoint another member ofthe committee to be the deputy chairman of the committee, and that the member so appointed act as chairman of the committee at any time when the chairman is not present at a meeting of the committee; that in the event of an equality of voting the chairman, or the deputy chairman when acting as chairman, have a casting vote:
  5. the presence of three members of the committee shall be necessary to constitute a meeting of the committee for the exercise of its powers;
  6. the select committee have power to sit during any adjournment or recess of the Parliament and notwithstanding any prorogation;
  7. the select committee have power to send for persons, papers and records, to move from place to place, to sit in open court or in private and have leave to report from time to time its proceedings and the evidence taken and such interim recommendations as it may deem fit;
  8. the Senate authorise the publication of all documents which may be laid before the select committee and of all evidence which may be given before it except such particular documents or evidence as the committee determines should not be published;
  9. the committee shall ensure that the operational methods of law enforcement agencies be protected from disclosure where that would be against the public interest;
  10. that the committee report to the Senate on or before 3 1st August 1970; and
  11. the foregoing provisions of this resolution so far as they are inconsistent with the Standing Orders, have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the Standing Orders.
Senator GAIR:
Leader of the Australian Democratic Labor Party · Queensland

– I desire to address a few remarks relating to and in support of the motion that I have been privileged to move tonight in connection with the setting up of a select committee of the Senate to inquire into drug trafficking and drug abuse in the Commonwealth of Australia at the present time. The rapidity with which this problem has grown is really startling and it surely must be disturbing to all responsible citizens of this country. I know that it is causing the medical profession of Australia a great deal of concern, and almost daily we receive reports from church leaders, from headmasters of secondary schools and from leaders of other sections of the community relating to the growth of illicit trafficking in both light and heavy drugs.

The Australian Democratic Labor Party has been concerned about this matter for some time. We first made the suggestion of the appointment of such a Senate select committee back in December 1968, but we suspended any moves for the appointment of such a parliamentary committee when the former Minister for Customs and Excise, Senator Scott, announced the establishment of a departmental national standing control committee on drugs. We felt that that decision was an admirable one. We respected that decision. We felt that we should wait and see how that body progressed before we went ahead with the appointment of a parliamentary committee. In taking that view we were displaying and demonstrating a reasonable attitude. We were appreciative of the decision of the then Minister.

But the Commonwealth-States departmental body has been in existence for the best part of 10 months now. It is true that it meets in camera. That is probably the reason why we hear little or nothing about its work. I am conscious of the fact that two short reports in this connection were made by the former Minister. But we feel that the public is crying out for some information on activities in this field. We also feel that all sections of the public should be alerted to the rapid growth of this problem in Australia. It was for that reason that my colleagues and I decided on this matter at our party meeting yesterday morning and I was instructed to move in this direction.

I ask honourable senators not to misunderstand me. I am not denigrating the work of the members of the departmental committee. They could be doing very good work. I imagine , that they are doing so. But we cannot close our eyes to the fact that in the 10 months during which they have been acting and sitting there has been indisputable or undeniable evidence of the growth of this evil and this problem. Every day one can pick up the newspapers and read of young people being found in possession of various types of drugs, young people being prosecuted and, what is worse, young people being committed to institutions for treatment because of the excessive and wrongful use of drugs, lt is almost a daily occurrence. Even in recent weeks it has grown in great proportions and has been highlighted by several’ court cases in different capital cities. 1 believe that we cannot afford to defer action in this connection any further. We want immediate and effective action to reduce and, if it is at all possible, to totally eliminate this evil.

The increasing tempo of the narcotics trade - actually, it is not limited to narcotics’ because some of these drugs are outside that classification - is causing great concern and alarm’ to government authorities, families and individuals in Australia. Until more recent years Australia was practically free of this problem, which is and has been for many years a scourge in so many other countries. But because of the different patterns of living, the increased affluence of most individuals, the extended freedom and liberty of youth, closer international contact between Australia and other countries - particularly Asian countries - and the acceptance of social and philosopic concepts that tend to accept and tolerate what to date has been substantially unacceptable, the tempo of the traffic is increasing.

The problem involves the importation of drugs as well as the culture of the botanical sources of many of the drugs described as ‘ soft drugs’. Detecting and preventing the importation of drugs is made increasingly difficult by Australia’s extended coastline and by growing sea and air communications. Plants to produce drugs can be cultivated in remote or isolated areas with limited possibilities of detection. There are plantations of them in parts of Queensland and New South Wales. As great as the difficulties presented by these conditions are, the difficulty involved in the existence of seven sets of Jaws governing the detection of and punishment for drug trafficking or consumption is even greater. At the present time the Commonwealth is trying to arrest this problem and the six States are also very intimately involved in it. Our hope is that by the appointment of a committee such as this we might be able to bring about a greater measure of co-ordination between the States and the Commonwealth and a greater measure of uniformity of policy, and that between all of us we will succeed in bringing about a great reduction, alleviation and correction of this problem, in the interests of the people of this country, particularly the youth, who represent Australia’s great asset.

I have spoken on this matter before. I do not suppose that there could be anything more cruel than the cultivation of this habit of drug taking. Not only does it destroy the body but, what is worse, it destroys the mind. Can we imagine anything worse than the destruction of the mind of an unfortunate being who has been weak enough, or at least not strong enough, to resist the temptation to take drugs? In many cases drug taking has been forced upon these people in their youth by some evil being who has given them the drug for some diabolical reason, and then it has become habit forming, with the result that there is no turning back. Addiction is bad enough with hard liquors, but when it comes to drugs the situation is infinitely worse.

The question of penalties is one aspect of this matter which over the years has been discussed by officers of the Department of Customs and Excise. No doubt they have felt very frustrated when, having provided for severe penalties but without having fixed a minimum penalty, they have found magistrates releasing traffickers of narcotics and other drugs on the payment of a fine of SI 00 or thereabouts. A fine of that amount is no deterrent to people who, because of their trafficking, are able to obtain money easily. A fine matters nothing to them. We believe that anyone found guilty of trafficking in drugs or of peddling this stuff should be gaoled without the option of a fine and should be kept out of the way for the good of the community, particularly of the young people of our community.

Having regard to the circumstances of this session of the Parliament 1 do not propose to say more. I have spoken on this subject previously and all honourable senators are aware of not only my feelings but also those of my colleagues who, over the past 12 months, have given vent to their feelings in this connection. I believe that all honourable senators are responsible enough to share our feelings on this subject and are as much concerned as we are to correct this problem. Ours is a young and great country which has bright possibilities for a splendid future. Let us not sink into the depths of iniquity so far as this phase of life is concerned. Do not let us mimic those unfortunate countries which have been overrun by this problem. Let us be strong, virile arid sensible enough to tackle the problem and to do something constructive to arrest the growth of drug trafficking. If at all possible, although it may be expecting too much, let us aim for elimination - at least so far as possible - of the drug trafficking in Australia.

If we can take evidence from people who know what the situation is and if this evidence is revealed to the public, instead of being concealed, the community will have a greater awareness of the problem. In that event the problem would not be swept under the carpet but would be brought out into the open. By that means we would invite the co-operation of every responsible person in the community to join with us in eradicating the problem and dealing with it in the manner with which it should be dealt. I hope that this motion will have the support of all honourable senators. I believe that it will receive support because I feel that all honourable senators are responsible enough to recognise the need for a committee to inquire into this subject. I know that sometimes select committees of the Senate are regarded as so much waste of time, but I believe that if honourable senators feel about this matter as I feel - I am sure that they do - they will do a good job of work as a committee and will succeed, if in no other respect, in sounding an alarm bell for Australia and for Australia’s good. I believe also that if it was at all possible a committee would put an end to these traffickers, these diabolical individuals who are pervading our community and destroying the minds and influencing the activities of so many of our young people.

Senator MURPHY:
New South WalesLeader of the Opposition

– We are dealing with two motions at the same time by leave of the Senate. One is a motion moved by Senator Gair seeking the statement of the Senate that the appointment of a select committee into drug trafficking and drug abuse in Australia is desirable. We of the Opposition of course support that motion. I have moved that such a committee be appointed to inquire into and report upon drug trafficking and drug abuses in Australia and, in particular, into a number of matters. Those matters, which if I may refer to them shortly include the incidence, distribution and causes of drug abuse, are of the utmost importance. We do not know enough about how the abuse of drugs begins; we do not know enough about the distribution of drugs; and above all, we do not know enough about the causes. Perhaps there is a world-wide ignorance on this subject. There may be many reasons, but I do not profess to advance those reasons. This is a matter which a committee would inquire into and which should be ascertained.

Also we should know the extent, organisation and methods of drug trafficking, including the source of supply. This is a matter of some importance. Although some of the most dangerous addictive drugs - heroin in particular - are not permitted legal entry to Australia, I have been informed that in the last few weeks in Sydney some 14-year-old schoolgirls have had to be treated for advanced addiction to heroin. This is something which must give grave concern to every person. It is obvious that there must be methods of importation into Australia by the public of even the most dangerous and the worst of drugs and that detection methods now being used have not been able to stem the sources of supply. It seems clear that not enough is known about the organisation and the methods of drug trafficking.

It is clear also that the problem is growing and that, on the face of it, Commonwealth and State legislation is inadequate. There is an obligation on us to recognise this. It does not matter where the axe falls when we are looking after the welfare of our own people. Whether there are deficiencies in Commonwealth law, in State law or in the administration of either, these deficiencies should be investigated and rectified. It seems also that educational programmes against drug abuse may be deficient. That is a matter that should be inquired into. Another matter which should be investigated is the adequacy of existing international agreements affecting Australia. One problem is that the Commonwealth control over narcotic drugs is substantially limited at present to control derived from the Commonwealth’s legislative power over external affairs. Honourable senators will recall that only as a result of a narcotic drugs convention were we able to pass a federal law dealing with narcotic drugs. There may be a need for further international agreements, not restricted to narcotic drugs. It may be that we need to deal with LSD and other drugs which do not come within that classification.

Doubt exists as to the effectiveness of existing international law enforcement agency methods used in Australia. It seems clear that drugs are being introduced into Australia illegally from overseas. Apart from deficiencies at this end, it seems that there are deficiencies elsewhere. Some regard should be had to the effectiveness of the methods of these law enforcement agencies. It is suggested that the proposed committee could report upon the necessary legislative and administrative measures to prevent and deal with drug trafficking and drug abuse, the desirability of improvements in the methods employed, and so on. Perhaps the most important point of all is the treatment and rehabilitation of persons dependent on drugs. The importance of this aspect has been overlooked in the past.

The punishment of offenders has been dealt with. Very often in punishing offenders we may be really punishing persons who are also the victims of drug pushers. Undoubtedly a reason why some offenders inveigle others into drug addiction is that they are victims themselves and it is the only way in which they can get sufficient money to pay for the drugs required to meet their own addiction. All these social problems need to be looked at. I think we are at one on this subject and there is no dissension as to its importance. We want to do what we can to solve these problems.

I do not want to say much more, because of the exigencies of time and the threat which is being held over us. In saying that I do not wish to be offensive at this time. I do not want to cause dissension in this debate. I say it only to explain why I am curtailing what otherwise might be said on these matters. We have a tremendous problem. I am informed by experts that it is vital that we commence immediately to inquire into and deal with problems associated with drugs. If we do not take this action, the problems will get out of hand.

An international conference on drugs is to be held in Sydney next February. That is why the opposition has taken the view that this proposed committee should be established forthwith in order to be in operation by February when it could get the benefit of advice from the world’s experts while they are in Australia. I. wish to make some small changes to the motion that I have moved. I seek leave, Mr Deputy President, to change the words ‘seven’ and three’ first appearing in paragraph (2) to eight’ and ‘four’. In paragraph (4) I wish to change the word ‘three’ to ‘four’. These changes are required to meet suggestions of the Government. There is no real problem between us and I am quite happy to meet the wishes of the Government in that respect.

The provisions of the motion are designed to enable the committee to use its discretion so as to ensure that all necessary publication is made to cope with the problem and at the same time to protect persons who might be adversely affected by publicity and who are deserving of protection. Paragraph (8) provides . for protection from disclosure of operational methods of law enforcement where that disclosure would be against the public interest.

Senator Anderson:

– While the Leader of the Opposition is on his feet I would like to suggest to him that the period to 31st August 1970 is a very short time for the deliberations of such a very important committee. I suggest that the words ‘on or before 31 August 1970’ in paragraph (9) be changed to ‘as soon as possible’.

Senator MURPHY:

– I would be quite happy to do that. Mr Deputy President. I seek leave to alter the motion, in the ways thai I have described.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Bull)- ls leave granted? There being no objection, leave is granted for the motion to be amended as detailed by Senator Murphy.

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

– As Leader of the Government in the Senate I wish to indicate that the Government is prepared to accept the motion as moved and altered by Senator Murphy and’ the motion previously moved by Senator Gair. We believe that these motions gather in the intention and desire of the Senate to set our minds to this important task. 1 appreciate that it is not the usual practice to approve the setting up of a select committee in such circumstances, but Senator Gair and Senator Murphy have indicated that there is a very good reason for setting up the proposed committee without delay. We are discussing a very serious matter. As a former Minister for Customs and Excise I well recall legislation introduced for the imposition of penalties for drug trafficking. The motions moved tonight very properly go beyond the question of penalties. It is suggested that a Senate select committee probe into all angles and problems associated with drug addiction.

On behalf of the Government I give the proposal its blessing. Perhaps within the next 48 hours I will be nominating to the Presiding Officer the Government representatives on the proposed committee. There is no reason why the committee will not be able to come together at a very early date. Senator Murphy and Senator Gair will nominate their representatives at an early date. The committee can then set about its task and make its contribution. Honourable senators who accept the responsibility of appointment to the committee will do their very best in this matter of grave concern. The Parliament has a responsibility to direct its attention to this matter.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Bull) - Is it the wish of the Senate that the two motions be put together? There being no objection, that course will be followed.

The question is:

That the motions be agreed to.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 30

GOVERNOR-GENERAL’S SPEECH

Address- in- Reply

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Bull) - 1 have to inform the Senate that I have received a copy of the Opening Speech delivered by His Excellency the Governor-General to both Houses of the Parliament this day.

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

– I move:

Senator MURPHY:
Leader of the Opposition · New South Wales

– I wish to move an amendment to the motion. I move:

We live in curious times. I suppose the most important public pronouncement that can be made is that made by the GovernorGeneral, the nominal head of the Commonwealth, when he makes his pronouncement in regard to the most important instrument of the Commonwealth - that is, the Parliament of the Commonwealth - by proclamation. He made a pronouncement by proclamation dated 12th November. Today, in this chamber, in the presence of honourable senators and of honourable members, the Governor-General read that proclamation. What did the proclamation state? It stated:

WHEREAS by the Constitution of the Commonwealth’ of Australia it is amongst other things provided that the Governor-General may appoint such times for holding the sessions of the Parliament as he thinks fit:

Now therefore I, Sir Paul Meernaa Caedwalla Hasluck, the Governor-General aforesaid, in the exercise of the power conferred by the Constitution, do by this my Proclamation appoint Tuesday, the twenty-fifth day of November, One thousand nine hundred and sixty-nine, as the day for the Parliament to assemble and be holden for the despatch of divers urgent and important affairs and all Senators and Members of the House of Representatives are hereby required to give their attendance accordingly in the building known as Parliament House, Canberra, at the hour of eleven o’clock in the morning on the twenty-fifth day of November, One thousand nine hundred and sixty-nine.

That proclamation was countersigned by the Prime Minister (Mr Gorton). What did the Governor-General say? The GovernorGeneral’s Speech indicates that the urgent and important business for which we were called together will not be dealt with. He said:

Your attendance has been required .in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution which require that the Parliament should be summoned this year and for the discharge of - necessary formal business.

My advisers intend to seek the prorogation of the Parliament and it is proposed that you will be called together again as soon as possible next year.

Then he said what will be done in the next session of this Parliament. What happened to the urgent and important affairs of this country? They are mentioned in the proclamation. There are urgent and important affairs to be dealt with by this Parliament. Earlier this evening we heard some discussion about industrial affairs. No doubt there is important legislative business in connection with conciliation and arbitration that should be dealt with by this Parliament. If not there may be another flare up such as the one earlier this year. Even though there has been an inquiry into the necessity to alter the law in regard to the penal provisions of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act, is the Parliament to be not sitting when important industrial affairs ought to be discussed and when Ministers responsible could be asked what they and those administrative officials with functions to perform are doing to settle industrial troubles?

Senator Prowse:

– And what union officials are doing?

Senator MURPHY:

– Yes, union officials too, if that is desired. All these matters concern the Parliament. If industrial troubles are big enough to dislocate indus try and to dislocate the lives of thousands of people who do not go on strike unless they are affected so much by something that they are prepared to sacrifice wages which they could be earning, these troubles should be aired in this Parliament. Do we say that there are no important international affairs concerning this country? Countries such as the Philippines are pulling out of Vietnam. Newspapers contain reports of massacres in Vietnam by our allies. Whether these reports are correct or not, .whatever the truth about them may be, should not these matters be discussed by this Parliament? We should ensure that this country is not associated with any such conduct and we should ascertain what efforts have been made by this country to verify the truth of such reports. We should consider what attitude should be taken by this country to ensure that in future no such occurrences take place in Vietnam.

There are other international affairs of the highest importance that could be discussed, yet this Parliament has not met since the end of September. It has not sat through October and most of November. It will not sit in December, in January and in part at least of February. We. do not know when we will be called together again. The Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Anderson) is not able to say when we will meet again. The Government has a broken down health scheme. In every sphere there are problems which are so great that even the Prime Minister conceded that there was a public demand for action to be taken on these matters. Where should they be discussed? In the national Parliament there should be discussion of these issues.

Serious attacks have been made on the conduct of public affairs by Ministers of the Government, by persons closely associated with the Government and by members of the ruling coalition Parties. Should not these attacks be a subject matter for discussion by the Parliament? Are we to ignore these attacks? When men in the ruling coalition say that public affairs have been maladministered and that the proper approach to these affairs has not been adopted, we should have the opportunity to debate such matters. This Parliament was not called together with the intention of dealing with the urgent and important affairs which the Governor-General said exist and which we know exist; it was called together, at tremendous cost, as a mere formality. The Governor-General must have been ashamed at having to come here as a puppet of the Government, giving the reasons for the calling together of the Parliament then saying nothing. What is in his Speech? There is no pretence in the Governor-General’s Speech of dealing with the important matters which need to be dealt with. All honourable senators are aware that the words the Governor-General has used are not his own. No disrespect to the Parliament is intended by the Governor-General. He is merely stating what has been prepared for him by Ministers of the Government. The Governor-General’s Speech indicates the contempt which the Ministers who advise him show for the Parliament. The accountability of the Ministry to Parliament is being eroded away. No other interpretation can be placed upon the Government’s actions.

Regardless of what has happened during the intervening period the Government has brought all of us together like a bunch of puppets and sat us down here merely to meet a formality that the Constitution requires to be met. Then the Government will send us away again. This provision was included in the Constitution in order to ensure that there will be a real session, not a token session, of Parliament after an election has been held and the views of the Australian public obtained. The present session is not a bona fide one. The provision in the Constitution has been treated by the Government as a mere formality. The Government has more or less said that it will obey the wording but not the spirit of the Constitution. The Government should not be allowed to get away with it on this occasion because it may do the same thing again in the future. It is attempting to show that a session of the Parliament can be held without anything constructive being done. In effect, the Government is attempting to say that the Constitution has been observed because the formalities have been obeyed.

But the reality of the situation is being ignored.

I put it to the Senate that the Government is not observing the constitutional provision. Today’s session is not a real session but a myth. If such a course of action is permitted a precedent will be established which the Parliament as well as the people of Australia may have cause to regret in the future. Mr President, during your time in the Parliament you have heard on many occasions honourable senators referring to precedent to justify some course of action. If the Government’s intended course today is permitted, a precedent will be established which should not be established. The Government’s actions indicate that it does not care about the accountability of the Ministry to the Parliament. No attempt is made to give any account of the Government’s stewardship during the period since the last session of the Parliament. It is avoiding accounting for that period until the Parliament next meets, some months from now. No one knows exactly when the Parliament will meet again.

The actions of the Government and its Ministers indicate a direct and unveiled attack upon the authority and the functions of the Parliament. The Parliament was set up to keep the Ministry in check. It is the supervisory body. Ministers should not be permitted to be their own lords and masters. The Constitution provides that Ministers shall hold seats in this Parliament and that if they lose their seat they shall not be permitted to hold a portfolio. In other words, the Constitution provides that each and every Minister shall be physically present in the Parliament in order that he can account directly to the representatives of the people in the Parliament. The Government is attempting to break down this provision. In effect, it is treating the Parliament as a cipher The Government’s attitude is quite clear. I am not blaming the Leader of the Government in the Senate for what is happening because I have no doubt that a collective decision was taken. The Government is adopting the attitude that the constitutional provision is a mere formality and that it is necessary for the Parliament to sit on onlyone day. The Government does not intend to allow the Parliament to sit tomorrow.

Mr President, nothing has been put before the Parliament by the Government on this occasion, although the debate which has ensued tonight will be of great value to the community. The motion for the establishment of a Senate select committee to inquire into drug trafficking did not emanate from the Government side of the chamber. This is an extremely important problem which is facing the country. It is a problem which needs to be dealt with and it will be dealt with as a result of the initiative of honourable senators on the Opposition side of the chamber as well as supporters of the Australian Democratic Labor Party. It is true that the Government concurred with the motion, but the proposal was not initiated by the Government. Other matters of great importance also need to be dealt with. Notices of motion relating to some of these matters were placed on the notice paper of the Senate today. They include the establishment of Senate select committees to inquire into housing and poverty.

Is it not reasonable that the Senate should be given an opportunity to consider whether such committees should be established? Should we ignore the problems caused by poverty in Australia? Should we ignore the increasing overseas control of our resources, commerce and industries? Is the Senate to be deprived of the opportunity to consider whether a select committee should be established to inquire into those matters and to make recommendations as to desirable action? The Government’s actions are in accordance with an attitude which has been developing over the past few years. An increasing trend towards authoritarian government has been shown in the last few years. There has been a tendency to ignore what has been done by the Senate. I instance the situation concerning the Canberra Abattoir and the decision which was taken in this chamber concerning the siting of the new and permanent parliament house. I could also instance many other matters. Regardless of the criticism which has been levelled at the Government for its contempt of the Parliament and its ignoring of the proper authority of the Parliament as the representative of the people we find the Government coming along and treating the Parliament in this manner. We on this side of the chamber say that the Senate should not postpone consideration of the matters I have referred to.

The Government’s intention illustrates the degree to which it is prepared to show contempt of the Parliament. The proposal of the Leader of the Government in the Senate, which I seek the approval of the Senate to amend; is a proposal that the Governor-General’s Speech be not considered. He is moving that consideration be given to this Speech on a future occasion, on the next day of sitting, knowing that it is intended not to sit again, knowing that we will not deal with it. Not only is the Parliament being treated in this contemptuous way by being told that we are not to sit after today and that we are not to do any business except formal business; the very formal business which we are brought here to deal with is not to be dealt with. Can honourable senators imagine anything more contemptuous than to bring us here to hear the Governor-General sit in the chair and make his Speech, short as it was-

Senator Little:

– Extremely short.

Senator MURPHY:

– Yes, extremely short, and then to have a proposal put to this Senate now by the Leader of the Government that we consider the Speech on a later occasion? The Government is treating all honourable senators like children. I am not being offensive in any way towards the Leader of the Government because no doubt there was a collective decision. I am speaking of the Government treating honourable senators like children, like idiots, saying that we will consider this speech on a later occasion after having already told us that we are not to sit again and that the Parliament is to be prorogued.

What is that but an insult directly in the face of the Senate and an insult to the Governor-General himself who came here and made his Speech in the traditional way, assuming that it would be considered and some kind of address-in-reply made. Now he is to be given the ultimate insult when we say that we will consider the Speech on some future occasion, the country having been told that we are not to sit again. Is that not a contempt not only of this Senate and of this Parliament but of the Governor-General himself? Would it not have been better to say to ourselves: ‘We have treated him like a puppet and now we will treat the Senate like a puppet but it would be better not to suggest that we are going to consider his address when the intention has been expressed in this place never to do it.’ Therefore we describe the Government’s treatment of this Parliament as contemptuous and as conduct tending to erode the accountability of the Government to Parliament in the administration of public affairs and tending to impair the authority and functioning of the Parliament to the detriment of the nation. We suggest that the Governor-General should be so informed and that his Ministers are deserving of censure.

Senator WILLESEE:
Western AustraliaDeputy Leader of the Opposition

– I want to support the remarks of the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Murphy) and the motion which he has moved. We have certainly reached an extraordinary position. However anybody might take solace or otherwise from the result of the recent election there is no doubt that issues have been thrust before this Parliament and the Australian people that cannot under any circumstances be any longer pushed aside. Issues were raised by the Australian Labor Party which the Prime Minister (Mr Gorton) on behalf of the Liberal-Country Party coalition said would not work or would be too expensive to work. He said:

And the result of the Opposition’s promises would be either a great increase in inflation which would hit the wage earner and the pensioner most severely - or an increase in taxation which would hit all Australians. In the result we would have gained nothing - and paid a great price for it.

Senator Greenwood:

– Hear, hear.

Senator WILLESEE:

– Senator Greenwood says: ‘Hear, hear’.

Senator Young:

– So do I.

Senator WILLESEE:

– It was Senator Young, was it? We can look at what Mr Pagan, the president of the Liberal Party said. He said:

We have to face up to the issues which have been raised. We have to do something about health, housing and welfare.

So there seems to be some divergences of opinion between honourable senators on the other side and the president of their Party. If that is so the Prime Minister should ex plain to this Parliament why he is going to have his Party adopt some of the things that he was earlier suggesting were so bad. What is he going to do about these things if they are going to mean increasing taxation? The Prime Minister himself said this would toe the result. He is the same person who was telling us he was going to reduce taxation. Now, with all the great issues that are before the Australian people today we find that, excluding this great and glorious sitting today there will be, as far as we can see, 5 months from 26th September, when we rose, to about 26th February - or even later if we dovetail our sittings with the Royal visit - ‘before these issues come before this Parliament. Who can tell - we may have a sitting for a week in February and then go away again. This is making stick the charges that this Government is treating the Parliament and the people of Australia in a tremendously offhand manner.

Let us have a look at the election itself. Firstly, 12 months ago when there was no reason why there should have been talk of an election the Government was all set to go until the backbenchers in the Liberal Party bucked and the Democratic Labor Party put pressure on the Government. Mr Gorton very unwisely gave way at that stage. Then we come to the recent election. The traditional time for holding an election is the last week in November or early December. The late Mr Harold Holt explained to me on one occasion that this is the most suitable time for an election to be held because it gives the incoming government the greatest opportunity to govern. This is because the Prime Minister does not have to go to London for such things as the Premiers’ Conference. The Budget session is over. This is the ideal time. But without any regard for parliamentary procedure or the tradition that has been built up the election was called a month earlier than normal. The writs were returned only yesterday and because of section 5 of the Constitution which demands that a parliament must meet within 30 days of the return of the writs the Parliament is merely being brought together to honour in some offhanded manner that demand of the Federal Constitution. This is a serious thing. This is underlining the charges that the Prime Minister and particularly the executive government are treating the Parliament and the people with all the off-handedness they possibly can.

Never mind the things that the Australian Labor Party has raised which have now been accepted by the Liberal Party and by Mr Pagan, who says that something has to be done about these things and that one cannot ignore them any longer, and by the Prime Minister who has said that these things have to be looked at; this all knocks the props from under the very attacks that he made in his policy speech. Leaving all those things aside, what about the things he has talked about in his policy speech, such as when he said:

We have already announced that Learmonth Airfield, in Western Australia, is to be upgraded to an operational base on the Indian Ocean.

Honourable senators know how off handedly that was treated in the Budget. Is there any discussion on this? Is there any indication about this great new defence policy we have heard about is going to have the attention of this Parliament? The Prime Minister also said:

Therefore we have decided-

Evidently because of the planned British withdrawal east of Suez - that we should begin the planned development of a naval base at Cockburn Sound in Western Australia.

I do not think a day goes past when I am not being queried by people in Western Australia who are interested in Garden Island because they want to build holiday homes and they want to know how long it will be before the causeway is built and whether it will be worthwhile putting up a shack for their wives and families to use over Christmas periods. How can I or anybody else answer these questions when the Government itself will not announce its intention? The Government will not stand up to the things that the Labor Party has raised and which can never be kicked out of the political and public arena again. Mark my words, the things that were raised by the Australian Labor Party during this election campaign will be brought in by a Liberal Government if they are not brought in by a future Labor Government because they are so darned right. One cannot get away from them and the Australian public is demanding them. They will be brought into being. But leaving that aside, what about the Government’s promises? What about the things Government supporters said themselves on the question of defence and the question of a reduction in taxation, as little as it might be. What about the question of the few paltry dollars that the Government was going to put away for water conservation? Did the Government mean these things, or did it not? Does the Government intend to do anything about these things or is there going to be a tremendous gap of over 5 months before Parliament settles down to business, because of the Government’s manoeuvering and pulling around the normal procedures of this Parliament?

Mention was made during question time today of the tremendous challenge from the young, thinking people in Australia today. I have never fought in an election campaign before - I have been going for a few years now - where the public was so far ahead of the Government, and to some degree of the Labor Party itself, and goodness knows, we have gone far enough along the road in handling and putting before the public a fair amount of radical thought on these things.

Senator Greenwood:

– Hear, hear.

Senator WILLESEE:

– I do not know what Senator Greenwood is ‘hear hearing’ about. I suppose the word ‘radical’ badly upsets you. All the word ‘radical’ means, is deep seated, or to be deep inside of things. This is what has to be done. Consider the question of health alone. Do not Government members think the Australian Labor Party would have liked to be able to come in quietly as the government and take the things that have been going for so many years? Why did it have to come out with such a radical proposal on health? It was because the Government forced us into it. Senator Greenwood laughs. Loud laughter proclaims a vacant mind. Why, the Committee of Inquiry set up by the Government had condemned the Government’s health scheme out of hand. In those circumstances what was there left for us to do? The Government knows it cannot patch up its own health scheme. If honourable senators opposite are to take any notice of the Nimmo Committee which was set up by the Government, they know perfectly well that it cannot be patched up. The only reason that Mr Justice Nimmo did not say the scheme should be thrown out of the window lock, stock and barrel was because the Government very cleverly precluded him from doing that by the terms of reference it submitted to him. The Government’s own select committee went some of the way along the lines which Mr Justice Nimmo laid down. Today the Government is being challenged not only by political parties but the people themselves bh its electoral system. Under this system we have a situation in which the Country Party, which did not poll twice as many votes as the Democratic Labor Party, is wagging the Liberal dog, and the DLP does not have a member in the House of Representatives. How can this sort of thing be justified? The Labor Party polled the greatest number of votes but it is not the Government.

What does the young mind think of this? The old types of politicians can sit back, smile wisely and say: ‘We have the numbers. We are the government. We gerrymandered you out of it. We think we are smart in doing it.’ Government senators seem to be upset about my charge of gerrymandering. Let them examine their own electoral Act. The Government refused to adopt the principle of one man, one vote, one value. It amended the 10% below to 10% over, provision to allow for 20% below to 20% over, so that it is possible to have a difference of 40% in electorates. If that is not gerrymandering, what is? Honourable senators opposite know perfectly well this is mainly a gerrymander for the benefit of the Country Party. If country seats were the same size as city seats the country seats would be moving into those outer areas where there is a heavy Liberal vote. I suggest honourable senators opposite look at some of the electoral maps in any of the States. For example, take Kalgoorlie where the boundary comes down straight and works out into a peninsula to take a heavy Labor area of Merriden out of the seat of Moore. That is why Merriden has been taken out. Government members know that if they were to come under the heavy fire of the rest of the industrial area those seats would go overboard. What is the Government going to do on the next occasion? I suppose, on its argument, when the cities get more people inside them the Government will say: ‘Well, it ought to be 30% below and 30% over.’ This is gerrymandering. There is nothing else it can be called.

Senator Young:

– In other words, you oppose country representation. Go out to the country and say that.

Senator WILLESEE:

– An honourable senator from South Australia is interjecting. If anybody carries a heavyweight belt for gerrymandering in Australia it is South Australia. Of all the Liberal gerrymanders there have been the South Australian gerrymander takes the heavyweight belt. The Government is not facing up to the growing demands of the people. It knows perfectly well that there is a clamour. I wish that the inane grins on the faces of some of these people in the Liberal Party who are interjecting tonight could be seen. There is a demand coming from the young people throughout the community today. Mark my words, the Government has to face up to these things. Because it has been returned with a majority it should not think it can shut its ears and eyes to this problem forever.

Take for example the present housing situation. Today I gave notice of a motion which endeavours to make the Government face up to the housing situation. Is anything more basic to the Australian community than housing? Something is radically wrong with governments when they allow young married couples to become suckerbait for everybody who comes along with a block of land, or housing units, or something else to sell. But that is what is happening in the community today. In my own State we see the price of blocks of land moving up 500%, 600% and 1,000% and the Government stands back and says: That is prosperity. That is our iron ore’. Prosperity has to be paid for. That is what Mr Court, the Western Australian Minister for Industrial Development, told us. These are the people who have to suffer. The Government is not facing up to this problem at all. No matter how those clackers on the other side of the chamber might yell they know perfectly well that no-one can be happy about what is happening today. They are making a complete farce of this Parliament. They are refusing to face up to the issues which are now squarely in the public domain in Australia today. The Government, through its Prime Minister, has said that Labor’s policy would not work, that if it was carried out there would be raging inflation and increased taxation.

Now the Liberal Party is starting to say through its boss, Mr Pagan: ‘We have to look at these things’. Yes, we agree, something has to be done about it. So presumably it is all right for the Liberal Party to do something about welfare, housing, health, and all the other things which we have mentioned. Presumably if the Liberal Party adopts this policy it will not cost anything. But it is suggested that if the Labor Party attempted to do these things ruination would come down about our ears.

What a way to start off in the new Parliament where the first session is going to be only a 1 day sitting. As Senator Murphy has pointed out, the Government does not even want to sit tomorrow. It does not even want to sit for one normal week after the expense of many members flying from distant States. Although suggestions have been made in the Government parties to try to hold sittings more intelligently, today we are having a one day session. The Government does not even want to sit for one normal week. The only radicalism we ever find about this Government is that it wants to pull around and change tradition in this Parliament to suit its own electoral purposes. That is what it did by attempting an early election 12 months ago. That is what it did by bringing an election on 6 weeks earlier, because it suited its political situation to do so and the present proposed short sitting suits its political situation today. The Liberal Party is in such disarray that it cannot face this Parliament. It knows perfectly well that it is rattled to pieces. Its members are fighting like Kilkenny cats. It does not know which way to turn to arrange a ministry and therefore it cannot face up to this Parliament. It does not have an answer to these things because it has become slothful and lazy over such a long period of time. It has not done the necessary research work. It has not done its homework and it is not finding the answer to these problems. On the question of health alone all it has on its plate is a Bill which has been condemned and discredited by its own committees of inquiry. The Government knows it has to face up to something far more radical than and totally different from what we have today. The Government has let things slide so far that it is not in a position to be able to do this. It knows perfectly well that the young generation is going to demand something in the way of the abolition of the means test. Young men and women will not be earning the pay and working the way they will be over the next 30 years only to be tossed on to the equivalent of 10s a week which is what was first given to the old age pensioners back in 1911. With one or two small benefits attached, that is about all that we are doing in the field of social services. Honourable senators on the Government side know perfectly well that the rising generation, in particular, will not stand for this. Those senators are not prepared to do the decent thing and allow the Parliament to assist the Government to hammer out the benefits to which the Australian people are entitled.

As Senator Murphy pointed out, it must have been most humiliating today for the Chief Justice of the High Court of Australia to talk about the instructions that we were to receive later in the afternoon. The Government knew full well that no such instructions would be forthcoming yet it put him in that situation. Then the Right Honourable Sir Paul Hasluck, a person who worked in this Parliament for nearly 20 years, came along in his capacity as Governor-General and was put in a similar embarrassing situation. That was completely unfair to the man and completely unworthy of this Government. It was a state of affairs to which the Australian Parliament should never have been subjected.

Senator BISHOP:
South Australia

– I enter the debate to support the motion proposed by the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Murphy) because I think it is apparent to the Senate and to the people generally that the crisis which exists within the Liberal Party is the real reason why the Government is attempting to shut out discussion on the great important issues that face the Australian community. That is the real reason why the Government wants to postpone implementing the promises it made to the Australian electorate during the election campaign. There is no other reason. The reaction of the Liberal Party to the constructive policies of the Labor Party will not be implemented, as promised, in the form of benefits for the Australian people. It is quite obvious that the Government’s promises to remedy its economic and political theories, in view of the public support for the Australian Labor Party, will not be debated in the Parliament until we come back about March next year. So the Government is shirking its responsibility to meet the criticisms which have been levelled at it by the Australian people.

Why is this responsibility being shirked by the Government? We know that there is a crisis within the Liberal Party which is much greater than any crisis which has ever existed in the Labor Party. We do not claim that we have never had any problems in the Labor Party, but we do claim that at the present time the Labor Party is unified under very competent leadership and has well established policies which have been accepted by the Australian electorate. No-one can deny that. It is important to realise that our policies and our leaders are outstanding. On the other hand, there are great divisions within the Liberal Party and widespread consternation about the Prime Minister (Mr Gorton). We are not sure whether the Prime Minister will be removed in the near future. We do know from Press reports that his policies have not been accepted by the majority of members of the LiberalCountry Party coalition. Some Press reports suggest that the Prime Minister’s policies are too advanced.

Senator Rae:

– What Press reports say that?

Senator BISHOP:

– Even today the Press reports indicate that the reason for the criticism of Mr Gorton is that his policies are too advanced for the Liberal Party. Perhaps the criticism arose because the Prime Minister, once a very effective senator in this Parliament, advanced certain policies which were very close to those of the Australian Labor Party. Perhaps that is the reason why the members of the Liberal-Country Party coalition want to dump him at the first opportunity. That suggestion is contained in certain sections of the Press and the basis for it lies in the two matters which have been mentioned on other occasions, firstly, his action in relation to the MLC organisation and, secondly, his obvious support for the entry of the Australian National Line into the overseas trade. That idea was first proposed by Labor and was supported by his own Department. Rumour has it that the Prime Minister himself supported that proposal. Other matters were mentioned which seemed to lend support to this contention.

Is it for these reasons that Prime Minister Gorton has become too advanced for honourable senators opposite? Is it because they do not like him as a person, or is it because he has other failings? The issues which I have mentioned are the ones which are being ventilated in the Press today. They are common gossip around the Parliament. Everyone knows them. We know that there is a crisis within the Liberal Party and that today in another place there have been some very severe tests of the Government’s control. So there are divisions. They are important divisions. In addition there was the conflict about the Government’s external policies which became a great area of criticism with the Australian Democratic Labor Party making sure that its policies in relation to external affairs were forced upon the Government. That is the clear situation. The senator whom we in this place knew as a strong individual was forced to bend to the whims of the DLP and change the policy which one of his Ministers had advanced, obviously after consultation with him. That is the Liberal Party today. That is the Liberal-Country Party Government today. For those reasons the Australian people turned down the Liberal Party and most sections of the Australian Press are now pointing the finger at the Government and asking: ‘Why do you not discharge your duties?’

As Senator Willesee has said, the Liberal Party organisation does not discuss its policies in public as the Labor Party does; nor does it become an avenue for public contributions as we do. No-one knows what goes on inside the organisation. On this occasion, however, it has published its views and has pointed to the issues which it claims lost the Government the election. In doing so it watered down the notion that the Prime Minister was the real issue within the Liberal-Country Party coalition. If the Government recognises the need for reforms in the areas which caused great inroads into its support - I point out that those are the areas in relation to which the Labor Party received the support of the electors - it should provide the remedies quickly. It should be meeting now and devising schemes to bring about the reforms which the Party organisation says are necessary.

Let me refer to some precise matters in relation to my State of South Australia. As most people now recognise, during the campaign in South Australia the Government became aware that the great State issues would affect its support there. We have the evidence of that now because the Liberal Party was slaughtered in South Australia. It was surprised at the support which the Labor Party received, but it should not have been surprised because there were a number of great and important issues affecting that State. I mention the two great issues in South Australia: Rail standardisation and the Chowilla Dam.

Senator Young:

– What are you talking about?

Senator BISHOP:

– When Labor senators from South Australia canvassed these two matters in the Senate, Government supporters said to us then: ‘What are you talking about?’ Only one Liberal senator - Senator Laucke - could see the sense in the construction of the Chowilla Dam and the electoral support which would flow from it. The Government was slaughtered in South Australia because great State issues were left untouched. The Government did not recognise them as substantial State issues. They still are substantial State issues.

What did the Government do as soon as it realised that these issues would have an impact on the electorate? Promises were made quickly by the Prime Minister. In respect of rail standardisation he said: ‘We will standardise the Adelaide to Port Pirie link in between 2 and 5 years and we will provide between $30m and $50m Some of the South Australian people were probably fooled by that statement. They thought that the Prime Minister said: ‘Yes, we will do the standardisation job. We will link Adelaide with the standardised system’. But what did he say? He simply said: ‘We accept a commitment’. Of course, in 1949 former Prime Minister Menzies accepted the same commitment.

On the eve of the finalisation of the eastwest standard gauge line, by means of which all the traffic except the Adelaide traffic will move freely between east and west, what the Commonwealth Government has proposed and the South Australian Government has accepted is a proposition that a firm of consultants should look into the matter; that the consultants should make a report to the State and Commonwealth governments in February next year; and that when that report comes before the two governments they should then discuss the extent to which the standardisation scheme should apply to Adelaide. That is the sort of guff - that is all it is - which has been sold to the South Australian people. The Government must have expected that it could fool the South Australian people on these issues.

What is the issue in regard to rail standardisation? The simple fact is that South Australia has been denied what it should have been given in 1949 and since then. It has not yet received a proper undertaking from the Commonwealth Government that there will be a standard gauge link between Adelaide and Port Pirie or that the northern parts of the South Australian railway system will be connected with the standard gauge line. Let me tell the Senate what should have been done. This is the clear answer to what the Government says. There is no guff in what I am saying. The South Australian Railways Commissioner, the Commonwealth Railways Commissioner and their teams of engineers are experts in the field of railway construction work. They are able to commence immediately on the work of standardising the railway system, be it a part project of standardising the line from Adelaide to Port Pirie or be it a complete conversion, as was undertaken in the agreement between the Commonwealth and the States in 1949. No amount of diversionary tactics can alter the fact that South Australia has not yet received an adequate answer on rail standardisation. The people of our State are just being misled.

What will happen with this project, of course, is that the consultants will give an opinion. The opinion might even match the one that was given by the technical committee on the Chowilla Dam. The result may be that the Government will decide to do less work than it should do. This procedure certainly will take a lot longer than the proposition that I am putting to the Senate. If anybody went to the South Australian Railways Commissioner or the Commonwealth Railways Commissioner and if they were allowed by their respective governments to say so they would say that they would proceed with the standardisation work straight away. As a matter of fact, even now certain earthworks could be done if the Commonwealth Government was dinkum about rail standardisation work. In answer to our appeals the Government, if it was dinkum, would say: ‘We will start earthworks, necessary bridge strengthening work and other work which can be done before the consultants get to work on the project’.

Senator Toohey:

– We have mounting unemployment.

Senator BISHOP:

– The other points about which I wish to speak briefly include the Chowilla Dam. It is still an important issue. I point out to Senator Buttfield that it is not a matter for mirth; it is an important State issue.

Senator Buttfield:

– I am just laughing at Senator Toohey prompting you all the time.

Senator BISHOP:

– That is another point that he is making. He will have more points to make. The Chowilla Dam provides a very fine example of Liberal government. The South Australian Parliament has decided by a majority that it wants the Chowilla and Dartmouth dams built concurrently as a common project. It is prepared to submit to the Commonwealth Government a number of modifications on the basis of which it would expect the Commonwealth Government to make reasonable financial arrangements. Since the South Australian Parliament carried its resolution by a majority a day or two ago, as a result of the Speaker of the House of Assembly supporting the Australian Labor Party, it has been stated that if the Liberal Government makes this a vital issue it will mean that the Speaker will support the ALP and then there will be a Labor Government in South Australia again.

I remind the Senate that the South Australian Parliament carried the resolution. That resolution should be noted by the Commonwealth Government. But since the resolution was carried the State Premier, in apparently true Liberal style, has said: I do not intend to take any notice of what the Parliament said. I do not intend to do anything except bring before the Parliament legislation to provide for the construction of the Dartmouth Dam.’ This is a vital issue which concerns South Australia and which at this stage we would expect the Commonwealth Minister concerned to talk about and to say what he intends to do. Will he do for South Australia what he has done for other States? For example, there is a Budget allocation of $3 8m for the extension of runways at two Australian aerodromes to enable them to handle the new jumbo jets. But there is no promise to South Australia that the Chowilla project will ever be considered as a real project, although it was argued in this place that there was no reason why it should not be adopted in the future. Because the problem is urgent, the Commonwealth Government should be able to say at this stage: ‘We will see what accommodation we can provide to the South Australian Government in order that the Chowilla Dam might be built along with the Dartmouth Dam’.

Those are two ordinary issues affecting the State of South Australia. There are many other matters. I asked a question about one of them tonight. For many years the South Australians in this Parliament have been saying that there should be a Commonwealth centre in South Australia. I think ours is now the only State which has not a Commonwealth centre. We have twenty-seven Commonwealth departments. Their offices are spread over the whole of the city of Adelaide. Communications between the departments are not good. The present situation is very costly to the Government. The departments should be centralised in the interests of efficiency. We are paying insurance companies and other people huge amounts in the form of rents and lease payments. This should not be necessary. We need a Commonwealth centre.

Since Senator Wright became Minister for Works, and even before that, we have raised this matter. About 12 or 18 months ago Senator Wright went to Adelaide and he agreed that in financial matters South Australia was not receiving the consideration that he thought it deserved. He mentioned that in his view it was desirable that there be a Commonwealth centre in Adelaide. But up to now we have heard nothing about such a centre. What has happened is that some very heavy expenditure has been incurred in providing accommodation for the South Australian members of the Commonwealth Parliament. It is very good accommodation, but obviously it must be only temporary accommodation.

I could mention a number of other important issues, but I come back to the point on which I commenced my contribution. I believe that it is very sensible for the Senate to carry a censure motion against the Government because it seems to me that if we do not censure the Government it will decide that the Parliament will meet when the Government wants it to meet. The issues that are prevailing in the Australian electorate are very important. I have mentioned only domestic matters. But honourable senators will remember that during question time this evening mention was made of far greater and more important matters. Mention was made of the future position in Vietnam. Associated with that is the very important question of the accuracy of the rumour commonly published in the Press to the effect that the Prime Minister’s policy on Vietnam was too dovelike to suit other members of the Liberal Party. If it was, the people should know about that. Did the Prime Minister disagree with the people who wanted to increase the number of Australians in Vietnam? These are great and important issues. But I have spoken on only domestic issues.

I conclude by making a point about a very important domestic industry, namely, the aircraft industry. The Government talks about what it is trying to do for the industry. This evening I put a question to Senator Anderson, who is always very helpful in obtaining answers to questions on the aircraft industry section of his responsibilities. What has really happened in the Australian aircraft industry is that the Commonwealth Government has let the Australian potential for producing aircraft run down. There is no other answer.

Now the Government is out searching for orders which will keep our Government factories and private factories working and which will provide employment for skilled labour. It is looking for orders to enable us to maintain the capacity to manufacture these things. But obviously there was an obligation on the Government to order from these factories for our Services the components which could have been made in Australia. We would have been better off in this country if we had decided to build under licence from France an improved or modified Mirage aircraft rather than become involved in this fantastic obligation to pay $330m to the United States for the FI 1 1 aircraft which probably will have to be scrapped finally as an Australian project. I suggest that the Senate, acting properly and responsibly, should censure the Government and obtain from the Government an undertaking that the great issues which affect our economy and our nation will be dealt with speedily and before Christmas.

Senator MULVIHILL:
New South Wales

– I wish to be associated with the views propounded by the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Murphy), by the Deputy Leader (Senator Willesee) and by other Opposition speakers. In the first instance, I am prompted by one of Senator Murphy’s earlier remarks in which he warned about the mounting industrial unrest. I am fortified further by an exchange between Senator Greenwood and Senator Poyser when a reference was made to the political background of an official of the Amalgamated Engineering Union. I say at the outset that there has been a tendency among Government supporters to say that we are reaching the end of the Monk era and the beginning of the Hawke era and then develop some false attitude to industrial relations. But if honourable senators went a little deeper into the matter they might find, as Senator Cavanagh would agree, that there are always basic disputes emanating from people having to work under arduous conditions. I refer to people like painters and dockers, coal miners and others in a similar category. But consider also some of the groups involved in disputes at the moment. I shall come back a little later to the dispute involving the Ford Motor Co. of Australia Ltd.

When we consider the situation of television technicians, airline pilots, locomotive enginemen and others in receipt of a fairly high margin we find, as Senator McClelland pointed out in respect of bank clerks, who are in fairly comfortable industries, that disputes relate not merely to wages but concern also the gradual erosion of their position in society. As Bob Hawke has said, it is not a question of trade union horizons being abnormally aimed at wages and conditions; it is a question of their awareness of their situation in society. Senator Willesee mentioned the attitudes of people during the election. I do not say this to disparage the attitude of my own Party or of any other Party, but the plain fact of the matter was that people were made aware of this erosion of their position in society due to their being gypped on health services. This, among other things, injected into them this extreme feeling of militancy, although perhaps a better word would be frustration’.

I know that other Opposition senators are afraid, as I am, of the failure to have a good solid discussion on what is wrong with our arbitration system. If there is trouble at Christmas time we will find some back bench Government supporters trying to sermonise about what is wrong with the trade union movement. My colleague, Senator Poyser, aptly interjected earlier a reference to the Ford Co. works. Anybody who read the ‘Australian’ recently will know that Mr Burke of the Ford Motor Co. who has just been to the United States to meet his masters in the motor industry, came back to Australia and pontificated on what was wrong with the trade union movement. Yet Mr Stone and other members of the Victorian Trades Hall Council had unavailingly sought to have round table conferences with the company. Then Mr Burke made some rather vague references and linked the whole of the industrial situation with what was happening in Vietnam. All that I say about Vietnam is that it has a society which is rampantly corrupt, quite apart from everything else. To relate the situation in Vietnam to an industrial dispute in Victoria showed how inept he was.

The first indictment of the Government that I make is an elaboration of something said by Senator Murphy, that one matter alone on which the Senate could spend a full week would be a discussion of the pros and cons of our arbitration system. I do not knock our arbitration system for what might have happened in the past or in respect of what has been achieved, but I remind the Senate that in our present society there has been an attempt to isolate wages and conditions and to forget all the other factors, including an inadequate health service, which erode the income of people in industry. This is my first indictment of the Government. Secondly, I mention that my colleague Senator McClelland and I were the two New South Wales senators who lamented about certain aspects of the redistribution of electoral boundaries. I could quote what he said or what I said, but I prefer to begin by reference to a statement which appeared in the ‘Sydney Morning Herald’ on 14th November 1969 in a letter by ex-Senator H. S. Foll, a former Government supporter who held the very important post of Minister for the Interior. He rightly claimed the credit for amending the Commonwealth Electoral Act at that time to ensure that there was a draw for positions rather than rely on alphabetical groupings of senators. In his letter he stated:

I tried at that time to get the House of Representatives to adopt a similar scheme providing for a draw from the hat for all candidates. A simple amendment to the Act would provide for this now and give every candidate in every Party an equal chance.

These are the words of a former Government senator. I back him to the hilt in what he has said. I relate those remarks to an article which appeared in the ‘Canberra Times’ on Friday, 14th November, by probably one of the most upstanding political scientists in the Commonwealth. I refer to Professor L. F. Crisp of the Australian National University who made this direct comment:

This cynical large-scale exploitation of the alphabetical provision is no compliment to the Australian elector.

Senator MULVIHILL:

– If Senator Gair, who is interjecting, went to some of the universities and listened to the young people who are coming on as voters - not necessarily supporters of the Australian Labor Party - he would find that in this election they wanted an even break, but felt that they did not get it. I do not deny the Democratic Labor Party or the Australia Party the right to nominate, but I resent the fact that when the Labor Party and the Liberal Party have announced that they are running Jeffries or Johnson as candidates - or perhaps someone named Young, although I am not looking at the honourable senator opposite for inspiration - the other Parties which have been sitting on the fence introduce candidates named Addison or Alderson. That is a cheap political trick. I do not mind if they put up someone with another name and the names go into a hat, but if you are prepared to prostitute democracy we will not do so. I appeal to the Government on the same point.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Bull) - Order! Senator Mulvihill will address the Chair.

Senator MULVIHILL:

– Very well, Mr Deputy President. The point I am making is that we of the Labor Party stand foursquare behind the indictment that Professor Crisp has made of the present electoral system. There are thousands of young voters coming along who are full of ideas about what is wrong with our electoral system. I made the point that the order of candidates on a ballot paper should be in the form of a political lottery, that the names should be scrambled and appear in the order that they come out of the hat.

Senator McClelland and I spent a very educational period on a re-count of votes for the St George electorate. We discovered many little anomalies. I do not suggest that in themselves they would win or lose elections, but we cannot get away from the fact that if a study were made of the reams of correspondence in the Press it would be realised that anyone who suggests that in Australia we have the best electoral system in the world is absolutely stupid and completely insincere. I do not want that remark to be interpreted as an indictment of our electoral officers, who I believe do a very fine job, but I remind honourable senators of a remark made by the former United States President Truman about where the buck-passing stops. In this case I indict the Minister for the Interior (Mr Nixon) and say quite candidly that if it was good enough for a former Minister for the Interior in the United Australia Party, which was the forerunner of the present Liberal Party, to reform Senate voting, it is good enough for Mr Nixon to do the same thing now. If the Government really believes in democracy that is one thing that it could do. It is not for me or any other member of the Labor Party to tell the Government how to improve its image. If I had been in the shoes of Government supporters the first thing I would have done would have been to introduce crash legislation and to say: ‘We recognise complaints about the electoral system’. I am sorry that some South Australian senators from the other side of the chamber are not present. I would like to remind them that the Liberal Premier of South Australia, has conceded to some degree that electoral reform was necessary in South Australia. We look in vain tonight to find any evidence of electoral reform in the federal sphere.

Many other matters connected with our electoral system require explanation. For example, what criterion is used to determine whether a hospital should have a polling booth? Senator Davidson follows immigration matters closely. He may be aware that the last issue of the Good Neighbour Council journal contains a full page spread glorifying our electoral system. I am not debunking it, but the journal shows without any qualification a picture of a nurse placing a ballot paper in a ballot box in a hospital. The logical inference is that every hospital at election time contains a polling booth. I will make a comparison. The Western Suburbs Hospital in the Lowe electorate has a polling booth but the Dubbo hospital, as Senator McClelland knows, has been refused one. I want to know why. These matters could be discussed in the Senate but we are denied an opportunity.

Another matter worth discussing is voting facilities for people who are interstate on election day. As I understand the position, a person travelling in New South Wales on 25th October who may have wanted to vote in respect of a Western Australian electorate, if in the area around Armidale would have needed to go to divisional headquarters at Armidale in the New England electorate. Otherwise it would have been necessary for him to go to the Narrabri headquarters in the Gwydir electorate. I will not accept that that is good enough in 1969. We wine about informal votes and people who are not sufficiently keen to vote. In every other field of voting the system is made more constructive. I have made two major indictments of the system. I feel that the Government should bring in crash legislation for electoral reform. We should not merely have a good, hard look at our electoral system. We should be revising some of our old concepts about the correct way to handle industrial disputes.

No less a person than the Prime Minister (Mr Gorton) has made numerous pledges in respect of relations between the Commonwealth and the States. The faceless men, the brass hats of the Liberal Party, have been advising him. I am referring to the presidents of the State branches of the

Liberal Party, who are seeking to determine the best way to place Commonwealth and State relations on a higher plane. We do not have any say in electing those gentlemen but government supporters have placed their fate in their hands. If they are not careful, Mr Askin and other Premiers will be leading protest marches to the national capital.

It is not just a question of evolving reforms and that sort of thing. It is not sufficient to give handouts to State governments. The Australian Government closely watches the foreign policy of the United States Government. I wish that it would pay similar attention to internal relations in the United States where there has been a proliferation of federal agencies to assist the States. It is not just a matter of handing out money and saying: ‘Go on your way’. It is necessary to provide the technical knowhow.

During the general election campaign I visited the far south coast of New South Wales. As Senator McClelland knows, we were approached by shire councillors who said: ‘One of the best things you have done in the Senate is to try to convince the Government through Senator Wright, the Minister for Works, of the need for a federal agency to assist the shires in respect of the growing menace of beach erosion’. Unfortunately Senator Wright is not in the chamber at the moment.

The Government may come up with a lovely formula and say to the Premiers: You are going to get 10% more out of taxation reimbursements’. But that is not enough. The other side of the coin is that some Liberal Party backwoodsmen in the State parliaments do not believe in Canberra at all. Senator Murphy and Labor leaders in the States have conferred and produced cut and dried proposals for better relations between the Commonwealth and the States. Government supporters have been talking along those lines and we could have developed ideas in debate in the Senate. The Government has failed to produce a 1970 concept of industrial relations. It has failed to deal properly with an electoral system that has been indicted by men who serve in the high councils of the Liberal Party. No attention has been given to the advice offered by ex-Senator Foll, a former Minister for the Interior.

The final point is that the Government has abdicated its responsibility to create better Commonwealth and State relations. It has been given over to the bureaucrats of the Liberal Party. I can imagine the uproar which would result if we did that sort of thing. Government supporters have made their bed, and now they are lying on it. I have given the reasons why we are clamouring for a full dress debate to go on, if necessary, for the next month. On the grounds I have stated I support the proposed amendment.

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

– The debate has flowed fairly freely. Earlier this evening I accommodated the Senate in acceding to motions on which I felt we were at one. Speeches were made in support of the motions, as was necessary. Senator Gair and Senator Murphy spoke of the need to set up a select committee. That took us a little longer than we anticipated so that this matter, which I had hoped we would have disposed of earlier, is still with us. I recognised that inevitably there would be debate on this issue and that an amendment would be proposed by the Opposition. That is the inherent right of the Opposition.

Senator Georges:

– Why does not the Minister challenge it?

Senator ANDERSON:

– I do so now, because I say that the Government will not support the amendment moved by Senator Murphy. Logically, we should vote on that amendment. There are other matters which are not controversial, except for one in relation to committees on which I suspect we require a vote. It is essential that we reconstitute certain committees before we adjourn.

Senator Georges:

– They have already booked out on planes.

Senator ANDERSON:

– I will be here for the remainder of the week, so there is no rush as far as I am concerned. I wish to speak briefly to the amendment moved by Senator Murphy. The speeches that have been made in this debate by honourable senators opposite have given me the impression that they have forgotten that the general election campaign finished on 25th October last. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Senator Willesee) said ‘Ladies and gentlemen’. I was reminded that we had all been campaigning and any one of us could have made that slip. I am not critical of him for it, but the whole pattern of the debate has been to involve issues strongly dealt with on the campaign platforms, on radio and television programmes. Senator Murphy made great play on the procedure of calling the Parliament together. He referred to the proclamation. I think it would have been more proper for Senator Murphy as Leader of the Opposition to direct his argument to the actual speech of the Governor-General.

Senator Murphy:

– I did that, too.

Senator ANDERSON:

– But the point is that he was drawing a distinction between the proclamation and the speech. The speech states quite clearly:

Your attendance has been required in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution.

That is made abundantly clear. Senator Murphy seemed to make an argument about tie matter, but this is precisely what the Governor-General said. He said:

Your attendance has been required in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution which require that the Parliament should be summoned this year and for the discharge of necessary formal business.

That is exactly why we are here. We have had to discharge very necessary formal business. Among other things, three honourable senators have been sworn in. All the members of the other place had to be sworn in. The Constitution requires that they be sworn in 30 days after the return of the writ.

Senator Georges:

– I do not think anybody would argue with the honourable senator.

Senator ANDERSON:

– I do not think the honourable senator was here when Senator Murphy spoke. If he had been here he would have heard Senator Murphy say that to have a formal meeting of Parliament for 1 day was a shameful thing. It is a requirement of the Constitution. In fact if honourable senators want to get on the payroll they have to be sworn in. The purpose of the meeting of the Parliament was to discharge formal business. There was no mystery about this. We did not sneak up on anybody. The Speech stated why we are here. The penultimate paragraph of the Governor-General’s Speech stated:

My advisers intend to seek the prorogation of the Parliament and it is proposed that you will be called together again as soon as possible next year. At the opening of the Second Session of the 27th Parliament there will be laid before you fully for your consideration the way in which my Government will implement its policies comprising, among others, matters relating to the defence and development of our country, to the education, health, housing and social welfare of our people and to the encouragement of the arts.

The point I am trying to make is that Senator Murphy, who led for the Opposition, launched an assault because we were doing the very things that the GovernorGeneral, on the advice of his advisers, said would be done at this meeting. I refer to the formalities so necessary in the parliamentary institution. As I announced this morning, the Ministry was sworn on 12th November. Of the 26 portfolios no fewer than 13 changed hands, and 6 new Ministers were appointed. Senator Willesee referred to certain things that were mentioned in the Prime Minister’s policy speech and that should be done. A good number of them would be matters of administrative function which, in due course, the Opposition would want to discuss. But those things would not necessarily be done by legislation. Having regard to the establishment of the Ministry, having regard to the time of the swearing of the Ministry and having regard to the necessary requirement to meet within 30 days following the return of the writ, these formal meetings of the Senate and of the other place have been necessary. For that reason the criticisms launched and the amendment proposed by Senator Murphy are not acceptable to the Government. I suggest that the proper way to deal with the matter is to take a vote on the issue forthwith.

Question put:

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

The Senate divided. (The President - Senator Sir Alister McMullin)

AYES: 27

NOES: 30

Majority . . 3

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Original question resolved in the affirmative.

page 46

COMMITTEES

Motions (by Senator Anderson) - by leave - agreed to:

Standing Orders Committee

That a Standing Orders Committee be appointed, to consist of the President, the Leader of the Government in the Senate, the Chairman of Committees, the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, and Senators Cavanagh, Cormack, Lacey, Withers and Wright.

Privileges Committee

That a Privileges Committee be appointed, to consist of Senators Branson, Greenwood, McKellar, Murphy, Rae, Wheeldon and Willesee.

House Committee

That a House Committee be appointed, to consist of the President and Senators Buttfield, Maunsell, Milliner, O’Byrne, Ormonde and Withers, with power to act during recess and to confer or sit as a joint committee with a similar committee of the House of Representatives.

Printing Committee

That a Printing Committee be appointed, to consist of Senators Davidson, Georges, Marriott, Maunsell, Milliner, Ridley and Young, with power to confer or sit as a joint committee with a similar committee of the House of Representatives.

page 46

LIBRARY COMMITTEE

Motion (by Senator Anderson) - by leave - agreed to:

That a Library Committee be appointed, to consist of the President and six senators to be appointed following nomination, with power to act during recess and to confer or sit as a joint committee with a similar committee of the House of Representatives.

The PRESIDENT:

– There being seven candidates for the six vacancies on the Library Committee, the Senate will now proceed to a ballot. (The bells having been rung)

The PRESIDENT:

– There are seven candidates for the six vacancies; namely, Senators Bishop, Davidson, Gair, Lawrie. Mulvihill, Wheeldon and Withers. The Clerks at the Table will hand a ballot paper to each honourable senator. Honourable senators will vote by striking out the name of one of the candidates. I invite Senators Anderson, Little and Murphy to act as scrutineers. (A ballot having been taken)

The PRESIDENT:

– I declare Senators Bishop, Davidson, Gair, Lawrie, Mulvihill and Withers elected to the Library Committee. The voting figures were as follows: Senator Bishop 56; Senator Davidson 57; Senator Gair 30; Senator Lawrie 57; Senator Mulvihill 56; Senator Withers 57 and Senator Wheeldon 29.

page 46

SPECIAL ADJOURNMENT

Motion (by Senator Anderson) proposed:

That the Senate, at its rising, adjourn till a day and hour to be fixed by the President, which time of meeting shall be notified to each senator by telegram or letter.

Senator WILLESEE:
Deputy Leader of the Opposition · Western Australia

– I move:

Leave out all words after ‘till’, insert ‘11 a.m. tomorrow’.

Question put:

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

The Senate divided. (The President - Senator Sir Alister McMullin)

AYES: 27

NOES: 30

Majority . . . . 3

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Senator MURPHY:
Leader of the Opposition · New South Wales

– I wish to move a further amendment. I move:

That at the end of Senator Anderson’s motion there be added the words: Provided that the President, upon a request or requests by an absolute majority of the whole number of senators that the Senate meet at a certain time, shall fix a day and hour of meeting in accordance with such request or requests and such time of meeting shall be notified to each senator by telegram or letter.

For these purposes a request by the Leader of the Opposition shall be deemed to be a request by every member of the Opposition and a request by the Leader of the Australian Democratic Labor Party shall be deemed to be a request by members of that Party.

Provided further that the request or requests may be made to the President by leaving the same with or delivering the same to the Clerk of the Senate, who shall immediately notify the President.

In the event of the President being unavailable, the Clerk shall without delay notify the Deputy President, or, should he be unavailable, any one of the Temporary Chairmen of Committees, who shall be deemed to be required by the Senate to summon the Senate on behalf of the President, in accordance with the terms of this resolution.

The vote just taken means that the motion put by Senator Anderson would stand but an addendum would be added in the same terms as was added on 19th May 1967 and, 1 think, on a subsequent occasion, by the Senate. The purpose of my motion is to provide that the Senate can be recalled if in the view of an absolute majority of senators the occasion arises to warrant it.

The basis of this proposal and the grounds on which I would commend it to the Senate are that the Senate itself ought to determine that it should meet if the occasion arises. The proceeding that the President, or somebody in his name, would call the Senate together would be preserved and there would be no impairment of the dignity of the President. What is preserved is the authority of an absolute majority of the members, if they so desire and so indicate to have this chamber recalled. It may be that before February, or March, or whenever it may be, an occasion will arise when to a majority of the senators here it would seem desirable that the chamber should be recalled even though the President, on his own account, or acting in accordance with the request of the Government might not see fit to recall it. It is quite consistent with the democratic process that the absolute majority should not yield up their rights but should preserve their rights. This is the aim of the motion. It does not mean that the Senate will be recalled. A deliberate decision on the part of the absolute majority or those who represent them would be required. The rest of the matter is machinery which served effectively on a previous occasion. Therefore, Mr President, I move the motion and request that the Senate act consistently with its earlier decisions and preserve to itself its own rights.

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

– I regret that as Leader of the Government in the Senate I cannot accept the amendment seeking to add words to the motion. I took the view before, and I take it again, that the Government has to accept the responsibility of governing, with all the consequences of that responsibility. For that reason I would not agree. I suggest it should be put to the vote. We have had this discussion many times. The Government cannot agree to a proposal to add the words suggested.

Question put -

That the words proposed to be added (Senator Murphy’s amendment) be added.

The Senate divided. (The President - Senator Sir Alister McMullin)

AYES: 27

NOES: 29

Majority . . . . 2

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Original question resolved in the affirmative.

page 48

LEAVE OF ABSENCE

Motion (by Senator Anderson) agreed to:

That leave of absence be granted to every member of the Senate from the termination of the sitting this day to the day on which the Senate next meets.

page 48

REGULATIONS AND ORDINANCES COMMITTEE

The PRESIDENT:

– I have received letters from the Leader of the Government in the Senate nominating Senators Davidson, Greenwood, Lawrie and Wood, and from the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate nominating Senators Cavanagh, Devitt and Wheeldon to be members of the Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances.

Motion (by Senator Anderson) agreed to:

That a Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances be appointed, to consist of Senators Cavanagh, Davidson, Devitt, Greenwood, Lawrie, Wheeldon and Wood, such senators having been duly nominated in accordance with the provisions of standing order 36a.

page 48

COMMITTEES

Motions (by Senator Anderson) - by leave - agreed to:

Public Accounts Committee

That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Accounts Committee Act 1951-1966, the following senators be appointed members of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts: Senators Fitzgerald, Webster and Dame Ivy Wedgwood.

Public Works Committee

That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1913-1969, the following senators be appointed members of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works: Senators Branson, Dittmer and Prowse.

Broadcasting Committee

That, in accordance with the provisions of the Parliamentary Proceedings Broadcasting Act 1946-1960, the following senators be appointed members of the Joint Committee on the Broadcasting of Parliamentary Proceedings: The President of the Senate and Senators McClelland and Sim.

page 48

SELECT COMMITTEES*

Motion (by Senator Anderson) - by leave - agreed to:

That the following committees be appointed: Off-shore Petroleum Resources, Water Pollution and Medical and Hospital Costs, membership to be notified to the President by the Leaders of the Parties by letter.

page 48

AUSTRALIAN NATIONAL UNIVERSITY

Motion (by Senator Anderson) - by leave - agreed to:

That, in accordance with the provisions of section 11 of the Australian National University Act 1946-1967, the Senate elects Senator L. K. Murphy to be a member of the Council of the Australian National University, to fill the casual vacancy in the Council caused by the death of Senator Cohen.

page 48

JOINT COMMITTEE ON THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

The PRESIDENT:

– I have received the following message from the House of Representatives relating to the appointment

The House of Representatives transmits to the Senate the following Resolution which was agreed to by the House of Representatives this day, and requests that the Senate concur and take action accordingly:

  1. That a joint committee be appointed to -

    1. examine and report on all proposals for modifications or variations of the plan of lay-out of the City of Canberra and its environs published in the Commonwealth of Australia Gazette on the nineteenth day of November 1925, as previously modified or varied, which are referred to the committee by the Minister for the Interior; and
    2. examine and report on such other matters relating to the Australian Capital Territory as may be referred to the committee by the Minister for the Interior.
  2. That the committee consist of two Members of the House of Representatives appointed by the Prime Minister, two Members of the House of Representatives appointed by the Leader of the Opposition in the House of Representatives, three Senators appointed by the Leader of the Government in the Senate and two Senators appointed by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate.
  3. That every appointment of a member of the committee be forthwith notified in writing to the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives.
  4. That the members of the committee shall hold office as a joint committee until the House of Representatives expires by dissolution or effluxion of time.
  5. That the committee elect as Chairman of the committee one of the members appointed by the Leader of the Government in the Senate.
  6. That the Chairman of the committee may, from time to time, appoint another member of the committee to be the Deputy Chairman of the committee, and that the member so appointed act as Chairman of the committee at any time when the Chairman is not present at a meeting of the committee.
  7. That the committee have power to appoint sub-committees consisting of three or more of its members and to refer to such a sub-committee any matter which the committee is empowered to examine.
  8. That the committee have power to send for persons, papers and records, to move from place to place, and to sit during any recess or adjournment of the Parliament.
  9. That the committee have leave to report from time to time and that any member of the committee have power to add a protest or dissent to any report.
  10. That five members of the committee, including the Chairman or Deputy Chairman, constitute a quorum of the committee, and two members of a sub-committee constitute a quorum of the sub-committee.
  11. That in matters of procedure the Chairman or Deputy Chairman presiding at the meeting have a deliberative vote and, in the event of an equality of voting, have a casting vote, and that, in other matters, the Chairman or Deputy Chairman have a deliberative vote only.
  12. That the committee have power to consider and make use of the minutes of evidence and records of the Joint Committee on the Australian Capital Territory appointed in the previous Parliament relating to any matter on which that committee had not completed its inquiry.
  13. That the foregoing provisions of this resolution, so far as they are inconsistent with the standing orders, have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the standing orders.

Motion (by Senator Anderson) - by leave - proposed:

  1. That the Senate concurs in the resolution transmitted to the Senate by message No. 1 of the House of Representatives relating to the appointment of a joint committee to examine and report upon certain matters relating to the Australian Capital Territory.
  2. That the provisions of the resolution so far as they are inconsistent with the Standing Orders have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the Standing Orders.
  3. That the foregoing resolutions be communicated to the House of Representatives by message.
Senator DEVITT:
Tasmania

– I want briefly to comment upon the message from the House of Representatives which relates to the re-establishment of the Joint Committee on the Australian Capital Territory and to express my very keen disappointment, as a member of that Committee, at the fact that perpetuated in the terms of the re-establishment of this Committee is the provision that it shall examine only matters which have been referred to it by the Minister for the Interior (Mr Nixon). Bearing in mind recent happenings in the Australian Capital Territory and the fact that the results of the last election cannot be disregarded completely in this context, I would have thought that some consideration would have been given to requests which I know have been made in the past to the Minister to enable the Committee - a responsible Committee of this Parliament - to initiate of its own accord consideration of questions which are of vital concern to the people of the Australian Capital Territory.

Let me say at the outset that I believe that the Senate has reason to give credit and to be grateful to the committees which have operated over the past few years for the deliberations that they have brought to bear on a number of questions. In fact we see the Senate proceeding to re-establish some of those committees. I believe that it has been a welcome change that committees of this kind have been set up and have been given the responsibility of examining matters in great detail, moving from place to place, sending for persons and papers and taking evidence on oath on a multitude of questions that are of great concern to this nation.

The Joint Committee on the Australian Capital Territory is a responsible committee which in recent times has carried out inquiries into freehold lands, fruit and vegetable marketing and the introduction of the Breathalyser and currently in conducting an inquiry into the supply of milk to the Australian Capital Territory. All of these matters have been treated with a great deal of consideration and concern. I understand that the Minister for the Interior has not been displeased with the reports that have been made. No doubt the Committee will inquire into other questions that will arise from time to time. Recently we saw a Senate select committee appointed, comprising members of this side of the chamber only, examining a matter of concern in the Australian Capital Territory and bringing down what I believe was a considered, reasoned and very restrained report. I have heard no criticism of the way in which that committee operated or of the determinations and recommendations that it made.

So it is a matter of disappointment to me and to other senators on this side of the chamber that, although the people of the Australian Capital Territory have indicated quite clearly by a number of means that they wish to have a greater representation or understanding in the Parliament of their concerns and disabilities, the Minister for the Interior has retained to himself the right of referral of questions that are of concern to the people of the Territory, so that no matter what sort of representations may be made to the Joint Committee on matters of interest and concern to the people here the Committee may not of its own accord or on its own initiative undertake inquiries into those questions.

I do not want to delay the Senate. I hope that the Leader of the Government (Senator Anderson) will convey to the Minister for the Interior what I believe to be the corporate opinion of this chamber, namely, that we have grown up and reached such a level of sophistication and understanding of the responsibilities of office on these committees that we can receive representations from the people of the Australian Capital Territory and, by a proper vote of the committee, undertake inquiries into matters that are brought to our notice. I hope that the leader of the Government will convey those sentiments to the Minister representing the Minister for the Interior.

Wednesday, 26 November 1969

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

– in reply - I am sure that it is our opinion that the Joint Committee on the Australian Capital Territory has done a good job and is continuing to do so. I certainly will have my staff take the comments made by Senator Devitt out of the record, and I will see that they are conveyed to the appropriate Minister. Before the motion is put, I point out that the members of the Committee will be appointed by leaders by way of letter to the President.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 50

JOINT SELECT COMMITTEE ON THE NEW AND PERMANENT PARLIAMENT HOUSE

The PRESIDENT:

– I have received the following message from the House of Representatives relating to the appointment of a joint select committee on the new and permanent parliament house:

The House of Representatives transmits to the Senate the following Resolution which was agreed to by the House of Representatives this day, and requests that the Senate concur and take action accordingly:

That, having in mind proposals for the erection of a new and permanent Parliament House (in this resolution referred to as ‘the Parliament building’) and in that connection the need to examine the efficiency or otherwise of working arrangements in the present Parliament House and any changes in those arrangements that may seem to be desirable, a Joint Select Committee be appointed to inquire into and report on -

the accommodation needs of -

the Senate, the House of Representatives and the Parliamentary staff in the Parliament building;

members of the public visiting the Parliament building; and

library facilities, and catering and other facilities and services in the Parliament building for Members of the Parliament and others;

whether, and, if so, to what extent or in what manner, the following should be accommodated in the Parliament building -

the Executive;

the Press; and

communication services; and

matters incidental to the foregoing matters.

That the committee consist of -

the President of the Senate, who shall be Chairman;

the Speaker of the House of Representatives, who shall be Deputy Chairman;

the Prime Minister;

the Leader of the Country Party in the House of Representatives;

the Leader of the Government in the Senate; <f) the Leader of the Opposition in the House of Representatives;

the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate;

the Leader of the Australian Democratic Labor Party;

a member of the Opposition in the Senate or the House of Representatives appointed jointly by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate and the Leader of the Opposition in the House of Representatives;

eight members of the House of Representatives, four of whom shall be appointed by the Prime Minister and four by the Leader of the Opposition in that House; and

four Senators, two of whom shall be appointed by the Leader of the Government in the Senate and two by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate.

That the member of the committee referred to in paragraph (c), (d), (f) or (i) of paragraph (2) of this resolution have power to appoint a Member of the House of Representatives or a Senator to attend the committee when the member of the committee is not present at a meeting of the committee.

That a person so appointed, when attending a meeting of the committee, be deemed to be a member of the committee.

That every appointment of a member of the committee, and every appointment under paragraph (3) of this resolution, be forthwith notified in writing to the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives.

That the members of the committee hold office as a joint committee until the House of Representatives expires by dissolution or effluxion of time.

That the committee have power to appoint sub-committees consisting of six or more of its members and to refer to such a sub-committee any matter that the committee is empowered to inquire into.

That the committee, or a sub-committee so appointed, have power to send for persons, papers and records and to sit during any adjournment or recess of the Parliament and during the sitting of either House of the Parliament. (9) That the committee have power to consider and make use of the minutes of evidence and records of the Joint Select Committees on the New and Permanent Parliament House appointed during the Twenty-fifth and Twentysixth Parliaments.

That the committee have leave to report from time to time and that any member of the committee have power to add a protest or dissent to any report.

That ten members of the committee, including the Chairman or Deputy Chairman, constitute a quorum of the committee and four members of a sub-committee constitute a quorum of the sub-committee.

That, in matters of procedure, the Chairman or Deputy Chairman presiding at a meeting have a deliberative vote and, in the event of any equality of votes, have a casting vote and that, in other matters, the Chairman or Deputy Chairman have a deliberative vote only.

That the foregoing provisions of this resolution, in so far as they are inconsistent with the standing orders, have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the standing orders.

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

– by leave - I move:

  1. That the Senate concurs in the resolution transmitted to the Senate by Message No. 2 of the House of Representatives relating to the appointment of a joint select committee to inquire into and report on certain matters in connection with a new and permanent parliament house;
  2. That the provisions of the resolution so far as they are inconsistent with the Standing Orders have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the Standing Orders; and
  3. That the foregoing resolutions be communicated to the House of Representatives by message.

Here again the members of the committee will be nominated by leaders.

Senator MURPHY:
New South WalesLeader of the Opposition

– The raising of this matter has reminded me of a very irritating happening that occurred this year. As I recall it, after consultation between the Government and the members of the two chambers it was understood that the collective decision of the members as to the site of the new and permanent parliament house would be acted on. The members did express their views. A majority of the members of the Senate and the House of Representatives were in favour of establishing the new and permanent parliament house on Capital Hill. But that view was not acted on. Apparently the members of the two chambers had a little more faith in the democratic processes than was proved to be warranted.

As far as my Party is concerned, in the last Parliament this was a matter for a free vote and nothing has occurred to change that position. If it remains that way, I believe that we should not accept what has happened. It is not too late. I believe that when we return some steps should be taken to see whether we can have the will of the members of the Parliament vindicated. There certainly have been some changes in the other chamber and some slight changes here.

Senator Anderson:

– I might have a victory the next time round. I was a long way down last time.

Senator MURPHY:

– One never knows. Senator Anderson says that he might have a victory. So he might. But I hope that it will be a victory for democracy. If those who are to be consulted express their wish in a certain way, that should be acted upon. I indicate that if things remain as they are I propose to raise this matter again - I am not speaking now as Leader of the Opposition; this is a matter in which we have acted as individuate - in order to see whether we can have a joint vote, a joint conference or something of that nature so that the views of members may be expressed. Then we will see what will happen. I hope that in the meantime those who are concerned with the matter do not endeavour to render the Capital Hill site impossible for the construction of a new and permanent parliament house. Otherwise I agree with what has been proposed by the Leader of the Government (Senator Anderson).

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 52

QUESTION

GAS METERS

(Question No. 1564)

Senator McCLELLAND:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

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

  1. How many gas meters, fully assembled, are imported into Australia in the following categories

    1. domestic, up to 400 cubic feet per hour, and
    2. industrial, with a capacity of 700 to 6,000 cubic feet per hour.

  2. From which countries are the gas meters imported.

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– The Minister for Trade and Industry has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

The Commonwealth Statistician has advised that imports of gas meters according to their capacities are not separately recorded. He has however supplied the following table showing imports of gas meters cleared for home consumption divided into (a) consumer type and (b) non-consumer type by country of origin for the years 1966-67, 1967-68 and 1968-69.

page 53

QUESTION

TABLING OF TREATIES

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

– For the information of honourable senators I lay on the Table texts of the undermentioned treaties to which Australia has become a party by signature:

  1. Agreement signed at Athens on 22nd October 1968 between the Government of Greece and the Governments of Australia, Canada, India, New Zealand, Pakistan, South Africa and the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland concerning the Graves of Members of the Armed Forces of the Commonwealth in Greek Territory. This Agreement entered into force on 28th June 1969.
  2. Agreement establishing a Food and Fertiliser Technology Centre for the Asian and Pacific Region signed at Kawana on 11th June 1969 (together with the Joint Communique signed at the conclusion of the Fourth Ministerial Meeting of the Asian and Pacific Council).
  3. Agreement between Australia and the European Organisation for the Development and Construction of Space Vehicle Launchers for the use of capital facilities signed at Paris on 23rd July 1969.
  4. Exchange of Notes constituting an Agreement between Australia and Laos completed at Vientiane on 9th August 1969 extending an Agreement of 24th December 1963 concerning the Foreign Exchange Operations Fund for Laos.
  5. Agreement between Australia and Nauru relating to Air Services signed at Canberra on 17th September 1969.
  6. Agreement between Australia and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to provide for the establishment and operation of a large optical telescope signed at Canberra on 25th September 1969.
  7. Agreement between Australia and the United States of America relating to the establishment of a joint defence communications station in Australia signed at Canberra on 10th November 1969.
Senator Kennelly:

– I would like to know what has been agreed to with Greece. I would not agree with the present Greek Government on anything.

Senator ANDERSON:

– I am tabling the documents and as soon as the Senate rises I am prepared to go through them with the honourable senator. But as they are lengthy documents which have now become documents of the Parliament, perhaps I could read again that part which relates to Greece.

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

Senator ANDERSON:

– My reference to Greece was as follows:

Agreement signed at Athens on 22 October 1968 between the Government of Greece and the Governments of Australia, Canada, India, New Zealand, Pakistan, South Africa and the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland concerning the Graves of Members of the Armed Forces of the Commonwealth in Greek Territory. This Agreement entered into force on 28 June 1969.

Is the honourable senator happy with that?

Senator Kennelly:

– Yes.

page 53

ADJOURNMENT

Vietnam

Motion (by Senator Anderson) proposed:

That the Senate do now adjourn.

Senator KEEFFE:
Queensland

-I am relucant to rise on the adjournment, but as there is a possibility that the Parliament will not sit again until August 1970 I feel that I should do so because of certain technical difficulties experienced by Senator Georges and myself today when trying to present a petition to the Senate. I believe that I must take this final opportunity on the adjournment motion to state my case on this matter. In general terms the petition was addressed to the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled and has been duly signed. The document is physically in the possession of the Clerk of the Senate who declined to sign the original document until such time as he had further opportunity to examine it. The final message in the petition is in these terms:

To halt the mounting slaughter of our Australian youth, of uncounted Vietnamese men, women and children, of American servicemen.

The petition ends with the usual terms, praying that the Commonwealth Government: 1 Withdraw all Australian troops from Vietnam. 2 Recognise all the political forces in Vietnam including the National Liberation Front. 3 Recognise the rights of people to determine their own future without external military or para-military intervention. 4 Repeal the National Service Act and give amnesty to political prisoners under the Act and to those fined under the Act.

The petition shows that more than 324 young Australian servicemen have been killed in the illegal, immoral, undeclared war in Vietnam. These included:

Pte W. Nalder, Pte A. Bourke, Pte W. Carroll, Pte Van Valan, W/O R. Scott, Cpl F. Smith, Pte R. Field, Lance/Cpl T. Ross,Pte A. Hansen, Lance/Cpl H. Parker (missing) Pte D. Gillson (missing) W/O K. Wheatley, W/O R. Swanton, Cpl R. Hillier, Cpl A. Fothingham, Pte D. Penn, PteB. Peterson, Cpl R. Bowtell, Captain K. Bade, Lance/Cpl R. Coxon, W/O J. MacDonald, Capt G. Belleville, W/O J. Harker Andrews, Lance/Cpl T. Suter, Cpl L. McDonnell, Pte L. Baxter, W/O T. Phillips, W/O W. Blanck, Cpl P. Clements, Cpl B. Coupe, Pte L. Farren, Pte G. Moore, Pte E. Noack (first National Serviceman killed), Pte J. Jones, Pte J. Sweetman, Lance/Cpl A. Ruduss, Pte R. Hood, Cpl K. Arnold, Cpl P. West, Pte R. Lubke.

Lance/Cpl M. Tomas, Pte G. Knight, Pte A. Purcell, Sapper L. Prowse, Cpl J. Norris, Gunner T. Checkley, Pte R. Kennedy, Pte A. Aldersea, Pte A. Drabble, Pte K. Gant, Pte F. Grant, Pte V. Grice, Pte J. Houston, Pte A. McCormack, Pte N. Mitchell, Pte D. Salverton, Pte D. Thomas, Pte F. Topp, Pte C. Whiston, Pte P. Large, Lance/Cpl J. Jewry, Pte M. Wales, Lieut G. Sharp, Pte G. Warburton, Cpl N. Wormal, Pte G. D’Antoine, Pte B. Watson, Pte E. Wilson, Pte N. Pracy, Cpl C. Lithgow, Pte G. Tweedie, W/O J. Kirby, Pte B. Kelly, Gunner R. Cliff, Pte D. Powter, Major D. Bourne, Captn B. Milligan, Pte A. Rich, Trooper V. Pomroy, Pte P. Arnold.

Pte N. Riley, Pte B. Waters, Pte M. Birchell, Lance/Cpl R. Rooney, W/O M. Hartley, Pte D. Clark, Lance/Cpl K. Mitchinson, Pte R. Sandow, Pte J. Webster, Trooper R. Wilson, Lance/Cpl G. Green, Lieut J. Carruthers, Major M. McQualter, Sig’man A. Logan, Pte P. Hart, Pte D. Bracewell, Pte R. Lloyd, Major P. Badcoe, Pte R. Copeman, W/O J. Stone, Sapper R. Deed, Pte F. Mathieson, Sapper G. Brady, Sapper J. O’Hara, Sapper T. Renshaw, Sgt J. Ruddy, Leading Aircraftsman G. Lagrasta, Pte J. Cox, Sapper D. Wride, Cpl J. Aylett, Pte E. Hayes, Pte J. O’Connor, Pte E. Brophy, Pte B. Harstad, Cpl D. Donnelly, Captn K. Baudistel, W/O A. Siggers, Pte T. Cutliffe, Sgt J. Twomey, Pte S. Radomi, Pte P. McDuff, Pte D. Nelson, Pte L. Weston, Pte W. Brett, Pte W. Harald, Gunner B. Tregear. Pte B. Fallon, Pte N. Allen, W/O B. Moore, Cpl M. Hutchinson, Pte J. Rivett, Pte N. Pettitt, Pte B. Cullen, Pte N. Hawker, Pte R. Bell, Pte F. Hyland, Lieut R. Birse, W/O A. Henderson, W/O R. Seiler, Cpl G. Norley, Pte D. Morrison, Pte R. Binning, Pte R. Caston, Pte G. Perrin, L/Cpt R. McMillan, W/O A. Parello, Pte M. Ayres, Pte J. Rogers, Cpl T. Grose, S/Lieut A. Taylor, Pte G. Godden, Pte G. Matthews, Pte T. Johannes De Vreis Vanleeuwen, L/Bomb. J. Menz, Sapper J. Garrett, Sgt C. McLachlan. Lt Cdr P. Vickers, S/Lieut L. Taylor, Pte D. Plain, Pte J. Rapp, Pte K. Coles, Sapper G. Coombes, Sapper V. Tobin, S/Lieut J. Fraser, S/Sgt P. Gollasher, Pte G. Polglase, Sapper K. Nicholson, Pte B. Trimble, Pte R. Watson, Gunner I. Scott, Pte R. McNab, Gunner G. Santell.

Pte J. O’Brien, Sgt P. Lewis, Cpl R. Hickey, Pte E. Bailey, Major G. Constable, Pte J. Desnoy, Pte L. Brown, Pte A. Coope, Pte W. Thomas, Pte J. Worle, Pte D. Abbott, W/O F. Hamersley, W/O J. Durrington, Chief Electrician R. Hunt, O/S R. Butterworth, Pte S. Barnett, Pte P.

O’Connor, Pte P. Murray, Craft D. Borelace, Pte D. Mitchell, Trooper R. Gillard, Pte R. Grist, Pte G. Moss, Navy Lieut A. Casadio, P/O C. Phillips, Pte M. Noonan, Pte M. Muc, Lance/Cpl R. Burns, Pte A. Williams, Pte M. Sukmanowsky, Pte K. Shaw, Pte K. Brewer, Pte P. Evans, Pte J. Slattery, L/C P. Rijsewijk, Pte J. Tinkham, Pte K. Houston, Lance/Cpl A. Quigley, Pte R. Hughes, Pte I. Gibbs, S/Lieut. T. Langlands, Cpl F. Annersley, Pte W. Donnelly, Pte R. Gaffney, Trooper M. Hannaford, Lance/Cpl J. Kalma, Pte C. Roost.

W/O J. Garrigan, Pte T. Meredith, Sgt J. Duroux, Cpl A. Graham, Act. Sub-Lieut. A. Huelin, Cpl R. Harris, Pte R. Key, Sgt J. Cook, Pte A. Sykes, Pte P. Smith, Pte G. Archer, Pte J. Ramsey, Pte S. Graham, Lance/Cpl M. McConnachy, Pte R. Byrne, Lance/Cpl P. Chant, Pte A. McGuire, Pte V. Petersen, Pte G. Scales, Pte B. Walker, Sgt B. Smith, Cpl G. Gilbert, Pte G. Pike, Pte J. White, Pte B. George, Pte T. Black, Pte Remeljet, Pte L. McPherson, W/O J. Bond, W/O M. Gill, S/Lieut G. Locke, Lieut E. Lee, Pte R. Yule, Pte P. Reidy, Sapper R. Davies, L/A (Navy) W. Shipp, Pte B. James, Pte W. Teeling, Cpl D. Brennan, Pte T. Turner, Pte A. Waring, Lance/Cpl K. Dewar, Pte B. Pilat, Pte G. Sorrenson, Pte L. Pettett, Lance/Cpl P. Smith, Pte H. Muller.

Lance/Cpl B. Adamczyk, Pte B. Edwards, W/O B. Walsh, Pte R. Kermode, Lieut P. Hines, Cpl J. Needs, Pte B. Somerville Smith, Pte B. Rennie, Lance/Cpl B. Hansen, Trooper A. Casey, Pte P. Hansen, Sapper A. Duncuff, Pte V. W. Holloway.

I have raised this matter because I believe we will not have an opportunity to discuss this shocking conflict in Vietnam for many weeks, according to the optimists, and for many months, according to the pessimists. Perhaps the best estimates will be from those who suggested that the Parliament will not be called together until about the middle of next August. In the meantime, of course, as the Government was successful at the general election it is stiil totally committed to the war in Vietnam. I think it will be on 26th January 1970 that thousands of young men will be called up. The second draft will be initiated before that date. People of goodwill in this Parliament and people of goodwill everywhere will take note of the petition which unfortunately I have had to present in this manner.

Senator GEORGES:
Queensland

– I had a petition to present similar to that read by Senator Keeffe. I also had difficulty because the matter was under discussion with the Clerk of the Senate. We had hoped that tomorrow morning we would have been able to overcome the difficulty of presenting such a petition. It is vital to the people who signed this petition that it should be presented to this Parliament at an early date. It was expected that despite the Government’s intention to meet for only a short time we could have influenced it to meet tomorrow and in that way could have justified the long trips we have made to Canberra. Regrettably, that was not to be.

The responsibility must weigh heavily on Government supporters who realise that by attending here for only 1 day it is not possible to debate in the Senate the calamity of the war in Vietnam. It must weigh heavily on their consciences that the war goes on and on. It certainly affects the Opposition and stirs us to action. Had I received first call I would have read the names in the petition, one by one, stating the initials, and at a slower pace than that adopted by Senator Keeffe. I would have hoped in that way to impress upon Government supporters that it is through their decision that our young men are continuing to be at war. It was hoped to impress upon honourable senators opposite the need to withdraw our men from Vietnam. We may have been able to impress upon them that the list of names will be added to in considerable numbers unless the Government does something about it.

I do not intend to make a mockery of the Senate tonight by also reading out the tragic list of names of our young men. Each name, as I have said before, represents a martyr to the folly of the Government’s policy in Vietnam. Today it was suggested that we call upon Divine Providence to assist the country in the next 3 or 4 months until Parliament meets. I hope that Divine Providence does intervene, because it seems to me that after today’s performance here that is the only hope for our young men and the people of Vietnam who continue to suffer. Petitions of this kind will come forward constantly. They will be presented with sincerity and determination by members of the Opposition. We trust that the Government will allow an opportunity for those petitions to be read and heard.

Senator WHEELDON:
Western Australia

– I am in the same position as Senator Georges and Senator Keeffe. I also have a petition couched in what I believe to be terms similar to those of the petitions which Senator Keeffe and Senator Georges attempted to present to the Senate.

We have all been brought here at considerable personal inconvenience and at great cost to the people of this country to attend a mockery of a sitting of the Parliament which has taken place today. As Senator Georges has told us, all that the GovernorGeneral had to offer us was an appeal to the assistance of Divine Providence. Divine Providence will need to be very efficacious indeed if this country is to survive, when the speech that was given from the throne today reflects all that the Government has to offer to the people of this country.

It might have been anticipated that following the repudiation of the Government by the people in the last election its supporters would have attempted to come forward with something to tell the Australian people about where they were going, to explain to the people the present state of the savage divisions within their own ranks and the blatant acts of treachery which we see day after day from aspiring Ministers and ex-Ministers - probably one of the most despicable performances ever seen in the national Parliament.

We have been brought here for a one day sitting. We are to be sent home again by a gutless Government which is afraid to debate the issues. It is too keen on preserving its own nominal integrity. Every man inside the Government knows that another man is waiting to stab him in the back. It is not a question of principle but purely one of self-advancement. What depths of personal abuse they have sunk to in maligning each other. But we came here to speak on a serious issue. I know that Senator Greenwood finds it very amusing. He is a great supporter of the war in Vietnam. Senator Greenwood is a man of military age who has never heard a shot fired in anger and who is going to take very great care to ensure that he never does. If I were Senator Greenwood I would keep very quiet about the war in Vietnam and any other war. Senator Greenwood is one of the people responsible for sending to Vietnam those young men whose names appear on the petition. They were killed in Vietnam. Senator Greenwood is one of the people who scuttles around informing inside the Senate, while lacking the guts to go to Vietnam himself.

Senator Greenwood’s courage consists of speaking under parliamentary privilege, and haranguing people who have the courage to stand up for their convictions. He does not have that courage. He is still here in civilian clothes, aspiring to the Ministry. He is not in Vietnam. He is still here and he is going to make sure that he stays here, still with the same grin on his face. I am quite certain that he would not be grinning in that way if he were in the armed forces instead of merely seeking to prosecute the people who do not wish to go to Vietnam.

Senator Greenwood epitomises all that is rotten about this Government. Senator Keeffe, Senator Georges and I have petitions concerning the conduct of the war in Vietnam. That war is being repudiated by growing numbers of Australians and Americans, even by people such as Moyers who was so close to Lyndon Johnson. They have now come out and taken part in the moratorium day. People who were close advisers to Lyndon Johnson, former President of the United States, have stood up and have been counted in their opposition to this war. Three senators endeavoured to bring to the attention of this Parliament those names whose mention causes Senator Greenwood to grin so much with mirth. He is here pursuing young men like John Zarb while other young Australians are being killed and he sits safe and sound in the Senate. I find nothing mirthful about the deaths of young Australians; I find nothing mirthful about the deaths of Vietnamese; I find nothing mirthful about the destruction of villages where innocent people live. It is not a funny matter. Senator Greenwood finds it funny, but I do not.

Senator Laucke:

– I rise to order. Senator Wheeldon has stated that Senator Greenwood takes pleasure, in effect, in the loss of lives in war. This I take as a very grave charge against the character of Senator Greenwood and I feel that it must be withdrawn.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Bull) - Order! Are you willing to withdraw, Senator Wheeldon?

Senator WHEELDON:

– No, Sir.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT - Order! Senator Wheeldon, do you consider what Senator Laucke said to be a correct interpretation of what you said?

Senator WHEELDON:

– What I said was that Senator Greenwood was finding the mentioning of those names of the Australian soldiers killed in Vietnam a subject for amusement.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT - Order! There is no substance in Senator Laucke’* point of order.

Senator WHEELDON:

– Today three honourable senators endeavoured to present petitions which called for the return of Australian troops from Vietnam and which gave the names of those Australians killed in the war in Vietnam. We were informed by the Clerk that he was unable to accept the petitions. I am sure that the Clerk was acting within his proper jurisdiction as the Clerk. I have perused the Standing Orders. I wish to cast no aspersions on the Clerk, but I am unable to find any passsage in the Standing Orders which prevents such petitions being presented. I accept that the Clerk acted in good faith and that for some reason not clear to me it is impossible for the petitions to be presented. The fact is that the matter is a very serious one. Young Australians are being killed. We are being involved in a war which is causing a tremendous number of deaths, desolation and human suffering and which is deservedly earning opprobrium for Australia in the eyes of the people of the rest of the world. It is disgraceful that members of Parliament should have been brought here to listen to a few sentences from His Excellency the Governor-General today and that we should adjourn without any opportunity either to present a petition or to debate this matter which is more serious than any other matter facing the people of this country.

The names of the young Australians killed have been read by Senator Keeffe. I am glad that Senator Keeffe has done this. I am glad that these names have been recorded. The names should cause shame to all of us. I believe that if some tribunal were appointed such as that which conducted the Nuremberg war crimes trials many of us here - I think it might include all of us, even those on this side of the chamber - ought to plead guilty if placed in the dock. Senator Keeffe, the Federal President of our Party, has read those names. At least they will stand in the record of the Senate. Senator Georges and I also tried to have those names recorded by presenting a petition. Ordinary Australians think this matter ought to be brought to the attention of the Parliament. The Government, so constrained in order to cover up the savage back-biting, the treachery and the public calumny being heaped by one member of the Liberal Party upon another, is afraid to have a meeting of Parliament. It is afraid to have a session of Parliament because we would all see more clearly exposed just how savage are the divisions between them. They are more concerned about preserving their facade of unity than they are about answering charges made on a matter of a serious nature. I applaud the action taken by Senator Keeffe and Senator Georges. I wish to have my name associated with the protests that they have made.

Senator WRIGHT:
Minister for Works · Tasmania · LP

– Tonight we have listened, without interruption, to three speeches on the adjournment debate. They were an unfortunate intermixture of political expediency with matters of very great seriousness relating to the Vietnam engagement. That matter is of the highest national importance and it is to be regretted that it has been so degraded by those who have spoken on the adjournment debate. I single out for particular mention the despicable approach adopted by Senator Wheeldon. From this side of the chamber I repudiate the imputations that he levelled at Senator Greenwood. Those imputations were discreditable, unworthy and untrue in fact. I rise only because no-one in this chamber has more respect for the names of the dead mentioned by Senator Keeffe than does Senator Greenwood. The reasons for this engagement should be debated on an occasion when the atmosphere and the content of the debate are worthy of the cause and not mixed up with these despicable trivia of Party political expediency and particularly with the histrionic and irresponsible manner adopted by Senator Wheeldon.

Senator GREENWOOD:
Victoria

– I listened with some disgust and, naturally, with some personal resentment to what Hansard will record as being one of the most scurrilous and abusive attacks that I have heard - and, I suspect, that a lot of other honourable senators have heard - in the time that I have been in this chamber. I do not propose to seek any withdrawal because I think the record will disclose the way some people are affected by a sickness of mind on the issues about which Senator Wheeldon spoke. All I will say is this: I am thankful that the people of Australia have a Government which is as courageous and as strong as this Government. Because there has been an inveighing against Divine Providence I think we should likewise thank Divine Providence that the people of Australia have been spared from having, in positions of power in this land, people who approach this issue in the way in which Senator Wheeldon has tonight.

Senator CAVANAGH:
South Australia

– I want to say a few words on this subject. While one can agree that the nature of the attack by Senator Wheeldon was perhaps something not usually heard in this chamber, one cannot help but agree that this issue is of vital importance to those who have an appreciation of human life and to those who are trying to protect the 20-year-olds. When Senator Wheeldon tried to make out a case about the injustice of the decision of this Government to send lads to their death - and that cannot be denied - he looked across the chamber and saw an honourable senator opposite grinning.

Senator Greenwood:

– That is not so, and the honourable senator knows it. I have made my denial. It is recorded in Hansard. That will be in the record. The honourable senator can say what he likes.

Senator CAVANAGH:

– From here Senator Greenwood’s countenance had the appearance that he was grinning. Whatever Senator Greenwood was doing, Senator Wheeldon thought that he was expressing some mirth. We could see that he was expressing some mirth about this. Senator Wheeldon had that impression. One can understand the justification for such an attack being made upon Senator Greenwood on this occasion.

A desire has been expressed by those who wish to preserve the decency of Australia. They are campaigning now both in Australia and in America to get out of this filthy, rotten war which has brought about so much torture. The Prime Minister (Mr Gorton) said that the reasons why the Government has lost affection with the electors must be identified and rectified. It is quite obvious that the Government has lost popularity because of its insistence upon sending more troops to Vietnam, although the Government will not accept this fact. The stage has been reached where much publicity is given to accusations that our allies have massacred innocent civilians, including women and children, in Vietnam. Attempts are being made to break down these accusations and to show that things are not as bad as at first appeared. We are told that only 109 and not 567 innocent civilians were massacred! We also know that one of our allies had one of its soldiers up on a murder charge but that the charge could not be proceeded with because the Central Intelligence Agency hindered the investigation. And we have had our own complications in Vietnam. We had a debate in this Parliament on alleged water torturing. There was also the case of a soldier being chained in a weapon pit. People are not acting reasonably in Vietnam. We are involved in a horrible mess. The people of an Asian country are being annihilated. Decent people everywhere are crying out for us to get out of Vietnam.

The Government’s ranks have been reduced because of its policy of continued Australian participation in Vietnam. In fact, it was lucky to survive. Although the Prime Minister has said that the Government must try to identify and rectify the things that have resulted in a condemnation of the Government, he has not said one word about Vietnam. But he would know full well that it is one of the reasons for the Government’s reduced popularity in the electorate. Has the Government the power to get out of Vietnam by a vote of this Parliament or is there a greater force which means that we cannot help but stay in Vietnam? It is unfortunate that unpleasantries should happen in this chamber, but the debate is of vital importance; the principles at stake are high. Whilst some honourable senators may not like the verbiage or form of attack used by someone else here, the fact remains that kids are dying in Vietnam. The names which were read out were the names of soldiers who were sent to Vietnam as a result of our vote. They will never come back to Australia. Another shipload was sent to Vietnam last week. It is a crime for which we are all answerable. The Opposition was powerless to do anything to stop the sending of troops to Vietnam because it lacked the numbers in the Parliament. Everyone has a responsibility to make the public aware of the situation in Vietnam and to arouse public sentiment against the sending of troops there. Public opinion should be brought to the stage where the electorate will throw out of office any government which wants to sacrifice our young manhood in a useless, dirty, filthy war.

Senator LITTLE:
Victoria

– I agree with Senator Cavanagh that the war in Vietnam is a very serious and important issue, but it is not the issue that is before the Senate tonight. The issue before us is whether the names of the Australian soldiers who have been killed in the war in Vietnam should be used as part of a propaganda campaign to influence the people of this community in a certain direction. That is an entirely different matter from debating the issues of the war in Vietnam. Everybody in Australia has a democratic right to discuss the war in Vietnam and I would defend the right of anyone to do so, but I challenge the right of any honourable senator to read out the names of soldiers who were killed in Vietnam, particularly without the permission of those people who were near and dear to these soldiers. Many of the soldiers were young men who had volunteered to join the Army. Indeed the great majority of them offered their services to the Government of this country as professional soldiers. Supporters of the Opposition are continually interjecting. I listened in silence to what Opposition senators had to say on the subject. Regardless of the political complexion of the Government of this country and the decision it took to employ armed forces in another part of the world, we should remember that only a small percentage of our casualties in Vietnam are national servicemen.

We should bear in mind also that not all the soldiers who have been killed in Vietnam shared the Opposition’s view of the war. If one talks to some of the young men who have served in Vietnam one will appreciate that they are not all of the same view as those who are now endeavouring to use the names of casualties in the war as part of a propaganda campaign. I object to the use of the names. I believe that the permission of the relatives of the dead should have been sought by the people who wished to use their names.

I heard one contributor to the debate say that we all should have a sense of shame as the names were read out tonight. But the fathers, mothers and other relatives of those who have been killed in Vietnam try to console themselves in their tremendous loss by taking great pride in the fact that their sons or brothers lost their lives serving their country. Why should we be ashamed at the recording of their names in Hansard? I do not like war in any shape or form, but circumstances occur in the world over which none of us has much control. The rights and wrongs of these circumstances are not clearly understood - perhaps they are misunderstood - by many of us regardless of which side we take on the issue. When I see people carrying placards bearing the names of soldiers who died serving their country - most of them volunteers - and at the same time supporting the cause of the people who killed them I doubt the sincerity of the propaganda campaign. I do not think that this is a legitimate way to win public support for one’s point of view.

I regret that this issue was brought before the Senate in this manner. I do not agree with the utilisation of the names of people who have given their lives for something which I would say most of them believed was a cause which justified the risks they ran when they were sent to Vietnam.

Senator Keeffe:

– Some of them were conscripts.

Senator LITTLE:

– Not all of them were conscripts and the honourable senator knows that only too well. The great majority of the casualties in Vietnam are not national service trainees; they are members of the regular armed forces of Australia who volunteered to serve in Vietnam. If honourable senators of the Opposition want to discuss the matter - and they have said that they do - they should be factual in their statements and should not attempt to introduce a propaganda sideline into an important issue. I am not claiming that I am always right in the views I hold on the situation in Vietnam, but I refuse to discuss the rights and the wrongs of our presence in Vietnam in the same breath as the names of those men who, for reasons which are unknown to honourable senators in this chamber or any body else, were prepared to do what they did for their country. On behalf of myself and, I am sure, my political colleagues in this chamber, I express those sentiments on this issue.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 59

SELECT COMMITTEE ON OFF-SHORE PETROLEUM RESOURCES

On motion by Senator Anderson (vide page 48), a select committee of the Senate was constituted in the following terms:

That, with respect to legislation relating to the Exploration for, and the Exploitation of, the Petroleum Resources of the Continental Shelf of Australia and of certain Territories of the Commonwealth and of certain other Submerged Land, a Select Committee of the Senate be appointed to inquire into and report upon -

whether the constitutional conception underlying the legislation is consistent with the proper constitutional responsibilities of the Commonwealth and the States;

whether the system of administration established by the legislation is the most effective to fulfill the purpose of adequate utilisation of Australia’s off-shore resources of oil and natural gas;

whether the legislation makes adequate provision for free interstate trade in gas and oil;

whether proper provision is made in the legislation for adequate royalties used in the national interest;

whether the areas of permits confirmed or authorised in the legislation are excessive;

whether proper provision is made relating to renewals to prevent stagnating oil exploration;

whether the legislation makes adequate provision for Australian ownership and/or control or Australian participation in the ownership and/or control of Australia’s offshore resources of oil and natural gas; and

the provisions of the legislation generally.

That the Committee consist of eight Senators, four to be appointed by the Leader of the Government in the Senate, three to be appointed by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate and one to be appointed by the Leader of the Australian Democratic Labor Party in the Senate.

That the Committee elect as Chairman one of the members appointed by the Leader of the Government in the Senate.

That the Chairman of the Committee may from time to time appoint another Member of the Committee to be the Deputy-Chairman of the Committee, and that the Member so appointed act as Chairman of the Committee at any time when the Chairman is not present at a meeting of the Committee.

That, in the event of an equality of voting, the Chairman, or the Deputy-Chairman when acting as Chairman, have a casting vote.

That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers and records, to move from place to place, to sit in open court or in private, and have leave to report from time to time its proceedings and the evidence taken and such interim recommendations as it may deem fit.

That the Committee have power to sit during any adjournment or recess of the Parliament.

That the Committee have power to consider the Minutes of Evidence and Records of the Select Committees on Off-shore Petroleum Resources appointed during the previous Parliament.

That the Committee report to the Senate as soon as possible.

That the foregoing provisions of this resolution, so far as they are inconsistent with the Standing Orders, have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the Standing Orders.

page 60

SELECT COMMITTEE ON WATER POLLUTION

On motion by Senator Anderson (vide page 48), a select committee of the Senate was constituted in the following terms:

That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into and report upon water pollution and quality of water for different uses in Australia, including (a) causes and effects, (b) methods of prevention and control, and (c) matters incidental thereto.

That the Committee consist of six Senators, three to be appointed by the Leader of the Government in the Senate, two to be appointed by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, and one to be appointed by the Leader of the Australian Democratic Labor Party in the Senate.

That the Committee elect as Chairman one of the members appointed by the Leader of the Government in the Senate.

That the Chairman of the Committee may from time to time appoint another member of the Committee to be the Deputy-Chairman of the Committee, and that the member so appointed act as Chairman of the Committee at any time when the Chairman is not present at a meeting of the Committee.

That, in the event of an equality of voting, the Chairman, or the Deputy-Chairman when acting as Chairman, have a casting vote.

That four members of the Committee, including the Chairman or Deputy-Chairman, constitute a quorum of the Committee.

That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers and records, to move from place to place, to sit in open court or in private, and have leave to report from time to time its proceedings and the evidence taken and such interim recommendations as it may deem fit

That the Committee have power to sit during any adjournment or recess of the Parliament

That the Committee have power to consider the Minutes of Evidence and Records of the Select Committee on Water Pollution appointed during the previous Parliament

That the Committee report to the Senate on or before 30 June 1970.

That the foregoing provisions of this resolution, so far as they are inconsistent with the Standing Orders, have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the Standing Orders.

page 60

SELECT COMMITTEE ON MEDICAL AND HOSPITAL COSTS

On motion by Senator Anderson (vide page 48), a select committee of the Senate was constituted in the following terms:

That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into medical and hospital costs in Australia and, in particular, to examine the operation and administration of the medical and hospital benefit schemes and to recommend such legislative and administrative measures by the Commonwealth as will, having regard to the constitutional divisions of legislative power in Australia, enable the provision of the optimum standards of medical and hospital care for all.

That the Committee consist of six Senators, three to be appointed by the Leader of the Government in the Senate, two to be appointed by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, and Senator Turnbull.

That the Committee elect as Chairman one of the members appointed by the Leader of the Government in the Senate.

That the Chairman of the Committee may from time to time appoint another member of the Committee to be the Deputy-Chairman of the Committee, and that the member so appointed act as Chairman of the Committee at any time when the Chairman is not present at a meeting of the Committee.

That, in the event of an equality of voting, the Chairman, or the Deputy-Chairman when acting as Chairman, have a casting vote.

That four members of the Committee, including the Chairman or Deputy-Chairman, constitute a quorum of the Committee.

That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers and records, to move from place to place, to sit in open court or in private, and have leave to report from time to time its proceedings and the evidence taken and such interim recommendations as it may deem fit.

That the Committee have power to sit during any adjournment or recess of the Parliament.

That the Committee have power to consider the Minutes of Evidence and ‘Records of the Select Committee on Medical and Hospital Costs appointed during the previous Parliament.

That the Committee report to the Senate on or before 30 June 1970.

That the foregoing provisions of this resolution, so far as they are inconsistent with the Standing Orders, have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the Standing Orders.

Senate adjourned at 12.49 a.m. (Wednesday) to a date and hour to be fixed by the President.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 25 November 1969, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1969/19691125_senate_27_s43/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant