Senate
5 March 1970

27th Parliament · 2nd Session

  1. Senate
  2. 27th Parliament
  3. 1970

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Sir Alister McMullin) took the chair at 11 a.m., and read prayers.

page 91

NOTICE OF MOTION

Senator MURPHY:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– Mr President, I give notice of the following contingent notice of motion:

That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent Senator Murphy moving a motion relating to the order of business on the notice paper.

That is a notice of motion in the same terms as was on the notice paper continuously during the last Parliament.

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

-I would like some explanation of that notice of motion because, frankly, I have not been informed in advance of this. 1 have no advice of what it applies to and I do not know whether it cuts across a motion which I propose to introduce, on notice, at a later hour of the morning.

Senator MURPHY:

– My motion is not intended to do that. It is the same notice of motion that was on the notice paper for,I think, about21/2 years of the last Parliament. If you turn to all the old notice papers you will find a similar notice of motion. It is simply a contingent notice so that we may deal with movement of business when occasion arises. I think the Leader of the Democratic Labor Party saw fit to follow the example which I gave. There is no particular intention in mind at the moment of using this notice of motion. It is just a matter of procedure to have the motion placed on the notice paper in case an occasion arises which requires its use.

page 91

QUESTION

DAIRY FARM RECONSTRUCTION PROGRAMME

Senator DEVITT:
TASMANIA

– I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry. Is there a possibility of a comprehensive statement being made shortly on the dairy farm reconstruction programme for which funds have been voted by the Parliament? If it is not proposed to make a detailed statement on the situation, is it possible for the Senate to be advised of the stage which has now been reached in regard to the question?

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
Minister for Air · WESTERN AUSTRALIA · CP

-I do not know the answer to the honourable senator’s question. I shall certainly draw his request to the attention of the Minister for Primary Industry and discuss the matter with him.I will let the honourable senator have a reply as soon as possible.

page 91

QUESTION

VIETNAM

Senator POKE:
TASMANIA

– My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for the Army. Did the Saigon Government consult the Australian authorities before approving the establishment of an entertainment centre offering legalised prostitution at Vung Tau, the Australian forces rest and recreation resort? Has the Army placed any restriction on Australian soldiers patronising entertainment centres? If not, what provisions have been made for our troops to be protected by regular medical examinations? Also, have any objections been raised by the local Vietnamese people against a project which may have far-reaching effects on their daily lives?

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
CP

– The honourable senator’s question calls for considerable research work. I do not know the background. I ask him to put the question on notice so that I may take it up with the Minister.

page 91

QUESTION

RECEIPTS TAX

Senator LAUCKE:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I address a question to the Leader of the Government, who represents the Treasurer in this place. I refer to the receipts taxes collected by the States and the recent partial invalidation by the full High Court of this form of tax when levied by the States. It appears that those taxpayers who registered an objection to the tax when submitting their initial returns may qualify for remission of the tax paid to 18th November last. As thousands of law abiding citizens may be denied refunds merely on a technical point - a nonregistration of objection to the tax - will the Go-‘ vernment consider so assisting the States as to enable them to act uniformly with all taxpayers in the matter of possible refunds?

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– There is reference in the Governor-General’s Speech, which we are currently debating, to the Commonwealth’s interceding to assist -ho States in the collection of the receipts tax.

The honourable senator is asking the Commonwealth Government to intercede in relation to a time when the tax was within the responsibility of the States. I have an impression that this matter would be strictly within the sovereignty and responsibility of the States. As I understood the question, the honourable senator was suggesting that the Commonwealth should choose to accept some responsibility in relation to the tax for the period before the Commonwealth came into the situation. This follows, in substance, the question which I was asked on Tuesday and which I asked an honourable senator to put on notice. The question now asked by Senator Laucke relates to that earlier question and it also should go on notice so that a reply may be obtained from the Treasurer. However, it needs to be made quite clear that the Commonwealth’s responsibility is not applicable to what happened when the States imposed the tax, the legality of which has been affected, in part if not in whole, by the High Court ruling. Nevertheless, I shall .obtain a considered reply from the Treasurer.

page 92

QUESTION

OVERSEAS STUDENTS

Senator FITZGERALD:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– Can the Minister representing the Minister for Education and Science inform the Senate, or obtain for the Senate, the number of Colombo Plan and private overseas students in Australia? Can he tell us also what justifies the Australian Government’s bringing private students to this country when both universities and the governments in Singapore and Malaysia, whilst in support of Colombo Plan students, are not in support of the policy of private wealthy students coming here? Will the Government look further at this policy when so many thousands of our own students who hold the necessary qualifications are being refused entry to the universities, which have not the accommodation to admit them?

Senator WRIGHT:
Minister for Works · TASMANIA · LP

– I do not have at hand the statistics sought by the honourable senator. I shall ascertain them and inform him. I shall ask the Minister to consider the questions of policy to which the honourable senator has referred.

page 92

QUESTION

OIL POLLUTION

Senator MAUNSELL:
QUEENSLAND

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry. Are the chemical detergents intended for use to disperse the oil slick near Cape York Peninsula harmful in any way to marine life or the pearling industry?

Senator Keeffe:

– I asked this question yesterday and could not get an answer.

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
CP

– The honourable senator who is interjecting asked this question yesterday and at that time I could not give him a reply.

Senator Keeffe:

– It is in this morning’s Age’, anyway. So I do not need the reply.

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:

– I hope that the honourable senator will accept what I now state in reply to Senator Maunsell. I understand that the detergent used is manufactured by Esso. I have been advised by experts in the Department of Primary Industry that it is not harmful to marine life or to the pearling industry.

page 92

QUESTION

HEALTH

Senator MILLINER:
QUEENSLAND

– I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Health: Is it a fact that under the proposed Government health scheme a worker supporting a wife and earning $42.50 a week will receive full cover but a worker supporting a wife and 5 children and earning $48.76 a week will receive but two-thirds of the full cover? If such is the case, does it not appear to be a serious anomaly?

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:

– The honourable senator will, I am sure, have either read or listened to the very comprehensive statement made yesterday by the Minister for Health which covered the point that families with incomes above $42.50 but not exceeding $45.50 will pay one-third of the normal health insurance contributions for the new medical benefit coverage and for coverage against public ward hospital charges, and also the point that the honourable senator made that families in receipt of an income above $45.50 but not exceeding $48.50 will meet two-thirds of the usual contribution rate for this coverage. These are only some aspects of the very comprehensive and full health policy which the Government is putting forward following promises made in the policy speech. This matter, of course, will be debated very fully both when the Bills come into the Senate and also in the Address-in-Reply debate. During those debates the honourable senator will appreciate not only the very wide range of benefits but also,I believe, the very fine job that the Government will do in this field.

page 93

QUESTION

OIL POLLUTION

Senator YOUNG:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

-I direct to the Minis ter representing the Minister for Education and Science a question which follows upon one I asked yesterday. Has he any further information as to whether any scientific studies will be made of the effects of the oil slick caused by the holing of the ‘Oceanic Grandeur’ in Torres Strait?

Senator WRIGHT:
LP

– It will be understood that the control of this vessel is the responsibility of the Department of Shipping and Transport but the Minister for Education and Science has been in consultation with the Minister for Shipping and Transport with a view to ascertaining whether or not the experience could be made the subject of an investigation from the point of view of scientific research.I can inform the honourable senator that two scientists of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization are leaving today to visit the area and they will report upon the practicability of this proposal.

page 93

QUESTION

OIL POLLUTION

Senator GEORGES:
QUEENSLAND

– I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Shipping and Transport. In connection with the disaster to the oil tanker in Torres Strait, will the Minister carry out an investigation to see whether it is possible for oil tankers to use a route other than the channel inside the Great Barrier Reef?

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

-I will have that question directed to the Minister for Shipping and Transport and obtain an answer for the honourable senator.

page 93

QUESTION

WHEAT

Senator BUTTFIELD:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry. Is it a fact that high protein or hard wheat is very much in demand overseas? Is Australia able to supply all the hard wheat for which there is demand? Is there a quota imposed on hard wheat growers to the same degree as for growers of f.a.q. wheat? Are there any facilities at country receiving centres - namely, silos under the direct control of the Australian Wheat Board - for testing the protein content of incoming wheat? If not, how can hard wheat be distinguished from f.a.q. wheat? Is it possible that the two types are being blended? Will the Minister take urgent steps to have adequate facilities installed to encourage possible growers of hard wheat to grow enough high protein wheat to fulfil all obtainable overseas orders?

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
CP

– The demand for hard wheat is strong. I understand that in recent months Australia has lost one or two contracts because it has not been able to fulfil the hard wheat portion of the sale. The question asked by the honourable senator requires quite a deal of information which can be given only by the Minister for Primary Industry. Therefore I ask her to put her question on notice.

page 93

QUESTION

OIL POLLUTION

Senator MULVIHILL:
NEW SOUTH WALES

-I direct a question to the Minister representing the Attorney-General. Can we have an assurance that the entire clean up bill for the current Torres Strait oil disaster will be charged to Ampol Petroleum Pty Ltd?

Senator WRIGHT:
LP

– I am not in a position to give any such assurance, but the matter will be considered.

page 93

QUESTION

VIETNAM MORATORIUM

Senator GREEN WOOD:
QUEENSLAND

– My question is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. Is the Government aware of the purposes sought to be achieved by a so-called Vietnam moratorium being arranged for April of this year by numerous left wing groups in Australia? Is it true that the overall objective is to endeavour to weaken the resolution of the Australian Government and the Australian people in their determination that the Communist directed North Vietnamese and Vietcong aggression should not be seen to succeed in South Vietnam? Is it true also that some of the groups supporting the moratorium have expressly refused to say that the moratorium will be conducted without violence? If so, will the Government, take positive steps to inform and to keep informed the Parliament, the Press and the people of the real purposes of this moratorium and of the violent means and tactics which prior to the event some people are publicly indicating that they are not prepared to reject?

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

-I am aware, and the Government certainly is aware, of the proposed April moratorium. 1 do not think there is any doubt that the intention of those connected with the moratorium is to put a point of view which is in complete conflict with the Government’s point of view on Australia’s participation in and contribution to the defence of South Vietnam. In conjunction with other nations, notably the United States of America, we wish to ensure that the people of South Vietnam have the right to live under a system of democracy, with free elections and all the freedoms that we in this country particularly enjoy.

I am not informed as to whether or not certain dissident groups have indicated that they will demonstrate and will not give any assurance that the demonstration will be consistent with the laws of the land, but I can say that every self-respecting Australian citizen must deplore any proposal by which people will not conform with the laws of Australia. In any other language, such a course of action is straight out anarchy. Nobody in his right senses or with any sense of responsibility as a citizen could tolerate such a proposition.

page 94

QUESTION

CIVIL RIGHTS

Senator MURPHY:

– Will the Leader of the Government in the Senate state what action the Government has taken about the member of the Liberal Party who has made public statements, which have not been retracted, that he supports trampling upon the human rights of the people of Rhodesia and that he supports legislation which is anathema to democracy and freedom loving people all over the world? Is that person still in good standing in the Liberal Party of Australia? Is the Government opposed to the people of Australia showing, by peaceful demonstrations, their desire for a moratorium for an end to the war in Vietnam, which so many Australian people believe the Government should not have involved the nation in?

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– I shall deal with the last part of the Leader of the Opposition’s question first. Nothing I have said should be construed as meaning that there is any law in Australia against peaceful demonstrations. I think Hansard will confirm this in regard to my reply to the question asked by Senator Greenwood. I believe that the Leader of the Opposition is strictly out of order in casting reflections on a person in another place whom he has not named. The other day in reply to a question which was in much the same terms as the first part of the Leader of the Opposition’s question, I cautioned that there should be some restraint on the basis that it would be well to see in complete context what anybody says before making any judgment. That applies to honourable senators opposite.

page 94

QUESTION

THE SENATE

Senator KEEFFE:

– My question is directed to you, Mr President. Yesterday in this chamber I directed the following question to the Minister for Air:

Can the Minister inform the Parliament of the trade name of the detergent being used in the Torres Strait area? Can he state also whether the detergent so used has been scientifically proved to be less damaging to the pearl culture beds and other marine life than the oil itself?

The Minister replied that he did not have the information with him but that he would get it and let me have it as soon as possible. There has been a complete breach of ethics in this instance by the responsible Minister in that he waited until this morning for a member of the Australian Country Party to frame a question in almost identical terms before supplying the information. He was unable to give me an answer, but he was able to give an answer to a member of his own Party. Would you give a ruling on this, Mr President?

THE PRESIDENT- Much as I would like to control the nature of some questions asked from time to time, I have no responsibility other than to ensure that they comply with the Standing Orders. I am also unable to dictate the way in which Ministers shall reply.

Senator Cavanagh:

– The honourable senator asked whether it was unethical.

THE PRESIDENT- Is the honourable senator questioning what I have said?

Senator Cavanagh:

– No. I am asking you whether we can have an opinion on it.

THE PRESIDENT - If the honourable senator is questioning me he will find it difficult.

page 95

QUESTION

WHEAT

Senator CANT:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

-I direct a question without notice to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. Has the Australian Government agreed to meet representatives of the Canadian Government to discuss ways and means of overcoming the huge surplus of wheat in storage in the developed countries of the world? Do the governments intend to discuss means of destroying this surplus? Do many millions of people die of starvation each year in the underdeveloped countries? Will the Government give consideration to distributing the surplus to the starving nations of the world, thus saving human lives?

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– I am sure all honourable senators are aware that there is an International Grains Arrangement. No doubt the honourable senators question impinges upon aspects of that Arrangement. Therefore, I think the proper thing for me to do is to direct his question to the Minister for Trade and Industry and obtain a reply. Some of the aspects he has raised may go beyond the responsibility of the Minister for Trade and Industry and come within the responsibility of the Minister for External Affairs. If that is the case I shall ensure that his question is properly directed so that he will receive a comprehensive answer.

page 95

QUESTION

VIETNAM MORATORIUM

Senator GREENWOOD:
VICTORIA

– My question is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate and it follows upon a question I asked of him earlier. In view of the fact that the Australian Labor Party has publicly indicated that it should be seen to be in leadership of activities which are connected with the moratorium which is to be held in April, will he consult with the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate and ask the Prime Minister to consult with the Leader of the Opposition in the other place with a view to ensuring that such leadership as the Labor Party gives to this organisation will be leadership which expressly and publicly disowns the support of people who are indicating that they are not prepared to reject violence?

Senate ANDERSON- The responsibility of the Australian Labor Party rests clearly with its leadership and it will be for those leaders to make a judgment of whether they are prepared to associate themselves with people who are not willing to conform with the laws of the land. That is clearly a responsibility of the leadership of the Labor Party. I would be surprised and even appalled if the Australian Labor Party as an organisation lent its name to any body which flagrantly threatened to break the law. To do so would result in that Party being completely shamed in the eyes of the people of Australia. It is for the leadership of the Party to make the decisions and to face up to its responsibilities.

page 95

QUESTION

EXPORT OF MERINO RAMS

Senator McMANUS:
VICTORIA

– I address my ques tion to the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry. As a result of Cabinet’s decision to lift the ban on the export of merino rams, how many were sold at the recent sales? Which overseas countries bought them?

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

– BROCK MAN -I understand that about 392 merino rams were offered at the Sydney stud sheep sales on 5th February and that of that number 243 were sold. Of the number sold, 47 went to overseas buyers. I have made inquiries about the split-up of the sales of that group of 47. I understand that 10 went to Argentina, 10 to Brazil, 10 to China - that is mainland China.

Senator McManus:

– That is Communist China.

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
CP

– And 3 went to India. The senators who are interjecting apparently do not want to hear the answer. One merino ram was sold to Italy, 9 to Romania and 3 to South Africa.

page 95

QUESTION

LAOS

Senator LILLICO:
TASMANIA

– I direct my question to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. Is it not correct that there is in existence a treaty signed by North Vietnam not only guaranteeing the neutrality of Laos, but also agreeing to withdraw all North Vietnamese troops from that country? Who are the members of the commission, if there is one, that is charged with ensuring that the treaty is observed? What is the attitude of that commission regarding the unprovoked aggression of North Vietnam against Laos?

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– It would be very unwise for me at question time to give answers as to the details and obligations of treaties. Very properly, I will treat that part of the honourable senator’s question as being on notice. Yesterday, in answering a question about Laos, I drew attention to the situation as I saw it there on the basis of information given to me by the Department of External Affairs. I have no doubt in the world that a threat is being posed to Laos from the north at the moment and that this is a demonstration of the realities of the domino theory. I also believe that there can be no doubt that a threat to Laos is a threat to South Vietnam and to the free people of the South East Asian region, because it is a movement governed by the principles of the domino theory. As to the precise provisions of a particular treaty, I think it is proper for me to get a reply from the Department of External Affairs and table it in the Senate.

page 96

QUESTION

OFF-SHORE OIL EXPLORATION

Senator CANT:

– Is the Minister representing the Minister for National Development aware that an exploration well in the off-shore area of the Northern Territory has been blowing gas since 4th August 1969? Can the Minister say whether this well is still blowing gas? If it is, what measures are being taken to control the well? Can he give any indication of the amount of gas that has been lost as a result of this well not being controlled?

Senator COTTON:
LP

– I was aware personally of the occurrence. As I think the question calls for a detailed answer, I ask the honourable senator to put it on the notice paper.

page 96

QUESTION

WOOMERA

Senator BISHOP:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question, which is directed to the Minister for Supply, refers to the recent visit to Australia by Dr Paine, who is the Administrator of the United States National Aeronautics and Space Administration, and his published statement that Woomera may become a centre for a space shuttle service. I ask the Minister: When Dr Paine talked to Ministers and the senior heads of departments, did he indicate any positive arrangement which would result in Woomera becoming a sort of space agency? Secondly, will this arrangement, if it is adopted, involve the new AustraliaUnited States communication station, or will it involve some other technical section of the Woomera establishment?

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– It is true that Dr Paine, the Administrator of the NASA, was in Australia several weeks ago. I had a conference with him and he spoke also about the NASA programme to the heads of the various departments and other appropriate people. I think that it would be far more appropriate for me to make a considered statement on the programme because what might happen in deep space or outer space in the years ahead is a fascinating prospect.

Senator Bishop:

– What about communication stations?

Senator ANDERSON:

– It is true that the communication stations are within the Woomera complex, but they are isolated from the Woomera function. They would not be in any way linked to the broad NASA programme. But I should like to put some information down on paper because the question involves looking into the realities of the future, what will happen in deep space in the future and whether we will have a shuttle service. The old concept involved putting a vehicle into the air and its being expendable in outer space, and eventually putting a satellite on one of the planets or on the moon. This concept will be superseded by a form of shuttle service. In our lifetime, men may well be making 30 million-mile journeys into outer space which might last for approximately 9 months. They will travel in a series of vehicles and will transfer from one vehicle to another vehicle in outer space. It is a very wonderful and fascinating story, and is a very important one for Australia because we will play a role in it.

page 96

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN ARMY

Senator POYSER:
VICTORIA

– Has the Minister representing the Minister for the Army seen allegations published in the December issue of the publication entitled ‘Resist’ which state that conscripts at the Canungra training camp are told categorically that no prisoners are to be taken during action in Vietnam, that if the enemy are wounded the conscripts should shoot them, and that some conscripts at this camp have deliberately wounded themselves so that they may be discharged as being psychologically unfit? Has the Minister investigated these allegations? If so, what were the findings of the investigation?

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
CP

– I think the honourable senator will be well aware lhat no soldier in the Australian Army would be instructed to do that sort of thing. 1 have not seen the publication referred to. I will take the matter up with the Minister for the Army. I ask the honourable senator to place the question on the notice paper.

page 97

QUESTION

GOVERNMENTAL EXPENDITURE

Senator WEBSTER:
VICTORIA

– Has the Leader of the Government noted that in a number of financial reports of leading public companies and major trading banks emphasis has been placed upon the need for the Federal Government to demonstrate a greater interest in controlling the rate of growth of government expenditures and the rate of growth of the Public Service? Does the Government acknowledge that significant growth in both these areas leads to competition with private enterprise for manpower and material resources and so creates increased costs of production? Will the Government give consideration to a review in real terms of this growth and see that the demands of government in fact will fit more clearly into the wishes of private enterprise?

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– The honourable senator asks a series of questions that reflect on the fiscal policy of the Commonwealth and, indeed, of the States in their sovereignty. The argument about the impact of governmental growth and development is not new. It has gone on for as long as I can remember and has always been a matter for consideration. Perhaps this is a simple thing to say, but I suggest that no government goes into growth just for growth’s sake. If the Commonwealth has a project and it responds to the States under section 96, if you like, and gives them money for development, it does so because it believes that the development is in the best interests of the country and the people. So it is only a matter of priorities that the honourable senator is really arguing about. Normally we deal with the financial structure of the Commonwealth at

Budget time, and every government has regard to the governmental content of the economy whenever it forms a Budget. So all I can say to the honourable senator is that the factors he brings out are ones that are always before government and are before it with particular emphasis when Budgets are being considered.

page 97

QUESTION

PARLIAMENTARY REFRESHMENT ROOMS

Senator HENDRICKSON:
VICTORIA

– I have a question that I think I should ask you, Mr President. Is it a fact that in the staff refreshment rooms yesterday a number of female employees from the Hansard staff were refused service because the only vacant tables had signs upon them stating Reserved for Attendants’? Is it true that these tables remained vacant for a lengthy period while the Hansard employees waited to have their lunch? Did the Hansard employees in fact end up having no lunch at all because these tables were reserved? Can immediate action be taken to prevent a recurrence of this unfair situation?

The PRESIDENT:

– I will make immediate inquiries and find out what the position is.

page 97

QUESTION

HARRIER AIRCRAFT

Senator RAE:
TASMANIA

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for the Navy. Can the Minister indicate the stage that has been reached by the Navy in the evaluation of the British Harrier vertical take-off and landing aircraft? Is it correct that a Harrier will be brought to Australia this year for demonstration and further evaluation?

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
CP

– I cannot indicate what stage the Navy has reached in its evaluation of the Harrier aircraft; nor can I say whether one will be brought to Australia later this year. However, I can say to the honourable senator that my own Department has carried out an evaluation of this aircraft because it is the policy of my Department to evaluate all aircraft. I suggest that the honourable senator put his question on the notice paper.

page 97

QUESTION

TOURIST PUBLICITY

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

– Has the MinisterinCharge of Tourist Activities seen that rather magnificent and extraordinary film called ‘Open Boat to Adventure’, which was made by the Leyland Brothers of Newcastle? Will he confer with the Australian Tourist Commission to see whether it could purchase this film for showing in other countries? Will he, with your concurrence, Mr President, arrange for the benefit of those members of the Parliament who have not seen this rather amazing film - it is a film that every Australian should see - to have it shown in Parliament House?

Senator WRIGHT:
LP

– In answer to the honourable senator’s question, I wish to inform him that I have not seen the film but 1 am indebted to him for drawing it to my attention. His very interesting suggestion will be followed up with real interest.

Fill AIRCRAFT

Senator CAVANAGH:

– I ask the Minister for Air: Has the Government received a report recommending the cancellation of the contract for the Fill aircraft? If so, when might the Senate be informed of any Government decision after consideration of this report?

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
CP

– As I said yesterday, the Government has not received any recommendation for the cancellation of the aircraft. I said the Government had received information from the United Stales of America which warrants another look at the project as a whole. All aspects of the project will be looked at as a result of this information. I would emphasise at this stage that the Government has not received a firm proposal from the United States Air Force about the testing of our aircraft or about the impact which these tests will have on our scheduled delivery date.

page 98

QUESTION

SOVEREIGN RIGHTS

Senator MILLINER:

– I direct my question to the Leader of the Government who represents the Prime Minister. Has the Prime Minister ever conferred with the Queensland Premier on the proposal to introduce legislation to assert and establish what the Commonwealth conceives to be its legal rights in relation to resources from the low water mark to the outer limits of the continental shelf? If the answer is no, would it not have been more courteous to a sovereign State to have conferred on such proposals? If the answer is yes, will the Prime Minister make a Press statement giving the approximate time and place of such discussions and the precise nature of the information conveyed to the Premier of Queensland?

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– The AddressinReply debate which is before the Senate quite clearly covers the question of the Commonwealth moving to assert its sovereignty from the low water mark. This will establish a situation in which, if such sovereignty is under challenge, there will be a vehicle to attend to the matter. The Commonwealth is taking sovereignty and that, of course, establishes a positive situation, whereas before there was never a positive situation. I am not currently in a position to reply to the question of what degree of conference there was between the States and the Commonwealth. I will seek some information about that. I do know that down through history since Federation and, indeed, more currently during the last 2 or 3 years when significant things have been happening at sea in Australian waters quite a lot of discussion has taken place between the Commonwealth and the States, notably in relation to Queensland, concerning marine life, the problem of fisheries around the coast and the search for oil. I will obtain an answer for the honourable senator in relation to the degree of conference that has taken place.

page 98

QUESTION

DEFENCE PACTS

Senator MULVIHILL:

– I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for External Affairs. What is the attitude of the Australian Government to the new policy presented to the NATO defence Ministers at their meeting in Brussels on 3rd December which stated that in an emergency situation between the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and the Western powers nuclear weapons would be fired into Polish and Czechoslovakia airports and supply depots? Are the thousands of Australian citizens of Polish and Czech origin to regard their homelands and the inhabitants as cannon fodder for an exercise in nuclear roulette?

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– A meeting of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation Defence Planning Committee on 3rd December 1969 adopted general guidelines for the possible technical use of nuclear weapons in defence of the NATO Treaty area. These guidelines were based upon NATO’s policy of flexible response which was adopted by that organisation in December 1967. This policy represents a considerable modification of the previous strategy of massive retaliation in the event of attack. It means that all levels of aggression or threats of aggression from Warsaw Pact countries, which include Czechoslovakia and Poland, will be met with a flexible and balanced range of conventional and nuclear responses. These responses are designed to preserve peace and deter aggression and, if aggression occurs, to maintain the security of the countries of western Europe, Britain, Canada and the United States. Finally, the Australian Government is not a member of NATO and, consequently, does not participate in its decisions. Nevertheless, the Australian Government continues to give general support to the efforts of its allies and friends in NATO to preserve peace and security.

page 99

QUESTION

F15 AIRCRAFT

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– My question is directed to the Minister for Air. Is there any truth in reports that the Royal Australian Air Force has its eye on securing the F15 aircraft which is now being developed by the United States? Has the Minister received any information on this aircraft from his advisers? Have any submissions been put to him by his advisers about the prospective purchase of this type of aircraft by the Australian Government?

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
CP

– There is no truth in the report that we are to receive or are looking at the F15. My Department has not looked at this aircraft yet and has not made any evaluation of it.

page 99

QUESTION

ADELAIDE AIRPORT

Senator LAUCKE:

– I direct a question to the Minister for Works. Have any reports been received by the Department of Works which indicate that the air-conditioned installations at the Adelaide airport terminal building, particularly in the refreshment rooms, are falling short of maintaining the usual level of cool temperatures at peak traffic hours in hot and humid weather conditions? Will action be taken to overcome this inadequacy in an otherwise highly commendable building complex?

Senator WRIGHT:
LP

– It is within my knowledge that there has been some concern from time to time on days of peak heat in Adelaide about the temperatures prevailing in the airport terminal building. This matter has been considered. The honourable senator will know that due to the fewness of the days on which peak temperatures are reached in Adelaide it would not be in accordance with practice to install air conditioning in the areas of the airport to which the public has access. The installation of air conditioning in concessionaires’ areas where restaurants are conducted is a matter for them as part of their enterprise. Whether or not it is a proper amenity or facility to give to patrons of the business is a matter of business arrangement for the concessionaire at the airport. But in deference to the interest of the honourable senator I will ascertain whether or not any reports have been received - which is his specific question - and if there is any additional information to be given I will convey it to him.

page 99

QUESTION

GREAT BARRIER REEF

Senator LAWRIE:
QUEENSLAND · CP; NCP from May 1975

– I ask the Leader of the Government in the Senate a question in relation to the proposed legislation to assert and establish the legal rights of the Commonwealth over the continental shelf. Will this proposed legislation apply to the Great Barrier Reef, much of which is under water at all times?

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– I cannot anticipate the form and shape of the legislation and give categorical answers during question time. The legislation will come into this chamber very soon and I suggest that that is one aspect of it which will be revealed at that time.

Senator Murphy:

– If it does not we will move an amendment.

Senator ANDERSON:

– Every honourable senator has the right to express his view on what a Bill contains but it would be very bad practice for me to presume to anticipate the shape and form of proposed legislation.

page 99

QUESTION

DRIED VINE FRUITS

Senator POYSER:

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Prime Minister. Have any representations been made to the Prime Minister by the

Victorian Government, or by any organisation or from any other source, for Commonwealth financial assistance to compensate grape growers at Tresco in Victoria who had his season’s crop wiped out by a freak hail storm? If so, has any decision yet been reached?

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– The normal procedure if the matter is one of national calamity is that under certain conditions the Commonwealth will intercede when representations are made by the Premier of the State concerned. This is a guideline that we all know fairly well. I am not aware of any representations having been made butI will certainly seek information and make it available to the honourable senator.

page 100

QUESTION

OIL POLLUTION

Senator BISHOP:

-I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Shipping and Transport. In view of the now well established international hazards created by the operation of oil tankers, and the Minister’s own admission yesterday that it might be 2 or 3 years before effective legislation is introduced in respect of effective compensation, will he ask the Department of Shipping and Transport to consider the establishment of a special maritime unit consisting of mechanical and other devices which could be applied in instances such as that which occurred in Torres Strait so as to effect early repairs and prevent the discharge of oil, or otherwise control the oil so as to prevent pollution. The cost of such units could be negotiated between the operators of tankers using Australian waters.

Senator COTTON:
LP

– I thank the honourable senator for that question. I will direct it to the Minister for Shipping and Transport.

page 100

QUESTION

F111 AIRCRAFT

Senator CAVANAGH:

– I ask a question of the Minister for Air. Does the consideration of all aspects of the F111 contract being undertaken by the Government include the cancellation of the contract and the possibility of obtaining an alternative aircraft?

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
CP

– I have not said that the programme will be cancelled. Obviously, before any alternative aircraft could be considered, we would be required to make an evaluation of that aircraft.

Senator Cavanagh:

– Is the Government considering such a proposal?

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:

– I could not say. We do not have all the information yet. Until we obtain that information we cannot make any decision.

page 100

QUESTION

MAYNE NICKLESS LIMITED

Senator MULVIHILL:

– I direct a question to the Minister representing the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer review all contracts that the Commonwealth Bank has with Mayne Nickless Limited and suggest that this firm concentrate on its basic responsibility of protection and not harrass pedestrians who happen to be passing banks at a time when Mayne Nickless vans are transporting currency?

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– I would have thought that matters of transport, the control of traffic and the by-laws of a city or country area would be within the sovereignty of the States. The fact that we have Commonwealth undertakings in the States does not mean that we have laws relating to the control of traffic to suit ourselves. I believe that what goes on near a vehicle in front of a bank is hardly a matter for the national Parliament.

page 100

QUESTION

HUMAN RIGHTS

Senator MILLINER:

– My question is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. By what authority does the Government act in refusing an Australian passport to an Australian when such applicant has never been found guilty in law of any offence or offences against the laws of Australia? Could such a refusal be construed as a denial of the fundamental right that a man is deemed to be innocent until such time as he is proved guilty?

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– Obviously, the question is a legal one and should be directed to the Minister representing the Attorney-General who, I am sure, would ask that it be put on notice.

page 101

QUESTION

OIL POLLUTION

Senator KEEFFE:

– Is the Minister for Air aware that a spokesman for the Department of Shipping and Transport has admitted publicly that quantities of both Correxit and gamelin have been used to correct the oil spillage in Torres Strait? Is the Minister aware also that the second detergent is deadly in its effect on marine life? Will he now inform the Parliament as to the exact amount of gamelin used in the Torres Strait area?

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

– BROCKMAN - I intended to take the opportunity at the end of question time to give the trade name of the detergent used. Senator Keeffe asked this question yesterday. If he thinks that I was unfair in giving certain information in answer to a question asked earlier by an honourable senator on this side of the chamber, then I apologise for doing that. The trade name of the detergent used yesterday is the Esso-manufactured chemical called Correxit. I understand, from experts, that it is non-toxic.

page 101

QUESTION

THE SENATE

Senator KEEFFE:

– Mr President, I again direct a question to you. I accept the apology which has been given by the Minister for Air. I ask your ruling on something on which we had a difference of opinion this morning, Mr President. I refer to page 149 of the latest edition of ‘Australian Senate Practice’, which states:

When a Minister has given his official reply to a question on notice, he should not be asked for more information, except on further notice, but a question which has been fully replied to cannot be put on the notice paper a second time.

A senator cannot put without notice a question of similar purport to a question on the notice paper, nor ask without notice a question which has already been answered on notice.

The explanatory note states that an honourable senator is perfectly in order in asking without notice a question on a subject after another honourable senator on the same day has given notice of a question on the same subject. I ask that you give a ruling on this, Sir, so that Ministers will not be misled in the future.

The PRESIDENT:

– It is a rather complicated matter on which to give an immediate ruling, but I would ask honourable senators to conform reasonably with the requirements of the Standing Orders insofar as the asking of questions is concerned. I draw the attention of honourable senators to the fact that most of the questions asked in the Senate are long, unwieldy and not to the point. 1 say that in passing as far as you are concerned, Senator Keeffe. When an honourable senator stands up in his place and asks a question how am I to know what he is going to ask. I cannot go through all the papers and see if the question has been asked before and so on. Generally speaking, all I ask is for honourable senators to use their own common sense in regard to the nature of the questions they ask. I cannot be expected to know exactly what questions have been asked. I am sure that if honourable senators show a little patience Ministers will, in turn, be equally patient.

page 101

QUESTION

CRIMES ACT

Senator CAVANAGH:

– I desire to ask a question of the Minister representing the Attorney-General. Has the Attorney-General examined the remarks of the honourable member for Boothby to ascertain whether his public support of an illegal government is in breach of the Crimes Act?

Senator WRIGHT:
LP

– I do not think it would have occurred to the AttorneyGeneral that he was under any necessity to examine the remarks which have been referred to.

page 101

QUESTION

IMMIGRATION

Ministerial Statement

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:
Minister for Housing · Queensland · LP

[12.5] - For the information of honourable senators I present the Agreement between the Government of the Commonwealth of Australia and the Government of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia on the residence and employment of Yugoslav citizens in this country. I ask for leave to make a statement in connection with the Agreement.

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

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:

– I wish to inform the Senate that a formal agreement has been completed between the Government of Australia and the Government of the Socialist Federal Republic of

Yugoslavia on the residence and employment of Yugoslav citizens in this country. The agreement was signed in Canberra on the 12th February by Mr Anton Polajnar President of the Federal Council of Labour of the Federal Executive Council of Yugoslavia, on behalf of the Yugoslav Government and by my colleague the Minister for Immigration (Mr Lynch) on behalf of the Australian Government. The Agreement will enter into force when the Australian Government has been notified by the Yugoslav Government that the requirements of that Government’s legislation for the implementation of the agreement have been fulfilled and the Australian Government acknowledges receipt of such notification. My colleague the Minister for Immigration has been assured by the Yugoslav delegation that these formalities will be put in hand immediately and that migration under the agreement should commence shortly thereafter. The agreement will continue in force unless either Government shall have received notice from the other Government of its desire to terminate the agreement, in which case 180 days after such notification by either Government the agreement shall no longer have force.

Cabinet approved the opening of discussions with the Government of Yugoslavia in 1967. Preliminary discussions leading up to the agreement were held in Canberra and Belgrade between representatives of the two governments, including a thorough discussion on main principles by my colleague, the Minister for Labour and National Service (Mr Snedden), when as Minister for Immigration, he visited Belgrade in December 1968. In November 1969 a Yugoslav delegation visited Australia for detailed negotiations with an Australian delegation. The Australian delegation comprised representatives of the Department of Immigration, Department of External Affairs, Attorney-General’s Department, Department of Labour and National Service and the Department of Social Services. The advise of the Department of Treasury, Department of Health and Department of Education and Science was also taken by the Australian delegation. In accordance with the usual practice on agreements affecting immigration the text of the Agreement was referred to all six State governments and each signified that it had no objection to the signature of the agreement as proposed.

Finally, of course, the agreement was approved by the Governor-General in Council.

Yugoslav migrants are no strangers to us. There has been a long history of succesful Yugoslav settlement in Australia since the early part of the century. In the 1920s there was a substantial inflow, mainly to Western Australia. Over recent years migration from Yugoslavia has steadily increased - last year nearly 13,000 Yugoslavs settled in Australia. They are now a major element in the migration programme, ranking third after Great Britain and Italy. Yugoslavia represents an area from which suitable migrants can be obtained in great numbers. Many are skilled workers and they are a particularly important source of highly trained metal workers who have little difficulty in fitting into the local industrial situation.

There are now more than 100,000 Yugoslavs in Australia to which must be added their Australian born children. They have proved themselves to be excellent settlers, industrious, well-qualified in their occupations and, except for a very small fractional minority, have been very law abiding. Between 1945 and 1969 nearly 46.000 Yugoslavs then eligible to apply for citizen.This represents approximately 74% of the Yugoslavs then elgible to apply for citizenship. Yugoslavs are now working in a wide variety of jobs throughout Australia, notably in the steel and motor industries, on development schemes, in the brown coal industry of the Latrobe Valley and in the Queensland canefields

The agreement which I table today formalises migration from Yugoslavia and places it on a stable and continuing basis. No actual numbers have been specified in the Agreement but provision exists in the procedural arrangements associated with it for the Yugoslav Government to be informed annually of Australia’s requirements. The aim will be to maintain a reasonable balance between skilled, semi-skilled and unskilled. Under the terms of Article 22 of the Agreement assisted passages to Australia will now be available to selected migrants from Yugoslavia. Persons 19 years of age and over will contribute 8A25 towards the cost of their transport to Australia; the balance of the fare will be met by the Australian

Government. Persons under 19 years of age will not be required to make any personal contribution towards their travel. This places Yugoslav assisted migrants on the same basis as migrants from all other countries. The extension of assisted passages to residents of Yugoslavia will place migration to Australia within the financial reach of a larger section of people. It will facilitate family reunion as, in the past, for financial reasons, some Yugoslavs preceded their families here. It will avoid the social consequences of separated families in future migration and, by easing the financial strain of migration, will strengthen and speed successful settlement in Australia.

The Agreement which honourable senators have before them describes the facilities for settlement of Yugoslav citizens. It records the rights they enjoy and the obligations they undertake in common with Australian citizens and other migrants. It affirms their eligibility for social service benefits and to share in official accommodation and housing schemes. It provides also for advice to Yugoslav migrants on the acceptance of vocational qualifications in Australia and records that the Australian Government will endeavour to advance the acceptance of Yugoslav qualifications within the framework of Australian laws, regulations and practices. As in other migration agreements the rights of Yugoslav settlers as residents and as workers are set out. Australia undertakes to extend to Yugoslav workers and their families the facilities available in Australia for migrants to learn English.

The procedural arrangements agreed upon between the two governments in pursuance of article 22 of the Agreement provide that the Australian Government will select migrants for Australia in accordance with its requirements. It has always been basic to Australia’s post-war immigration policy that the right to determine who may be admitted to Australia for permanent settlement rests with Australia. In this Agreement the procedural arrangements preserve this right. The selection procedures will provide for an assessment by Australian officers of the general suitability, health, character and the potential of the individual to conform to Australia’s concepts of political and social behaviour.

As with all countries from which migrants are taken, Yugoslavia has a legitimate and reasonable interest in the number and occupational categories of those moving to immigration countries. To safeguard this interest the Government of Yugoslavia, again in common with other governments with which we have migration agreements, requires a co-operative part in the actual processes of emigration and in the decision whether a person may be accepted. The final decision on whether a migrant is to be accepted for Australia will however rest with the Australian Government. This bilateral approach to selection is not exclusive to Yugoslav migration. In one form or another it exists in all countries with which we deal; even in Britain the Government can insist on joint approval of persons receiving assisted passages.

There has been some public comment about the implications of article 20 of the agreement, which deals with a Yugoslav settler’s liability for military service in Australia. The position is that Yugoslavs, like all persons ordinarily resident in Australia, whether British or of any other nationality, are required to register for national service in the same way as are Australians. However, in accordance with section 35a of the National Service Act 1951-68, men who have rendered continuous full-time service in the permanent forces of Australia or in the naval, military or air force of a country other than Australia are granted recognition of such service in determining their national service liability. The new Agreement merely gives expression to this provision of the National Service Act. It provides no preferential status for Yugoslavs. This is not unique to the Yugoslav Agreement, and in any event the benefits of this provision of the National Service Act are applicable to migrants from all countries irrespective of a migration agreement. This is the first migration agreement signed with a Communist government.

As I have said, migration from Yugoslavia has been a fact for many years. Through it we have benefited greatly by an infusion of migrants of excellent personal quality who are sought after by employers because of their industry and aptitudes. This Agreement is intended to confirm Yugoslavia as a continuing source of such migrants in the future. Australia’s increasing need for a young, virile, adaptable and skilled work force requires that we look beyond the more traditional sources, some of which are providing fewer settlers than formerly.

There are differences in the basic concepts of government between the two contracting parties. The migration agreement just signed does not alter this fact though it is an illustration that these differences need not affect useful co-operation in various fields. It is both rational and civilised that an important association between countries which results in the movement of people from one to the other should be dignified by a formal agreement.

Senator MURPHY:
New South WalesLeader of the Opposition

– by leave - It was unfortunate that we were not supplied with a copy of the statement that was to be made by Senator Dame Annabelle Rankin prior to her asking for leave to make it. We would request that that be done in future; that the leaders of the parties and the independent senator - and other senators, if it can be done - be supplied with copies of the statement to be made a sufficient time before it is made to enable it to be perused so that some statement may be made on behalf of the respective parties if. that is thought fit. On days when the proceedings of the Senate were not being broadcast it might also serve the purpose of enabling the statement to be incorporated in Hansard because everyone would have had an opportunity to see what was in it, and so time would be saved.

We welcome this agreement. For my part, I would like the Government to consider again . the question of the professional qualifications of migrants. I know that some consideration has been given to the question of Commonwealth legislation on the matter, but ] believe that some good purpose might be served by a thorough examination of. the possibilities of legislating, pursuant to agreements between this country and others, under the external affairs power to enable the professional qualifications of migrants - in that I include trade qualifications - to be more readily utilised in this country.

Only several months ago - I think it was during the great vacation - the Prime Minister (Mr Gorton) spoke of an outstanding migrant, Dr Doxiadis, who is probably one of the most notable architects and city and regional planners in the world and who has been responsible for the replanning of some of the great cities of the United States as well as conducting universities in Athens. This man came to Australia some time in the early 1950s and was unable to utilise his qualifications. He had to become an orchardist or tomato planter, I think. Eventually he had to leave Australia. He came back again some years later and again was unable to utilise his qualifications. The dreadful thing is that the Prime Minister said that he hoped that this would not happen if a similar situation arose or even if the same man came back again, but even he could nol be sure of that. That calls for inquiry.

Senator Little:

– It happens very often in regard to trade qualifications, too.

Senator MURPHY:

– Yes. 1 am of the view that perhaps more could bc done. The Commonwealth has its external affairs power and there are other powers that could bc utilised. I believe that more leadership should be undertaken by the Commonwealth in regard to enlisting the cooperation of the States, because after all it is the Commonwealth that brings these people here. Subject to that, we welcome this initiative on the part of the Government and we thank Senator Dame Annabelle Rankin for bringing the statement on the agreement into the Senate.

Senator Byrne:

– Has the matter of an exchange of trade qualifications ever been raised in the International Labour Organisation?

Senator MURPHY:

– I am unable to tell the honourable senator. There is a collection of I.LO documents in the Library. The answer to the honourable senator’s question may appear from them, but 1 am unable to tell him. I see that Senator Bishop is shaking his head, suggesting that the answer is no. But I am unable to give Senator Byrne an answer to his question.

Senator DAVIDSON (South Australia)by leave - 1 wish to comment briefly on the matter the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Murphy) has raised concerning the recognition of the professional qualifications and trade abilities of migrants. Speaking in my capacity of Chairman of the Commonwealth Immigration Advisory Council, I would like to say - 1 am sure that the Leader of the Opposition knows this - that the Department of Immigration has set up a committee of considerable ability to go into the whole matter of the recognition of professional qualifications and trade abilities. The Leader of the Opposition and other honourable senators will recognise that a matter of this kind is fraught with a great many difficulties and complications, not the least of which relates to communication and language problems.

Speaking recently at the Australian Citizenship Convention, the Minister for Immigration (Mr Lynch) pointed out that the committee set up by the Government has already made considerable progress. It has had extended negotiations and conversations with professional and trade organisations at both the Commonwealth and the State levels and has conferred with the Minister and other relevant people and bodies. Whether it is in a position to make any statement or report or is drawing near to the presentation of a report, I am unable to say. But I believe that it should be indicated that the Government is aware of the very difficult problem that the Leader of the Opposition has raised and has taken these steps to have the matter continually before it, to go into it as fully as it can, to remain as flexible as possible and to seek the co-operation of the professional and trade groups in this country so that the maximum use may be made of the skills and professional qualifications that the migrant community brings to us.

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

– by leave - First of all I wish to make it clear that in relation to making a copy of the statement available to the leaders of parties perhaps I was remiss in not speaking to Senator Dame Annabelle Rankin about that. This is something that is evolving at the present time. Yesterday, for instance, I did contact Senator Wright and indicate to him that it would be appropriate, if it was possible, to make copies of statements available to the leaders of parties. That practice will be followed in the future. All Ministers will do that, where possible. Of course, it is not -always possible, because we act for other Ministers. But, to the best of our ability, we will do that.

The second point I wish to make is that Senator Murphy exercised his right. as. a leader, in the first place, and also as a senator to speak on the statement. Naturally, what he has said has excited the interest of other senators who wish to speak on it. I just wonder whether we could have a look at this procedure. If we do not do so we may have a situation in which we will be debating statements without having provided for it in our planning for the day. In this case Senator Murphy did not say anything that would provoke a long debate, but we could easily have a situation in which we could debate a statement all day.

I would like to confer with leaders of parties on whether we should not have a system under which the Minister, when he presents a statement, or somebody else moves that the Senate take note of it so that wc can have a set debate at a time of our own choosing when everybody has been alerted to it. Without such a procedure, it may happen that an honourable senator who wants to speak on such a matter, thinking that there will be a debate when the paper is tabled, misses an opportunity. For that reason I make the point that I would like to talk with Senator Murphy, perhaps with his deputy, Senator Willesee and, indeed, with the Acting Leader of the Democratic Labor Party, Senator McManus, about whether or not the Senate should consider formulating some suitable procedure for the handling of these statements.

Senator McMANUS:
Victoria

– by leave - Mr Deputy President, I merely wish to say that this Agreement on the residence and employment of Yugoslav citizens in Australia has not been received with universal approval in Australia. I have received representations from a number of Australian citizens who have expressed concern, because of the nature of the Government of Yugoslavia, as to whether this Agreement will be operated in such a way that the right to exit will depend upon all the considerations that Australia would want it to depend on rather than upon political considerations. Most people who know of the situation in Yugoslavia know that there has been a reversion there in recent months to what may be termed a ‘hard line’ in the Government. I have received information about the activities of the new Prime Minister which does not inspire a great deal of confidence in me. I will not say what I have heard because I have not checked the information and lt would be unfair of me to make allegations unless I hud the evidence to prove them. But I do say that there are citizens in this country who would like to feel assured that the right to leave Yugoslavia will not depend upon a person’s political orthodoxy in the view of the present Government. I think all Australians know that it has been very difficult for people to leave Yugoslavia and come to this country.

I have had a number of cases - as other honourable senators may have - where people have come to Australia by deserting Yugoslavian ships. Honourable senators know that an agreement has now been made under which it is hoped a number of Yugoslavians will come here. I think there has been a certain amount of political surveillance in regard to one or two other countries, and if this agreement were similar to those which we have with most other countries where the right to leave the country would depend upon all the considerations which Australia would hope to apply, then everybody would be for it. But there is an uneasy feeling among a lot of Australians that it may depend upon political orthodoxy and allegience to the present Government. I hope to discuss this situation with the Minister for Immigration (Mr Lynch) and I hope to be reassured by him that the fears which these people have expressed to me may not be justified. I hope the Minister will be able to give me those assurances.

Senator MULVIHILL:
New South Wales

– by leave - J join with my leader in welcoming this Agreement on the residence and employment of Yugoslav citizens in Australia. I am not unmindful of some of the problems to which Senator McManus refers, through my experience at trade union level. Discussions are to take place between Bob Hawke, President of the Australian Council of Trade Unions, and the Yugoslav Ambassador in Canberra, in an effort to bridge some of these difficulties, lt is more than possible that when Mr Hawke attends the International Labour Organisation Conference this year he will be able to visit the Yugoslav trade unions leaders. Mr Hawke will not be the first representative of the trade union movement to visit overseas trade unions. Quite a number of Sydney trade union officials have done so. In naming several of them it is not my wish to cause disputation. I have in mind men who could be defined as middle-of-the-road trade union officials like organiser Shorthall of the Electrical Trades Union and Peter McMahon, State Secretary of the New South Wales Branch of the Municipal and Shire Council Employees Union. Each of these men have spent several months in excursions into Yugoslavia. Their attempts to generate understanding will pay dividends.

I commend the Government upon this immigration agreement. It is the first of this nature which has been entered into with an Eastern European country. Those of us who believe that a thaw is occurring in the situation caused by ideological differences are very pleased to see this agreement. Of course, the agreement imposes a responsibility upon us as Senator Dame Annabelle Rankin, who represents the Minister for immigration (Mr Lynch) in this chamber, well realises. Reports of the last week or so have indicated that interest in this matter in Australia has been galvanised. At the moment there is a back-log of about 8,000 applications for entry to this country. After all, we are dealing in immigration matters with people, and the sooner we can re-unite families the better it will be. I think Senator McManus is familiar with a case of migrants who wrote to me from Box Hill in Victoria. One of the real implications of the agreement is that we should direct our efforts to attract migrants from beyond the central area of Belgrade, from the republics of Slovenia and Croatia. 1 think I am aware of the reports to which Senator McManus referred with some misgivings.

The differences of opinion between Yugoslav groups of migrants have been reduced in some areas. It might be beneficial to get across to some sections of the Slav community that if group A is meeting in a community hall and group B is meeting somewhere else both groups should be able freely to assemble without impeding each other’s proceedings. Some of the unfortunate incidents which have occurred - I am talking of Sydney in this respect - have arisen from the activities of people who are politically located well to the right of centre. The basis of that statement is information I have received from people like Father Jilenko, the Slovenik chaplain in Sydney, and other people who want such vendettas to end. There I am not .taking a sectarian attitude. Honourable senators are aware of my beliefs and I do not think I could fairly be accused of being involved in a direct Course of antagonism. It is my belief that the provocation has come from a minority of Croats. A majority of them wish to live here peacefully, and as trade unionists we welcome them. No-one can learn very much by looking back at early post-war antagonism, whether it be here or in Europe. Probably all members of Parliament have received all sorts of representations from some people who are antagonistic to almost every Eastern European Government, even to the Soviet Union. People come to Labor members and say: ‘Look. We do not like the Government. But will you act as a bridge for us in order to effect a reconciliation with these people?’ We have endeavoured to help them without playing politics.

The bulk of the people of Yugoslavia - I refer particularly to the Slavonic and Croatian - have middle-of-the-road views. These people recognise as a fact of life that it was good enough for Pope John and the Vatican to reach certain agreements with the Tito Government. I do not think any Australian Government which tries to reach agreement -with the Yugoslavian Government could fairly be criticised as acting as a lackey for the left wing. I do not say that in an offensive spirit. I rather feel that the Minister for Immigration and other people should show a greater sophistication towards this problem. The Labor Party welcomes this agreement. In the early twenties a lot of Yugoslavians worked very hard at Broken Hill and were early victims of silicosis. The present generation does not want incidents like the Resic episode regarded as a stigma on them. An interesting point is that the recent fracas in Canberra was not between left wing and right wing. It concerned two of the extreme right wings which abhorred the Yugoslav Government, but this did not stop one group putting a bomb beneath Mihailovic’s statue. A left wing group did not do that. It was one far right wing group getting even with another. Australians do not want that sort of trouble. But do not put this on a basis of left versus right. It is not on that basis at all. I had a pleasing case drawn to my attention not very long ago where a third generation Australian of Yugoslav origin returned to Yugoslavia and was married. She had a child and the first thing she did when the child was born was to go to the Australian Embassy and make sure that that child received Australian citizenship. To me, that is the highest degree of tribute by a woman to her adopted land. I welcome it. I commend the Government on the agreement. I hope all trade unionists and people of all political persuasions will endeavour to thaw out any political differences and hold out the hand of friendship to these newcomers.

Senator GEORGES:
Queesnsland

– by leave - I welcome this agreement on the residence and employment of Yugoslav citizens in Australia. It indicates a new political awareness on the part of the Government which may flow into another area which is of great interest to migrants in Australia - «he area of naturalisation. I hope that this Agreement is an indication that from now on the Government will not use the political opinions or activities of migrants as a basis for refusal of naturalisation, as this has led to considerable intimidation of migrant communities throughout Australia. I trust that there will be no further imposition of what we have become used to as the approach of the Government.

I hope that the former approach will not be applied to migrants who come from Yugoslavia, the first Communist country with which we have reached such an agreement, as any attempt to screen prospective migrants from that country on the basis of whether they are pro-Communist or antiCommunist would place them in an extremely difficult situation. There is no doubt that we will get a considerable number of people whose political opinions or activities will be concerned with policies of the left, but I trust that the Government will not impose upon them the same penalties in connection with naturalisation that have been imposed upon the people who have lived in Australia for 19 years and who, because of activities with left wing parties or involving left wing policies, have been refused naturalisation. 1 hope never again to meet the situation that I found in Darwin where a youngster said: ‘Yesterday I was naturalised; today I can speak my mind.’ Surely we can accept people of all political beliefs and religious- faiths as citizens of this country without any prejudice whatever.

page 108

SESSIONAL ORDERS

Debate resumed from 4 March (vide page 55), on motion by Senator Anderson:

That the following motions be agreed to:

Days and Hours of Meeting

That the days of meeting of the Senate, unless otherwise ordered, be Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday of each week; and that the hour of meeting, unless otherwise ordered, be Three o’clock in the afternoon of Tuesday and Wednesday, and Eleven o’clock in the forenoon of Thursday.

Government and General Business

That, on all sitting days of the Senate during the present Session, unless otherwise ordered, Government Business shall take precedence of all other business on the Notice Paper, except Questions and Forma] Motions, and except that General Business rake precedence of Government Business on Thursdays, after eight p.m.; and that, unless otherwise ordered, General Orders of the Day take precedence of General Notices of Motion on alternate Thursdays.

Suspension of Sittings

That, during the present Session, unless otherwise ordered, the sittings of the Senate, or of a Committee of the Whole Senate, be suspended from12.45 p.m. until 2.15 p.m., and from 6 p.m. until 8 p.m.

Hour of Adjournment

That, during the present Session, unless otherwise ordered, at 10.30 p.m. on days upon which proceedings of the Senate are not being broadcast, and at 11 p.m. on days when such proceedings are being broadcast, the President shall put the Question - That the Senate do now adjourn - which Question shall be open to debate; if the Senate be in Committee at that hour,the Chairman shall in like manner put the Question - That he do leave the Chair and report to the Senate; and upon such report being made the President shall forthwith put the Question - That the Senate do now adjourn - which Question shall be open to debate: Provided that if the Senate or the Committee be in Division at the time named, the President or the Chairman shall not put the Question referredto until the result of such Division has been declared; and if the Business under discussion shall not have been disposed of at such adjournment it shall appear on the Notice Paper for the next sitting day.

Senator ANDERSON:
Minister for Supply · NSW · LP

– by leave - In order to lay the ground for this debate 1 remind the Senate that yesterday we had a discussion of sessional orders. From the discussion emerged views that were held by the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Murphy), Senator Willesee, who also made a contribution, and Senator McManus. It was agreed that the matter should stand over until today. In the intervening period I have had an opportunity to talk about sessional orders in my conclave of senators and I have an idea that the Leader of the Opposition also has discussed them in his conclave. I am referring particularly to items 1, 2, 3, and 4 on the business paper. Also I have had the advantage of hearing the proposal mentioned by Senator Willesee yesterday during the debate.

I suggest that we need to have sessional orders for the management of the business of the Senate. Therefore, I propose to move the four sessional orders as they are set out on the business paper. In doing soI give an assurance, which I want to be quite clear, that I shall take this matter up within the Government parties and have discussions, not only with honourable senators but also with members of another place, to see whether there are views that could possibly alter the resolutions that I propose to move. It occurs to me that the Opposition parties also would want to have discussions beyond the perimeter of their Senate responsibilities. I make it abundantly clear that whilst I move a resolution relating to the sessional orders, it should not be understood in any way that I am not nor is the Government dogmatic about their remaining as the sessional orders. The Senate is master of its own destiny.I would not frustrate any resolution or series of resolutions which may come forward during this session and which may purport to alter the sessional orders.

The adoption of the sessional orders now proposed would merely give us a modus operandi for the time being and would permit further discussion if there were a feeling among honourable senators that the sessional orders should be varied. To be completely frank about it, 1 feel bound to say that in the conclave of my Senateparty this morning the general body of opinion-: it was not unanimous - was that the sitting times that we have adopted have proved to be the most likely to succeed; but there are other views. There could be a multiplicity of variations to the times proposed. It might be suggested that it would be better to sit for 8 days within 2 weeks and then have 1 week off. Perhaps other variations will be suggested. We cannot resolve that matter today. My suggestion is that we adopt the proposed sessional orders for the lime being. I give the assurance that if it emerges that the sessional orders should be varied we will bring the matter on again for debate.

Senator MURPHY:
Leader of the Opposition · NSW

– by leave - I have heard what has been said by the Leader of the Government (Senator Anderson) and there seems to be some sense in what he has said. What concerns me and other members of the Opposition is that we do not want the matter to slide into a pattern which leaves us back where we were. I know that the motion contains the words ‘unless otherwise ordered’ and that the Minister has said this is to be a temporary arrangement, but we would like the matter to be cleared up.

Senator Anderson:

– Perhaps with interparty discussions?

Senator MURPHY:

– Yes. Perhaps we could have the understanding that these arrangements will continue until Easter, which would give us another couple of weeks, after which we will have a break. We could then look at the matter again and perhaps reconsider the situation.In that way we will avoid problems about who should move for a change of sessional orders. I suggest that it would be reasonable to agree to a start from scratch after Easter. I put this suggestion on the basis that what is proposed by the Minister is a temporary arrangement for the next couple of weeks; after which we will have a break of 2 weeks and then reconsider the matter.

Senator Anderson:

– We adopt this without prejudice?

Senator MURPHY:

– Yes, without prejudice.I think it would be a reasonable sort of arrangement to adopt these times for the next couple of weeks, without prejudice. I have not discussed this with my colleagues, but 1 think they would probably agree to this course. The Leader of the Government having said that it is without prejudice, we shall not offer any opposition to the proposals. So that the matter may be considered fully, may 1 say, having listened to what was said yesterday, that the view that we are proceeding on is that in principle and unless otherwise ordered the days of meeting of the Senate shall be on the basis of 4 days in each week of sitting, so arranged as to provide for more sitting hours over a period than in previous practice. In any event, there would be more sitting hours in each week, but also there would be more sitting hours over the period, even if there are more breaks.

Senator Anderson:

– Perhaps we should not open up the substantive matter at this stage.

Senator MURPHY:

– I wanted to mention this because it is a variation of what I stated yesterday. It is also our object to avoid undue travelling for the purpose of parliamentary sittings.

Senator Anderson:

– We can have an exchange of letters on this.

Senator MURPHY:

– Yes. It seems to me that we could achieve this object in a 4-day week rather than a 5-day week which some honourable senators seem to find a bit drastic. I might, perhaps, have a little more energy than they have butI might be kidding myself. I may have been unduly optimistic in putting that proposal. I am prepared to assent to the general view that we have a 4-day week. The other point which honourable senators may like to consider is that the Australian Labor Parry would like to have more day sitting of the Senate and less night sitting. There would be no problems about broadcasting the Senate proceedings because on the extra days we would have broadcasting time. The Opposition does not oppose the motion.

Senator McMANUS:
Victoria

– My remarks on this matter will be very brief. The Australian Democratic Labor Party is completely in accord with the principle of a 4-day week. We are very attracted by the proposal put forward by Senator Willesee and unless anybody can show us some traps that is the way in which our opinions go. The DLP is conscious of the fact that it is different from the other political parties in that our party is represented only in this chamber while the other parlies are represented in both chambers. It is only natural that the other parties may wish to consult with all of those who may be affected by this arrangement. Therefore, I think it is a very wise suggestion that this matter should be allowedto run on and in the meantime be canvassed by the other parties. As I said before, we make it quite clear that the DLP is prepared to vote for a 4-day sitting, but we feel that we ought to allow the other parties to canvass amongstthemselves.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Sitting suspended from 12.48 to 2.15 p.m.

page 110

QUESTION

GOVERNOR-GENERAL’S SPEECH

Address-in-Reply

Debate resumed from 4 March (vide page 90), on motion by Senator Rae:

That the following Address-in-Reply to the Speech of His Excellency the Governor-General be agreed to:

May it Please Your Excellency:

We, the Senate of the Commonwealth of Australia in Parliament assembled, desire to express our loyalty to our Most Gracious Sovereign, and to thank your Excellency for the Speech which you have been pleased to address to Parliament.

Upon which Senator McManus had moved by way of amendment:

That the following words be added to the Address-in-Reply, viz.: but the Senate deplores the failure of the Government to include in its programme -

an adequate statement on Australian Foreign Policy;

a comprehensive programme to rehabilitate Primary Industry;

a plan mutually acceptable to the Commonwealth and the States for the equitable distribution of national revenue;

adequate measures to promote family life, particularly in the fields of child endowment, maternity allowances and education; and

provision for a contributory National

Insurance plan’.

Senator WEBSTER:
Victoria

– It is with a deal of pleasure that in this year of 1970I have the opportunity to speak during the Address-in-Reply debate. I express my loyalty to the Governor-General. I was delighted to read, in the text of his Speech, of the intending visit of Her Majesty the Queen. Long may she reign over Britain and long may she have an influence over Australia. The influence of the British Commonwealth has been of great benefit to Australia. It is my wish that, we, as a country within the Commonwealth of Nations, should continue under the influence of Her Majesty. I congratulate Senator Donald Cameron on his maiden speech. I congratulate him on attaining the high position which he now holds. Following his speech I feel confident that he will reflect credit on himself and on the Party which he represents. Listening to the Governor-General’s Speech gave me considerable pleasure. In my years here I have not heard a more comprehensive programme laid down by any previous government. Whatever the criticisms of the Government or of its intended programme may be, surely one must agree that the Governor-General’s Speech covered a great number of points in which we, as senators and members of the Federal Parliament, may take full interest. We may seek to amend, to expand or to endorse the various policies which were enunciated.

Apparently some critics have said that the period of time since Parliament last met was too long. I, for one, seek to congratulate the members of the Cabinet and the departmental officers upon the very wide scope of discussion which they have provided in the Speech we are now discussing. We have reason to believe that during the recess the Ministers have been extremely busy. I endorse the statement that no more comprehensive programme than this has been laid before a parliament. The manner in which Bills have flowed into the other place in 2 days of sitting represents quite a change from the experience of past years. I congratulate the Government upon its action. Of all the important issues which are raised in the Governor-General’s Speech probably the keynote for us all, irrespective of which Party we represent, is the fervent wish that we keep Australia safe and free. It is very difficult for a nation such as ours, with a population which is a great deal less than that of many nations in our area, to seek to integrate with the countries of South East Asia, to have an influence on those countries as to the way in which they should progress and to attempt to exert an influence for good in the area - whether it be an attempt at raising living standards, at encouraging the development of the country, at encouraging the stability of the government or at dissuading subversion which, in our area of the world, is one of the problems which we have faced since the Second World War. In my view, we will continue to face this problem during the ensuing years. Australia supposedly has an extremely high living standard by world levels. It is the Government’s responsibility to see that this is maintained.

Probably our attitude to defence basically spells out the difference between the two major political factions in this place. The

Party which I represent and the other Government party believe that it is necessary for this country to demonstrate an interest in and to play a part in preserving peace in our area. Members of the Opposition have expressed - I believe they would be willing to agree on this - a policy by which they would seek to withdraw our commitments from the areas to our near north and to work within the confines of Australia. I do not criticise them for their views. I am attempting to say that this is one of the major differences between us.

Senator Poyser:

– The honourable senator is correct there.

Senator WEBSTER:

– Obviously Senator Poyser agrees that this is so. He is entitled to his view. 1 think it would be a big mistake for Australia’s future security if we were to adopt a policy such as that outlined by members of the Opposition. I imagine that every individual in Australia would wish that it was possible for us to live and to work within our country and to have nothing to do with the troubles that occur in other countries. But we must agree that that is not practicable, that it is something which is not possible to achieve. Since federation the country has generated and strengthened its economy and has demonstrated, through the ability of the people who represent this country, that we must make our views known for the good of other areas of the world. Before my time, when Australians thought best that we should fight in Europe, I have no doubt that the view was held that the German aggression posed a threat which we were not able to meet by staying isolated. In the Second World War we were faced with the same threat. 1 expect that Australians considered that they were fighting for what was good in the world and so that future Australians and those people who would be born in other countries and who migrated here could live in peace. We must have a national preparedness. 1 think that an area of dissension exists within the major Opposition Party as to the level of that preparedness. I am quite certain that many members of the Opposition think that we must be prepared to defend this country should the occasion arise.

Senator Poyser:

– We agree with that.

Senator WEBSTER:

– it is pleasing to hear that at least Senator Poyser agrees with that.

Senator Poyser:

– We do not agree with aggression.

Senator WEBSTER:

– I think Senator Poyser is looking through smoke when he says that we are not likely to find aggression on the shores of Australia, lt has come here once in our time. I think our national policies must be directed -towards a national preparedness. I believe that preparation to keep Australia free is a major thought of this Government. We must demonstrate our interest in South East Asia. A great problem will be created in Australia if we do not spell out our intention to remain in that area of the world and to retain our interest in it. lt appears to me that great damage will be done if, in the publicity which flows from the United States of America and Australia in the future in regard to a pulling out of the forces which are fighting in Vietnam at present, the view is conveyed that we are no longer interested in ensuring that there is sufficient support for a country which wishes to be free from external aggression. We will have to be constantly on guard to ensure that the correct view is made known. I know that the view throughout South East Asia is that Australia is a stable country and one which can influence those countries which are unable to defend themselves adequately at present. We must appreciate that our commitment in South East Asia could readily change tomorrow. During the 1970s we will be. living in an era which will be different from the present. I formally support the view that Australia should play a full part in exercising influence in South East Asia. I believe that the Government has done so.

I believe that we must review some of our policies in regard to our defence forces, particularly the selection of personnel and the term of service. It is my view that there should be a re-arrangement of the call-up system. Undoubtedly the Government has examined this matter and believes that a change is not possible, but it is my view that, in the interests of many who are involved, the period of service for national servicemen should bc reduced from 2 years to 1 year. The argument which has been advanced against this is that it is necessary in this technological age to have a man for 2 years in order to give him sufficient training.

If the number of national servicemen selected by ballot is, say, 8,000 each year, I think it would be better to have a system whereby intensive training was given to each individual over a 12-month period. It would be better if the persons eligible for national service training were selected at the age of IS years and given until they turn 24 years of age to do their service. In that way they would know that they had an obligation to defend their country or at least to equip themselves to defend their country, but there would be a minimum of interference with their education or civil training. When registering a person could elect to do his 12 months service at 18 years of age or when he had finished his schooling or apprenticeship, but by the age of 24 years he would, of necessity, have to devote 12 months to the service of the country. In this way I believe that more people would be effectively prepared for the defence of Australia. There would be also a wider area of obligation. In my view if a good businesslike examination were made of our training system the length of service could be shortened. I have spoken to national servicemen who have told me they have had to clean up the grounds outside the camp on a certain afternoon or serve in the canteen and so on. More benefit would be obtained from the period of service if everyone were given instruction in matters relating directly to defence.

I believe that the community is under an obligation to offer much higher remuneration to the individuals who are sent overseas. Some people may say that the community would be burdened by higher payments. I do not agree. I believe that those people who serve overseas should receive a higher remuneration. The national servicemen and the members of the defence forces who serve in Australia are in a different position from those who serve overseas. Therefore there should be a considerable difference in the remuneration they receive when they are forced to go overseas. One obligation the community has which it has not met so far is to provide much higher repatriation benefits for those people who are injured in the service of their country.

Senator Marriott:

– Would the honourable senator make the benefits retrospective to include everybody who has served his country?

Senator WEBSTER:

– I would.

Senator Poyser:

– I am glad it is on record. The honourable senator should acknowledge it sometimes.

Senator WEBSTER:

– I have expressed the same view previously, but some people do not listen to what is said. I was very pleased to hear some of the remarks the Minister for Defence (Mr Malcolm Fraser) made when addressing a meeting of Young Liberals in Perth. He outlined some of the public thinking he would like in regard to our role overseas. I think we should all give our attention to some of his thoughts in relation to this matter.

The Governor-General’s Speech outlines the Government’s programme for the present parliamentary session. It provides an opportunity for us to discuss the Australian economy and our prospects in the future. It will be conceded that at present the economy is particularly sound. The policy which has been laid down by successive Liberal-Country Party governments over recent years has resulted in the overall sound condition which we have in Australia at present, lt is something for which the Government should be congratulated. However, whilst we can rightly claim that the economy generally is in a sound condition, in some areas of primary production the situation is different. The producers of wool, wheat, other grains and dairy products are experiencing great problems at present. It is my view that these problems have been created by matters beyond the control of the Federal Government. Nevertheless, the Federal Government has a responsibility to assist as far as possible. The large export value of the industries I have mentioned places emphasis upon their importance to the community. I would suggest to the Senate that, as a small group in the community, the potato growers throughout Australia have more to complain about than any other sector in the community.

To say that the economy is sound is to suggest that there is a high standard of living. Indeed, when compared with other countries, Australia’s standard of living ranks highly. But it is of little comfort to the deserted wife with four or five children who has no means of support to know this. There is a necessity for action in this regard. Indeed, this was spelt out by the Prime Minister (Mr Gorton) when he first took office. It was said that there needed to be a readjustment of social services to help those people in the community who, -perhaps through no fault of their own, find themselves in indigent circumstances.

This country has an economic standard and a standard of living which compare more than favourably with almost any other country in the world. I think it is fair to say that to some extent this has come about by good fortune. One could suggest that the minerals which occupy such an important place in our community at present have always been there but just have not been discovered. Some would say that it is by good fortune that we arc discovering them at the present time.

The Minister for National ‘ Development (Mr Swartz) recently said that in the mid 1970s we may earn about $2,000m a year export income from mineral sales. This prospect would not have occurred without the encouragement of the .Government in establishing a climate in which exploration for important minerals could take’ place. I think we should be careful not to rely purely upon the minerals industry as the basic stay of the economy. The primary industries - those involved with wool, cereals and dairying - must be kept healthy in the community. When you export a mineral, you can never export it a second time. I am not aware of one primary industry which, having exported its product, is not faced with an opportunity in the following year to export more of that product.

I have noted the comments of Dr Bell, an economist. Perhaps he suggested my thinking on this matter when he issued a sound warning to the community against depositing too much faith in mineral exports to the detriment of primary products. Dr Harold Bell is an economic adviser to the Australian Mutual Provident Society. He said that Australia had found that some existing deposits of minerals were much richer than originally believed. Perhaps it would be wise for him to chat with some of the Tasminex men on that point. Vast additional resources of some minerals such as iron ore provide export surpluses. Dr Bell suggested that uranium deposits could again become of major strategic importance, but major deficiencies such as in oil, natural gas, bauxite and nickel have to be overcome. He said that agriculture’s proportionate contribution to the economy was declining as .that of mining became more significant. He added that in spite of the depressing influences on the prospects for rural exports, market situations were likely to change, often dramatically. / think we should note that point. Some primary industries are in great difficulty at present. However, my knowledge of the dairy industry is that the very black outlook predicted 12 months ago for exports of dairy produce from some areas has not eventuated.

Senator Milliner:

– ls’ that because of the influence” of margarine?’ “

Senator WEBSTER:

– I would not think so. The honourable senator may have some views on- that matter, and they can be noted. Dr Bell -continued: lt could well be- thai some developing countries which were doing, much .better with their grain production might. find that. their foreign exchange situation . would gradually . allow them to import some of Australia’s other rural products such as the high protein foods and wool.

Perhaps what I have said could serve as an .endorsement of a short summary of Dr Bell’s remarks; that is, that the maintenance of our primary industries in this community is of great importance. In my view, the present problems of our primary industries to a great extent have been brought about and have been decided by forces outside the control of the Australian Government. There is no period since the depression - and that is beyond my memory - when reliance on exports for the sustenance of the Australian economy has resulted in primary industries taking such a heavy blow because of their inability to sell their products at a price sufficient to return them a profit. lt is true that costs are rising and it is suggested that apparently this is beyond the ability of this Government or of any government throughout the world adequately to control. I am afraid I disagree with the view that nothing can be done inside this country to control the depreciation of our currency. Since I have been a member of this Parliament I have attempted to point out some actions which the Government could take and which certainly would have brought about a reduction in the acceleration of rising costs. It, seems that the people in authority have not seen fit to take that action. Perhaps I can demonstrate that Australia has not a less favourable index of consumer prices than most other countries in the world. I have with me a statement which came from the Treasury at the end of 1969. It indicates the rate of inflation in Australia and overseas countries. With the concurrence of honourable senators I incorporate that document in Hansard:

I emphasise that Australia has done rather a good job keeping under control the acceleration of consumer prices. Australia certainly appears to be one of the few countries which have been able adequately to control that rise in costs. Rising costs are certainly a problem. Earlier today I asked the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Anderson) whether our Government is taking the necessary steps to keep control of rising costs. I refer to two articles which prompt me in this matter, the first of which is the quarterly survey issued in January 1970 of the Australian and New Zealand Bank. It states:

It is in the area of higher costs that the economy is at present most vulnerable. Current indications are that there will be an adverse balance of payments during this financial year, which could perhaps be as high as $A250m to $A300m. There is no need for concern over an adverse balance of such proportions at the present time. Australian reserves of oversea currency, as published by the Reserve Bank, stand at about $Al,100m. To this figure must be added drawing rights at the International Monetary Fund and now, also, the allocation of Special Drawing Rights under the new International Monetary Fund Arragements. To Australia’s first line reserves, mentioned above, can now be added a sum of $A900m in the last mentioned categories during 1970.

The longer term outlook for the balance of payments, has improved markedly as a result of the broadening of our export base, through the discovery of vast quantities of minerals, and through the increased efficiency of our manufacturing industries which are now making a significant contribution to export earnings.

Nevertheless, the whole field of exports is vulnerable to cost increases, and particularly the major rural export items which have in the past contributed so importantly to export income. They still constitute a high proportion of our export trade and will be expected to continue to do so for many years to come.

Further on the article states that positive steps should be taken to achieve the objective of lower costs. I emphasise the point that the article suggests ‘a reduction in government expenditure would be a major contribution’. It continues:

There are a number of items of expenditure listed in the current year’s budget which could be deferred in the overriding interests of containing inflation and avoiding any damaging cost increases.

I agree with those comments. I refer to another important comment which was made by Sir John Cadwallader who is the Chairman of the Bank of New South Wales. His comment on this matter was as follows:

An effective brake on inflation means a slower rate of growth for the time being, but it is preferable lo the alternatives. There are indications in the United States that the boom of recent years is losing its intensity, in the event of which the buoyancy of world economic conditions will diminish for the time being. Moreover, for some products of importance to Australia such as wheat and dairy products, rising production in Europe and .Asia has led to burdensome surpluses and reduced trade, which international commodity arrangements have done little to mitigate. In the light of such trends consideration of the structure, production, and marketing arrangements of Australia’s major primary industries, already under controversial discussion, takes on a greater urgency.

These industries still provide a solid core to total economic activity in Australia and to its export trade. As a group, except for livestock and meat, they do not perhaps show the buoyancy and scope for expansion necessary to fulfil national hopes of long-term development. Nevertheless, they must continue to play a large and essential part in export performance, and for that reason they have to be judged on the basis of their economies of production and their power to compete in world markets. Social and political considerations should not ignore the need to adapt the pattern of production and marketing policies to newer conditions of surplus. But the whole community has also a responsibility for the economic health of the primary industries. The competitive capacity and reasonable profitability of these basic industries depend closely on curbing increases in the cost structure of wages, materials and government charges.

That again emphasises the difference between the views of the Government parties and what appear to be the views of the Opposition Party. 1 have grave doubts about the demands which will occur from the wage earning community in the ensuing years. To me there seems to be a pattern of strike and demand at the present time which 1 can only imagine will have a grave and serious effect on the Australian cost structure.

Another important matter which was dealt with in the Governor-General’s Speech, one which perhaps is one of the most important matters to which we can refer at the present time, is the maintenance of the federal system of Government. This matter has been emphasised in a great number of discussions which have taken place over the past year or so on what has become known as Commonwealth and State financial relationships. I and my Party strongly support the maintenance of a federal system. Indeed, in the words of our policy, perhaps it could be said that it is important that there be an adherence to the federal system of government and the maintenance of responsibility at Federal, State and local government levels. Such a policy is the answer to the argument which surprisingly has taken place between leaders within the Liberal Party and the Australian Country Party about the relationship between the Federal and State spheres of government, lt has been very difficult to acknowledge all the points that have been made by the Premiers. But a commencing point in this argument, I think, could well be in the following statement:

In all Federal systems of government one part of the government sector, normally the regional governments, relies for a significant proportion of its revenue on grants from another part. In the Australian Federation about 60% of outlay by the State-Local sector is now financed from funds which are provided directly by the Commonwealth or over which the Commonwealth exercises a decisive influence. However, this proportion has decreased from about 66% in the mid-1950s.

Senator Little:

– Much of which the Slates pay back to the Commonwealth in interest on money which they already owe lo the Commonwealth.

Senator WEBSTER:

– I think that may be an argument.-

Senator Little:

– It is not an argument; it is a fact of life.

Senator WEBSTER:

– lt also happens to be a fact of life that an arrangement has been laid down for many years. If ir is argued that that arrangement, which has existed for so many years, is entirely incorrect then it needs review. Indeed, 1 am pleased that the Prime Minister (Mr Gorton) has said that a review will lake place, but I. express my disappointment at some comments which have been made. Some people suggest that the States should have access to some tax which would allow their income to grow as the income to the Commonwealth grows, and that the States are held down to a figure by the Commonwealth. Indeed, in my own State I have heard the argument that wages increase, but the Commonwealth is the only one to gain because immediately it has access to a greater amount of income tax. A full stop is put after that comment and members of the public are left to believe that the Commonwealth receives the money and the States do not. I would be prepared to listen to such a comment if that was the fact. I have a statement which I seek leave to have incorporated in Hansard.

Senator Milliner:

– Who made the statement?

Senator WEBSTER:

– It is a statement of Commonwealth budget revenues and payments to the States, issued under the authority of the Treasury. Some honourable senators may find it of use. With the concurrence of honourable senators, I incorporate it in Hansard.

The statement sets out, firstly, total Commonwealth receipts from 1959-60 to 1968-69. I will not read out the figures, but it is of interest to note that total Commonwealth receipts have increased gradually, as is obvious. The statement also sets out total Commonwealth payments to the States over the same period, firstly, in millions of dollars and then as a percentage of total Commonwealth receipts. In 1959-60 total Commonwealth payments to the States represented 23.4% of total Commonwealth receipts; in 1968-69 the figure was 23.9%.

So the argument appears to me to be a little fallacious although it may sound politically wise and may make some people say that the Commonwealth deals very harshly with the States. The fact is that although so much more excise revenue was being gained from the use of petrol the States did not suggest that they wanted more excise revenue returned. But it was popular to say: We should have more income tax revenue returned’. The statement demonstrates, I believe, that no matter how Commonwealth receipts increased the States received much the same percentage in 1968-69 as they received 10 years before.

Senator Scott:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA · LP

– Was it the same percentage?

Senator WEBSTER:

– -The percentage was greater in 1968-69 than it was in 1959-60, but only by a few points.

Senator Scott:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA · LP

– Could the honourable senator give us that figure?

Senator WEBSTER:

– The figures will be incorporated in Hansard. The 1968-69 figure was 0.5% higher than the 1959-60 figure.

Senator Fitzgerald:

– Is the honourable senator building up a case against Sir Henry Bolte?

Senator WEBSTER:

– I am not building up a case against anybody. I know that Senator Fitzgerald likes to toss these political points about and not look to reason. I am attempting to look to reason in what I am saying. 1 believe it is important that, in looking at this matter, we determine whether there is a reason why the original arrangement should be changed. I point directly to the words which the GovernorGeneral used on this matter and with which I was particularly pleased. I wish to refer later to the comment made by the Prime Minister after the meeting with the Premiers.

I also wish to have incorporated in Hansard two other tables that I believe are quite dramatic in what they show. With the concurrence of honourable senators, I incorporate in Hansard a table headed Outlay by the Government Sector as a Percentage of Gross National Product’ and prepared from the Australian national accounts.

That table shows that whereas in 1954-55 Commonwealth defence expenditure represented 3.5% of the gross national product, in 1967-68 the figure was 4.3%; and that whereas in 1954-55 other Commonwealth outlays represented 10% of the gross national product, in 1967-68 the figure was 12.4%, or an increase of 2.4%. That endorses my comment that the Commonwealth should look at its expenditures. During the same period State and local authority outlay increased by 2.4%. So I think one could say that State and local expenditure increased in line with the resources they had available to them.

Senator O’Byrne:

– Has the honourable senator the local government expenditure figures?

Senator WEBSTER:

– I just gave them. The figures I just gave were for State and local government expenditures. I have another table which I wish to have incorporated in Hansard and which I think honourable senators will fmd of great interest when they read it. With the concurrence of honourable senators, I incorporate in Hansard a table showing taxation collections as a percentage of the gross national product.

That table shows that, as a percentage of the gross national product, Commonwealth taxation collections increased by 0.9% between 1954-55 and 1967-68, local rates by 0.3%, and State taxes by 1%. The point I. make is that one of the greatest contributions that could be made by the Commonwealth at the present time to restraining cost increases, particularly in the primary producing sector, would be to take in hand the matter of expenditure of government funds. I spelt this out in my speech on the Budget last year. On 4 or 5 occasions during our consideration of the Estimates I attempted to demonstrate increases in departmental expenditure. The Minister for Works (Senator Wright) may recall my saying when we were considering the estimates of his Department, which he defended very well, that there was an increase of about 10%, if my memory is correct, in the number of staff to be employed by that very wonderful Department.

I queried whether there was wisdom in the government sector trying to take bodies out of the community while the private sector was also attempting to do so. Competition between government and private enterprise for manpower and material resources can create increases in costs. I believe that there would be great benefit in the Commonwealth not only taking corrective action at the moment but also doing something that local authorities require.

I believe that the Commonwealth should give full recognition to the status of local government as an essential partner in the overall administration of the federal system of government. Further, 1 believe that assistance should be accorded by the Commonwealth to local authorities, designed to meet the impact of increased costs, growing population, the changing environment, and the ever widening range of services demanded by local communities. I also believe that assistance envisaged for local government should be by way of specific allocation of finance included in the specific grants to the States, supplementing land rating which is currently the main source of revenue available to local government. My point in suggesting that is that at the moment if there is an escalation of cost to the primary producing sector of the community it is very much through an increase in local government rates. I believe that the Governmnet should see that action is taken which will enable local government authorities to reduce their rates. Indeed, 1 think this was spelt out by my own leader in his policy speech at the last election. Over the last few months newspaper comment has had it that there is some chance of this overall system of sustenance from the Federal Government breaking down. I emphasise that I support the system which exists. I fully agree that there is a need for an overhaul of the basic arrangements by which the States receive finance from the Commonwealth. Following the Premiers Conference in February the statement issued read that the Commonwealth agreed in principle that there should be an increase in the basic amount of money on which an increase in State revenue grants are calculated. The Commonwealth offered to discuss this matter with the States.

I note that at that stage the Commonwealth rejected the proposal that the rate of growth of State reimbursements should be tied to the rate of growth of income tax collection. I have attempted to indicate why that, originally, was based on a fallacious argument. I believe that at the last Premiers Conference in February real gains were made by the States. I hope that those gains will prove to be of great benefit to the States in their future financing. I congratulate the Federal Government for suggesting, in view of its own borrowing and indebtedness having fallen over the past few years, that it should progressively, over the term of the next financial agreement, assume full responsibility for a proportion of the State’s debts. The Commonwealth has suggested that for the purposes of illustration 1 billion dollars should be the relevant figure. In my view, the Premiers returned to their States with a major achievement. I congratulate the Prime Minister for agreeing to that particular move.

Senator Little:

– It was either that or bankruptcy for the States. They could not go on any longer.

Senator WEBSTER:

– That may be so. I think everybody in this government field should, basically, be called upon to live within their incomes and within their ability to repay what they borrow. If this is not done, under our federal system of government the Premiers have ready access for discussion and achievement. In my view, six Premiers attending a Premiers Conference should have a great deal of power in persuading a Commonwealth Government to agree to their wishes.

Senator Little:

– This is the first time they have ever had any success at all.

Senator WEBSTER:

– lt may have been the first time there was no Labor Premier present.

Senator Little:

– No, it was not the first time at all.

Senator WEBSTER:

– In any case, the Premiers achieved a major contribution at that conference.

There are many matters before us for discussion. In looking at the area of national importance, I would emphasise the remarks which the Governor-General made relating to New Guinea. I realise that there will be a debate in this House relating to a statement on that matter. Perhaps my comments should be deferred until then. But I fully support the comments that have been made by the Governor-General in appreciating the task that is ahead of us in bringing sound independence to the Territory of Papua and New Guinea. I, for one, fully appreciate the most difficult task which the Minister for Territories (Mr Barnes) has had in conducting his portfolio. I would care to suggest that no other portfolio under the control of any Minister has been as difficult as that which the Minister for Territories controls. I think the subject of Papua and New Guinea provides a broad canvas. One can criticise what is coming about from one end to the other, but I feel that, on a responsible consideration of the matter, the Commonwealth is doing all it can. Indeed, it is having great success in assisting this Territory to achieve the independence which it desires.

One or two important points in this subject come from the Governor-General’s speech. Perhaps I have some doubts as to their validity, particularly the part which relates to equity holdings. Here is a major thing which the Government has sought to do. Insufficient attention has been given to this in Parliament and by the community generally. This has a reference to what we, perhaps, should be doing within the Commonwealth in relation to equity holdings. If one looks at the Governor-General’s Speech one gains the view that what the Commonwealth has established or intends to establish in Papua and New Guinea is the ability for some sector of the Government to hold a percentage share holding in private enterprise ventures which develop in New Guinea. These were the words used by tha Governor-General:

My Government now proposes to ask the Territory House of Assembly for legislation to establish a statutory corporation to acquire equity in major investment projects in the Territory.

This new institution would have a close link with the Papua and New Guinea Development Bank and its principal functions would be to take up shares in appropriate enterprises and hold them for future disposal to the people of the Territory, to underwrite local share issues, and to establish unit trusts or investment companies.

One can quite readily conceive what is behind the thinking in this matter. It is creditable that the incoming independent Government of the Territory should acquire and have at its disposal an equity interest in trading enterprises within the Territory. The wording of this is quite challenging and I will look forward to the Government spelling out more accurately what it envisages in those words. Honourable senators have seen that the Commonwealth provided that the Territory could have, I think, a 20% interest in the Bougainville copper project. It is my view that in the future that interest will undoubtedly provide substantial income for the Territory. A fairly wide area is envisaged in the establishment of this statutory authority. It is difficult to envisage what might be the circumstances at a time when the Government is able, in the words of the statement, to take up shares in appropriate enterprises and hold them for future disposal to the people of the Territory. That is a statement which certainly needs to be enlarged upon.

I should think that one of the reasons why we have not an authority within Australia to meet the demands of the many Australians who say that we should have an interest in some of these major overseas mining projects is that it is very difficult at the outset to make an evaluation of what the asset will be worth at the end of a fixed period. Most mining ventures are something of a gamble. Prior to the recent interest in share trading one would have said that Australians were not prepared to take an investment interest in the gambles which are represented in mining, but that belief might since have been dispelled somewhat. It is unfortunate that the interest that the public has shown in investing very heavily in the share market in past years has not necessarily enabled mining companies to have the benefit of the increased capital which would be written into their assets.

Senator Wright:

– Do you not think that the difference in the level of the economies as between New Guinea and Australia creates a difference for a proposition like this?

Senator WEBSTER:

– I agree fully with what the Minister has said. He would have heard me say that I congratulate the Government upon taking this step. I instanced that the Government took the step prior to the establishment of this corporation and enabled this 20% holding in what is one of the largest copper projects in the world. I emphasised the fact that apparently there is to be some disposal of the holding in future to people of the Territory. I would find it very difficult to evaluate the circumstances which would enable citizens of the Territory at some time to share adequately -in this proposition. My vision is that the person with the money at the time will be the person able to increase his benefit and -holding in the Territory. Perhaps the view just expressed by the Minister relating to the economic development of the Territory has prompted the establishment of the corporation, but to carry out what has- been envisaged in the statement takes one far -from where we are today.

There is much of importance in the comments about New Guinea, but I am one ;who firmly believes that in leading New Guinea to its independence - and the move :will be accelerated in the future - we should hold fast to the view that New Guinea must have a sound economic base -before it becomes dissociated from the Commonwealth of Australia. I hope that Australia will have an interest in the Territory for many years to come. Those who, over the years, have attempted to gain political capital from the situation in New Guinea or have tried to find people in the community who would demand independence for the Territory have done a great disservice to the Territory. I believe that their approaches have gained little sympathy.

The Governor-General’s Speech instances how the Commonwealth will now move into the field of training the indigines in the Territory. 1 suggest that the introduction of a new scheme for practical down to earth training in Australia of Papuans and New Guineans should have been given attention many years ago. On several occasions over the past 4 years or so it has been suggested that young Papuans and Tolais could be brought to Australia and given leadership training so that they could return to the Territory and give great encouragement to other young men to take some part in the community. I speak now of a scheme which I have had great interest in establishing or assisting to establish in the Territory. I refer to the activities of the Young Men’s Christian Association, of which I am a very proud member. Four years ago the national body of the YMCA sent one of its Australian secretaries to begin operations in Port Moresby. No matter to what sector of the community we belong we would accept that the training and philosophy of a body such as that are what is required in the Territory. There have been occasions when we have sought assistance from the Commonwealth so that we might bring young men to Australia for a period of training in our national YMCA leadership training schools in -Sydney or Melbourne. However, we have had no great success in achieving support for that purpose, although we have received great support from the Administration in the work that we have attempted to do within the Territory itself. I understand the -difficulties that have been involved in deciding whether it is desirable that a young man should leave New Guinea and come to Australia for training.

Senator Wright:

– But the honourable senator is discussing the paragraph in the Governor-General’s Speech which refers to the bringing of people down here for down to earth training.

Senator WEBSTER:

– I agree fully. I have just made the comment that this proposition was before the Government, to my knowledge, a number of years ago and it should have prompted the Government to act prior to this. The Government is acting now and that is fine; but I say, as 1 have said in relation to proposed expenditure by Government departments, that it should have been happening before now. This would have enabled our costs to be controlled to some extent, although I agree that that is not the whole ambit of the problem. I congratulate the Government for the action it has taken. The Minister suggests that it is a backhanded compliment to say that we are doing it now but did not do it previously. The Commonwealth will need to watch very closely the organisations which, in the goodness of their hearts, offer to bring young men and women from the Territory to Australia to enter into training programmes. I hope that a close study will be made of the training programmes in Australia and of the benefit that will flow from the training when they return to the Territory. I suggest that at no stage should it be envisaged that a young Papuan or New Guinean will be brought from the Territory and left in Australia for any great length of time. I suggest that he should have a ready means of getting back to the Territory quite regularly, particularly now that we have modern means of transport, because Australia can be a very lonely place for someone from a country such as New Guinea, particularly if he is living for some weeks in a hostel or a private home in Australia.

There are a number of other matters upon which I should like to speak. I feel that the three areas in which I have attempted to outline some of my thinking are of as great importance at present as any other. I refer to the defence of Australia and the manner in which we can go about this; the general economic climate within Australia, how some adjustments may be made to that so that we may continue to have the ability to grow as we have in the past without having the increased costs which have been generated over the last years and which have created problems which beset our primary industries at present; and this immensely important international mutter involving the sustenance of New Guinea. It is with great pleasure that I support the comments made originally in the Governor-General’s Speech. I congratulate the Government on the wonderful programme that it has set before us. I look forward to a very intensive session of work in which both the Opposition and the Government will be able to achieve for Australia those things that have been set down in the Speech.

Senator CAVANAGH:
South Australia

– I desire to participate in the Address-in-Reply debate, which is a procedure we have at the commencement of each Parliament and which gives one the opportunity to discuss particular aspects of Government legislation. Firstly, I join with

Senator Webster in congratulating Senator Donald Cameron on the maiden speech which he made in this chamber last evening. The wealth of material, figures and facts which he supplied to the Senate tells a story on its own. It justifies close perusal for the purpose of ascertaining some of the overseas interests in Australia which may have repercussions in the future and which merit consideration as to whether some immediate remedial action should be taken. While Senator Cameron’s speech possibly surprised many, it did not surprise me because I have known him for a long time. I know his capabilities and I know of the high position that he has held in the industrial movement in South Australia. I think it can be said that we have in Senator Cameron a great acquisition to the talent of the Senate, judging from his display last evening.

The Australian Labor Party does not oppose the adoption of the Address-in-Reply that is to be conveyed to the GovernorGeneral but we do not support the amendment of the Australian Democratic Labor Party which we consider to have been moved for political propaganda purposes rather than for any other purpose. It is simply a matter of hypocrisy. We can amend the Address-in-Reply to condemn the Government without achieving anything. While the DLP suggests that we condemn the Government because of this and that, it also has on the business paper proposals relating to the establishment of a royal commission or the setting up of Select Committees on most of those items. The Opposition will take a stand on those items when we are considering the appointment of such committees. The Opposition can see no value in simply condemning the Government for not introducing something such as a national insurance scheme without any suggestion as to what the scheme might be. Had the Government introduced such a scheme it might have been one that would be condemned by the Opposition.

In this debate honourable senators such as Senator Webster can express sorrow because the Government did not include reference to an intention to improve repatriation benefits. Repatriation pensioners deserve greater benefits. When the opportunity arises to give them more benefits, as it does in this place on every occasion when there are amendments to repatriation measures, those who now shed crocodile tears always vote against the improvements that the Opposition seeks to make. They use a political gimmick which permits them to record in Hansard that they have said something for such disabled people. This hides the fact that they are not sincere because they do not take it to the stage of giving the added benefits.

This debate as seen by the Opposition is just a formality which we are most anxious to conclude and we reserve it for those speakers who have a particular subject to discuss. The Governor-General’s Speech sets out the Government’s proposed legislation but an opportunity to criticise, praise or reject will be given when the legislation is introduced into the Senate. Therefore, we follow the procedure of speaking on questions which individual members desire to bring before the Senate. We lack the opportunity to do this in debates on legislation because these are matters that will not come before us in Bills for discussion in this chamber. That is my approach to this debate this afternoon.

It is essential at the present time to point out that on vital issues the Government must take a different attitude from that which it took in pre-election days. Because of the rejection by the Australian people of many points of Government policy we now have this agitation seeking to revive the threat of Communism in Vietnam or somewhere else and criticism of the ALP because it is leading a peace demonstration or a moratorium. While the ALP has from the commencement of the Vietnam campaign opposed in some strength Australian participation in that area, it has found it difficult to overcome the argument that the Government’s decision to place troops in Vietnam was endorsed by the public as shown by previous election results. Those of us who would not accept compulsory national service because it was contrary to our consciences found it very difficult to put up an argument that we, especially as responsible legislators, should not uphold the rule of law. I would ask whether the Government has the same justification at the present time.

When we look at the last election campaign and try to hold post-mortems on why there was a collapse on the part of the Government, I would direct honourable senators’ attention to my Budget speech made on 10th September last, before the election. In that speech the results of the election were anticipated and put on record. Another issue which was recorded in that speech was the attitude of the DLP as to preferences. The subsequent disagreement and fight within the Liberal Party caucus over the leadership was also mentioned in that speech.

Senator Sir Magnus Cormack:

– You did not mention the fight that was going on in your Party.

Senator CAVANAGH:

– That was nol mentioned in the speech.

Senator Webster:

– Why not?

Senator CAVANAGH:

– Because I. was dealing with a specific issue. It was not that I had any clairvoyant power; it was just that we knew the political situation, and the events did occur as stated. There has to be much alteration in the Liberal Party before the public will accept it on future occasions. At that election the ALP polled 46.97% of the votes throughout Australia; the Liberal Party polled 34.78%; the Australian Country Party polled 8.54%; the DLP polled 6.02%; the Australia Party polled .87% - I do not know whether that is the reason for the resignation of its leader; and the Communist Party polled 08%, with other groups polling 2.73%. On the vital issue of the Vietnam conflict those who supported Australia’s involvement in Vietnam - the Liberal Party, the Country Party and the DLP - received 49.34% of first preference votes. The election results do not endorse the Government’s policy of involvement in Vietnam. In fact, the results show a complete rejection of that policy. Vietnam was one of ihe issues on which the election was fought.

Senator Webster:

– Will the honourable senator make one point clear? In his figures he did not take into account any of the other groups which represent 2.73% of the vote, ls the honourable senator putting to the Senate that all those groups supported non-intervention in Vietnam?

Senator CAVANAGH:

– The honourable senator is anticipating what I intend to say. All that the Government can claim is the support of 49.34% of the voters for Australia’s involvement in Vietnam. The Labor Party made a strong issue of Vietnam.

Vietnam was an issue with the Australia Party. The Communist Party, as small as its vote was, was opposed to Australia’s participation in Vietnam. If we add the votes of the Labor Party, the Australia Party and the Communist Party we get a figure of 47.92%. That is a little over 1% less than the combined Liberal Party and Country Party votes. We have to add to that 47.92% the 2.73% which represents the votes of the other groups, which opposed the Government’s policies. That makes a total of 50.65% in opposition to the Government’s policies. How can the Government claim to have a mandate? A study of the election results shows that the seats which give the present Government its majority were seats won by candidates whose names were higher on the alphabetical list than the name of their Labor Party opponents. The margin was small. We may disagree as to the actual figure, but this is generally accepted as the donkey vote. The Government was returned to office on the donkey vote. It could well be that if the Labor Party is to succeed it must, like the DLP, in the marginal seats import if necessary candidates whose names are high on the alphabetical list.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– A team of asses.

Senator CAVANAGH:

– Yes, a team of asses.

Senator Byrne:

– That is an old tactic.

Senator CAVANAGH:

-It possibly is an old tactic, but the DLP has exploited it to the hilt. Obviously the Liberal Party is exploiting it.In Phillip the Speaker was returned because his name was Aston and the chief opponent’s name was Riordan and on the ballot paper six names of candidates appeared in between those two names.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– There were nine candidates in Phillip.

Senator CAVANAGH:

-Yes, but there were six names in between. I believe that was the position. I have destroyed the belief that the Government has a mandate from the people. No longer has it a mandate from the people. Its legislation cannot be judged again on what the people decided at the last election. It has to look to the future and to what the people want by way of legislation in the future. I shall deal now with this rule of law. One would normally think that if the Labor Party was involved in the campaign for a moratorium which advocated the use of force, such action would be in conflict with its views when in government and its responsibility to uphold the rule of law. But the rule of law in Australia has been brought into discredit so much that today it can be broken with impunity when the Government does not wish to enforce it. Today the Government is conscripting individual 20-year-olds. Hundreds of 20-year-olds are not abiding by the national service call-up. Certain lads who have been called up have found it contrary to their conscience to serve. They cannot comply with this Act of Parliament, which is not the will of the people. Individuals are put in gaol for not obeying a call-up notice, but those who have signed a declaration seeking to support this kind of protest and those who have advised 20- year-olds not to comply with the Commonwealth law are not subjected to prosecution by the Commonwealth. It is easy for the Commonwealth to say: ‘It was a carefully worded document and no breach could be made out’.

The Federal Attorney-General (Mr Hughes) was simply ridiculed by a private citizen who prosecuted and obtained convictions of those who signed a certain declaration. This person, who was trying to uphold federal law, had to go to the Supreme Court to get an order to enforce the warrants so that someone would pay the penalty for breach of the law. The Commonwealth is not prepared to enforce the law against those who would cause an upheaval in Australia, but in isolated cases it is prepared to send an individual youth to 2 years gaol. In the week before last Senator Brown and I went to the gaol at Sale in Victoria where one such youth is imprisoned. He was selected out of a country community in the hope that there would not be much opposition or demonstration. Zarb was freed on compassionate grounds. This other youth is in gaol today. The penal provisions of the Arbitration Act are not enforced any more because of the feared upheaval of the Australian trade union movement against such enforcement. The Government can enforce only laws which are acceptable to the people. Prominent citizens in the community, including members of Parliament, virtually go out of their way to break the law in regard to national service, knowing that it is unpopular and knowing that no action will be taken against, them.

Senator Sim:

– The honourable senator is advocating anarchy.

Senator CAVANAGH:

– The Government’s refusal to enforce the law is bringing about anarchy. One cannot say that laws U,ill not be broken in the future.

Senator Rae:

– What happened in the Harradine case?

Senator Sim:

– The Labor Party did not prosecute Harradine.

Senator CAVANAGH:

– If the Labor Party had some way of prosecuting Harradine, if he had broken some law, he would have been prosecuted. To our knowledge, he never broke the law of the land. The Labor Part)’ has a direction today.

Senator Sim:

– Here we go again.

Senator CAVANAGH:

– If the honourable senator listened maybe some words of wisdom would sink even into his head. J know that is almost impossible, but some words of wisdom may sink through. The Labor Party has a direction from its Federal Executive to lead - I invite honourable senators opposite to note that word - an Australia-wide peace movement. We make no apologies for this. Those who have given their names in support of the mora.toriam are carrying out a Labor Party direction. That is our policy. We do not apologise for it. It is not our desire to have anything other than peaceful, demonstrations, but when. demonstrations occur things do happen. In the past during moments of excitement, and emotion there has been provocation.

Senator Sim:

– By whom?

Senator CAVANAGH:

– If the honourable senator showed his face at any of these demonstrations that would be sufficient provocation to tear down the streets and to commit crimes more violent than shouting out on the footpath. We have a direction, supported by public opinion, as shown by the election results. Whilst the Australian Labor Party does not support other than peaceful demonstrations it is of the opinion that, by refusing to enforce the laws of the country, the Government is encouraging demonstrations to be other than peaceful.

We sympathise with the Government in its reluctance to enforce this unpopular piece of legislation. We sympathise with it in its reluctance to force unjust legislation upon the citizens of Australia. But we say that if the Government is not prepared to police the legislation but is prepared to allow the disregard for the law to snowball the law should be repealed. I do not want to go into all the horrors of Vietnam. Whereas prior to the recent election the Government may have been able to claim justification for being in Vietnam it cannot do so now. There must be some reconsideration of Australia’s attitude. The atrocities and massacres which are going on in Vietnam are damning to the name of Australia throughout South East Asia. Although it is not claimed that Australia is ;t party to these atrocities we have not taken any action to condemn them.

As I said earlier, it is my desire to raise a particular matter on this occasion as I may not have an opportunity to bring it up again unless I speak on the motion for the adjournment of the Senate, which is not a popular exercise and is undesirable if it can be avoided. I take advantage of the debate on the Governor-General’s Speech to raise a matter concerning the Aboriginal settlement at Yuendumu in Western Australia. When speaking on the States Grants (Aboriginal Advancement) Bill in September of last year I made many allegations against the administrators of the settlement, which is under the control of the Department of the Interior. I asked for a full inquiry into the allegations I made. On that occasion 1 warned that the inquiry should go beyond merely asking the staff whether certain things did or did not happen because my allegations, if against, anyone, were against some of the senior officials in the area and the staff might fear tyranny and oppression by senior officials. The allegations included a number of charges of maladministration at Yuendumu.

The most sensational allegation and possibly the most grievous one was that three young lasses were taken into the bush for a period and continually raped. Such behaviour is not acceptable in our society. In order to determine whether there was any foundation for my allegations, let us examine what I said at the time. At page 1233 of Hansard of 23rd September 1969 1 said that a Mr Nichols, who was a mechanic at Yuendumu for a number of years and acting manager of the settlement at one time, informe’d me of these allegations. I quoted Mr Nichols as having said that six Aboriginal males were directed, with the approval of the superintendent, to round up three girls and, as punishment for an offence, take them into the bush to be continually raped.

Senator Branson:

– Shocking!

Senator CAVANAGH:

– 1 agree that it is a shocking accusation. I said that one of the six men who were detailed to round up the girls and take them to the bush to be raped was carrying a rifle at the time. That. is another frightful allegation of threat. I also said that the responsible Minister would not be able to find out the true position by inquiring among officers of his Department. J asked for u full and frank inquiry to be held. My allegation was so damaging to the Government that shortly after midnight on 26th September 1969 Senator Scott, then Minister for Customs and .Excise and Minister representing the Minister for the Interior in this chamber, read a statement -which had been prepared by the Minister for the Interior denying all these allegations. He said that there was no truth in them at all. He said that he had made inquiries of the Administrator of the Northern Territory, who had sought reports from officers at Darwin, Alice Springs and Yuendumu.

In view of my statement that we should not accept the word of these officers, he convincingly claimed in his statement that the Reverend Fleming, a minister of the Baptist Church, who had lived at Yuendumu for about 20 years, had no knowledge of the alleged raping. Senator Scott went on to say that Mr Fleming was a person whom the Aboriginals respected and that if an incident of this nature had taken place he certainly would have heard of it. How could 1 persist with my allegations when there was a denial, not from an officer of the Department but from a reverend gentleman who had lived at the settlement for 20 years and whom the Aboriginals respected? It was said that if such an incident had occurred he would have known of it. I obtained leave to make a statement on that occasion. I said:

Honourable senators will recall that when 1 raised this matter I said that my informant. Mr Nichols, had stated that any departmental inquiry which sought information only from the officers of the Northern Territory Administration would be of no use because the allegations had been directed against these officers and therefore they were the accused.

Despite the fact that we could disregard what the officers said we could not disregard what the Reverend Fleming said. 1 went on - and this is significant in view of later events - to say:

Mr Nichols informed me that these girls were chased around Ihe settlement before being thrown on a truck by Aboriginal men. lt is alleged that at least one of the men carried a rifle during this incident, which took place in August or September 1967.

There is the complete allegation. Three girls were thrown into a truck against their will by six Aboriginal men, one of whom had a rifle, in August or September 1967. Having no further proof 1 could not but doubt my informant.

Senator Wright:

– I beg your pardon.

Senator CAVANAGH:

– Having regard to the information we had I could not but doubt at that stage that 1 had been correctly informed. But there was one weakness in the Minister’s statement in reply to my allegation. 1 had a 16mm film which showed one of the incidents and I invited the Minister to view the film, which I regarded as some proof of my allegations. It would appear that the Minister and the Department of the Interior were not interested in my allegations because they did not seek to view the film. I had the film in my posses-; sion until the Senate suspended its sittings a few days later and for some months after that, but at no time did the Department of the Minister seek to view the film. Apparently they accepted the assurances of officials and the Reverend Fleming rather than the film. 1 wrote to Mr Nichols who had given me the information, advising him of the Minister’s statement to the Parliament and the complaint about supplying me with false information and my making such serious charges in the Commonwealth Parliament although they could not be backed up, in view of this other evidence. As a result of the letter I received from Mr Nichols I wrote to the Minister on 21st November of last year, as follows:

My dear Minister,

Speaking in the Senate on the States Grants (Aboriginal Advancement) Bill on 23rd September of this year 1 recited information I had received of bad treatment to Aborigines at Yuendumu settlement, Northern Territory. One of the allegations I made was that six male Aborigines were directed with the approval of the Superintendent to round up three girls and, as a punishment for an offence, take them out bush to be continually raped. On 25th September a statement was made on your behalf denying these allegations and supporting the denial by investigations made by the Administrator of the Northern Territory, and quoting, from a report by the Reverend Fleming stationed at Yuendumu. 1 have referred both my allegations and your statement to Mr Nichols who originally supplied me wilh the information, and as a result he has informed me of the names of the three girls and the six males concerned and the names of eight staff members who would verify the accusations.

I have spoken to one such staff member who verifies the accusations made, but not being content to accept such serious allegations without further information, nor content to let it rest while there may be some possibility of truth in the allegations, I seek to inquire further into this matter. Therefore 1 seek permission to visit Yuendumu Settlement in the second week in December. I would fly to Alice Springs and I ask you to assist by making transport available to take me from Alice Springs to Yuendumu and back. Further, 1 ask for permission to interview the people concerned without the presence of an official or others who may have information on this question and I desire an assurance that no repercussions would result from those I interview being truthful about the matter. I am not opposed to anyone from your Department who is not associated with Yuendumu accompanying me on this visit. Trusting that you will assist in getting this unpleasant allegation cleared up. Thanking you in anticipation of a very early reply.

It should therefore be clear (o honourable senators that I had no intention of doing anything underhand. I had names of people I wanted to interview. So that it would be clear that I was not putting words in anyone’s mouth, I issued an invitation that someone from the Department without the power of discipline over residents of Yuendumu should accompany me to find out whether there was any truth in the allegations. The Minister sent a reply dated 1st December, which stated: 1 have given a good deal of thought to your letter of 21st November 1969 asking for facilities to visit Yuendumu to carry out investigations into alleged incidents there. While I would always wish to facilitate visits of senators or members to inform themselves about activities of Government organisations, I take the view that it is going beyond the function of a member of the Parliament to conduct an independent inquiry of the kind you propose into a particular aspect of administration which is under the control of a Minister.

I fully accept your right not to be content to let the matter rest until you are satisfied that proper inquiry has been made. I point out, however, that inquiries including discussions with the

Yuendumu Council and the resident Baptist minister were made on the basis of the information you made public and these inquiries did not substantiate the allegations.

If you will supply me with the information which has now been given to you, as well as the information you received earlier, I will see that further proper inquiry is made and will inform you of the results. You can be assured that no action would be taken against any official by reason only of his speaking truthfully about the matters contained in the information you supply.

  1. J. NIXON

Of course, the inquiry has been made amongst people from whom I had been warned that we would never get the true story. I have the double distinction now of having been refused the right of entry not only to a defence project but also to a native reserve. If such a distinction continues to be extended there will be very few places I can go when my presence is invited for the purpose of improving the conditions of the less privileged people in the area. On 5th December I wrote to the Minister again, as follows:

My dear Minister,

I acknowledge receipt of your correspondence of 1st December re my visit to Yuendumu. I share your view that it is beyond the function of a member of Parliament to conduct an independent inquiry on an aspect of administration that is under the control of the Minister. This was not my intention. I have made serious allegations against the administration at Yuendumu, not knowing whether they are correct or not, despite the fact of having very strong information and having been supplied with the names of persons who could verify the accusations. You apparently referred the matter for inquiry to a group of people who knew nothing of the incident and therefore can achieve nothing further.

I now seek to interview the people whose names I have, or any person who has appointment at Yuendumu and the power of discipline, for the purpose of finding any proof of the allegations made, and I have agreed to have someone from your Department accompanying me on this visit to know that my actions are reasonable and above board. The result of the inquiry would be made available on that occasion.

I would have thought it the right of a member interested in native welfare to visit such settlements and, of course, while present inquire about matters which are causing discontent.

I do not want to go further than this. You leave me very little alternative but a public declaration of the information I have received in the hope that some section of the public, through my publicity will supply me wilh denials or verifications, which 1 am. at present seeking to obtain privately. I would therefore ask you to reconsider your refusal of my request to visit Yuendumu for the purpose as explained.

There 1 made a second appeal to the Minister to get over the difficulty privately with the co-operation of himself and someone from his Department. Honourable senators will remember that my letter to the Minister was dated 5th December. The Minister replied on 4th February 1970. I think the delay in replying was justified, insofar as he went to a lot of trouble to get authoritative or documentary statements to prove his contention that there was no truth in my allegations. He included with his letter to me a statement signed by a number of councillors in the Yuendumu area and a report of the incident by the Reverend Fleming. The Minister in his letter, for the purpose of showing how he obtained the information, stated:

In your response in the Senate on 26th September you disclosed for the first time the time when the incident was alleged lo have taken place.

That is rather significant. 1 ask honourable senators to remember that date, because that iis the only lime that there has been any mention of the dale. The Hansard report shows that I said the incident occurred in August or September 1967.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– What is the date?

Senator CAVANAGH:

– The Minister said that that was the first time I mentioned the date. This is his second inquiry. He may have been inquiring into an incident different from thai to which I was referring. Previously he had no knowledge of the date. That was the first time the dale had been mentioned after the Minister’s statement to the House. The Minister said: 1 have caused further enquiries to be made in the light of this more specific information and 1 enclose a copy of a statement from thirteen Aborigines who are councillors or former councillors at Yuendumu. The following is an extract from the report of the Senior Welfare Officer who was at Yuendumu when the statement was obtained:

The extract from the report of the Senior Welfare Officer states:

The method of obtaining the statement of the Aboriginals may be important to demonstrate that this is a statement which is fully understood and has the full support of all who signed it. At the suggestion of Harry Nelson, I consulted with himself, Tim Jabangardi, Jimidja Jungarai and Kenny Wayne, and made notes of the story as they told it. I then typed the draft statement for presentation and discussion with all those who eventually signed it. I point out that I did not select those who wished to participate. These people were selected by the group themselves. The draft statement was corrected by the group and the last paragraph was added at their specific request as they had gone away and had a further discussion during the time I was drafting the statement. They are genuinely concerned that they are being exploited in this manner by whiteman for their own purposes without any consideration being given to the feelings of the Yuendumu people themselves. When the corrections lo the draft were finally agreed to I retyped the statement for signature. The final statement was read to the group by myself and read personally by Harry Nelson who assured the group of the contents of the documents. They then signed the statement in each other’s presence and asked Mr Juttner and myself to be witnesses to their signatures or mark and I would point out that among the signatures of this document are a number of men who gave Nichols their support when he was about to be dismissed and two of these. Harry Nelson and Tim Jabangardi who were particularly strong in their support of him, talked in the Council of going down to see Dob Nichols to ask him to stop telling lies. They may still do this.

That is the way in which the signatures of the thirteen councillors were obtained. A welfare officer of the Department selected a man who then approached a group of men who then told him a story; he went and typed a statement; he brought it back and said that if there were any corrections to be made to the statement he would make them. The group of men insisted on adding a final paragraph to the draft statement. So the only part of the statement which was original was the last paragraph. The men signed the statement and it was witnessed by the welfare officer and by Mr Juttner.

The Minister also enclosed a report from Rev. Fleming concerning two incidents which happened with young girls. While the statements concerning the incidents are contradictory in some respects they both refer to the same incident. Perhaps I had better refer to the report by Rev. Fleming, because we have established that he is a more reliable witness than the other persons concerned in this matter. One would think lhat he is not under the control of the people in control at Yuendumu. He is an independent person in the camp. 1 shall read from the first page of the statement by the councillors. In dealing with the question of sending girls away to get married, they said:

We made this suggestion to the Superintendent and asked him for the loan of the truck to take these people out to Old Mount Doreen which is about 39 miles from Yuendumu. This was granted.

Then they refer to the journey. Further on they say

The girls did not want to go to Old Mount Doreen but they were made to go by us.

Senator Branson:

– Who signed this statement? I have lost you.

Senator CAVANAGH:

– This is the statement which was signed by the thirteen councillors. So whatever happened at Old Mount Doreen, the girls were forced to go there. Let us now look at Rev. Fleming, the man upon whose report the Minister places so much reliance. Rev. Fleming is beyond reproach. His record at the camp cannot be doubted and he enjoys the admiration of all Aboriginals. He has some authority. His report is dated 17th December, and as that is 12 days after the date of the last letter which I received from the Minister, one would think that it had been written at the request of the Minister who was in receipt of a letter from me. It is addressed to the Director of Social Welfare, Welfare Branch, Northern Territory Administration, Darwin, NT, and it reads:

Dear Sir,

The following is the contents of a report which

I compiled for the Baptist Union of Australia and which covers the subject which is of concern to you and the Honourable the Minister for the Interior.

Report on raping incident reported in the House of Representatives by Senator Cavanagh on September 23.

Mr R. W. Nichols was for some time the Senior Mechanic on the Yuendumu Settlement. He was dismissed from the Welfare Branch in February of this year for refusing to transfer to Darwin. A persistent troublemaker he vowed that if he were dismissed he would do his utmost to bring down senior officers of the Branch with him. Even whilst he was here he made several untrue statements to the Press and these caused considerable trouble until they were at last proved erroneous. It is obvious to those who know him that the latest statement is a definite effort on his part to bring discredit on the Department from which he was sacked.

There again, from my information, one must treat this matter with some suspicion in view of what is alleged against this socalled troublemaker. But I ask honourable senators to remember what happened. Three girls were rounded up by six males with a rifle, they were taken out to the bush away from the camp and they were continuously raped. Rev. Fleming’s report continues:

It is unfortunate that some newspapers called Yuendumu a mission. It is a Government settlement under the control of the Social Welfare Branch of the Northern Territory. The Baptist Mission representative is here at the original invitation of the Minister for Territories. He is responsible for the Christian Education and evangelism of the Aboriginal inhabitants, and there his responsibilities end. He is not a member of the Government staff and therefore has no say in the control of the settlement.

There we have an unimpeachable authority who is not under the control of the Government. The report continues:

The incident reported by Mr Nicholls as having happened last year never took place. No young women were taken out bush by any person in the year 1968. The matter has been investigated thoroughly by members of the Welfare Branch staff and myself.

So there was no truth in it. The year 1968 has never been mentioned by anyone else except Rev. Fleming. The year in which the incident to which I have referred took place was 1967. The Minister acknowledged for the first time that a date was used, but Rev. Fleming dismisses what Mr Nicholls says because nothing happened in the year in which Mr Nicholls claims something did happen.

Senator Branson:

– Do you believe that could have been a genuine mistake, a confusion of dates, or do you think it is more than that?

Senator CAVANAGH:

– Rev. Fleming was replying to something about which he was asked, but the investigator from the Department was not capable of taking out of Hansard the correct date in order to make a report on the incident. The report continues:

Mr Nichols appears to have used the incident which took place in 1967–

The date is recorded in Hansard.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– It says ‘the incident which took place. . . ‘

Senator CAVANAGH:

– I will come to the incident. The report states:

Mr Nichols appears to have used the incident which took place in 1967 as the foundation for his story. In that year members of the Aboriginal Village Council asked the Settlement Superintendent

Honourable senators will see that anything that was done was done with the approval of the Superintendent - . . for permission to take three young women with their promised husbands 35 miles from the Settlement. The three young women were causing considerable trouble in the camp by refusing to go to the men to whom they were promised, and were instead prostituting themselves with the young men in the native village. Permission was given–

That is, by the Superintendent -

  1. . and the three husbands assisted by four young men -

My claim was that there were six young men, and that is the only inaccuracy in my claim so far -

  1. . loaded the girls on to a small truck, but not without some protest.

There is the forced abduction of the girls. The report continues:

A rifle was carried in the vehicle-

My statement that someone had a rifle was laughed at - . . but the purpose was to shoot any kangaroos which they might have seen.

I hope the young girls knew that, when they were rounded up and forcibly thrown into a lorry with someone with a rifle. A rifle that can shoot a kangaroo can have a harmful effect on a reluctant young lass out in the wild bush with an old man. The report continues:

The plan of the village council failed lo reconcile the women to their husbands, and the)’ have since married yoting men of their own choice. A similar incident took place about 6 years ago-

I knew of only one incident - . . when another three young women were banished from the Settlement out to the Aboriginal mining camp at Mount Hardy. They too had been prostituting themselves, so it was decided to take them out to live with the miners and their families and save the disruption which their activities had been causing in the camp.

Members of the Yuendumu congregation assured. me there is no substance in Mr Nichols’ report. This form of punishment has been meted “out to young- women ‘who have interfered with, or ridiculed, some of the secret corroborees, but not here at Yuendumu, lt is part of the tribal law of the northern tribes, so has rarely if ever been used as a disciplinary measure among- the Wailbri people. The publishing of the story iri the southern press has made the people here very angry as they consider it a .slight upon their character, and some df the men have requested, if possible, Mr Nichols be gaoled for lying.

I point out that 1 quoted what Mr Nichols said; but, although people could have all the suspicions in the world about him and his reasons and intentions, they could not be suspicious of Rev. Fleming, who has been a minister of the church in the area for 20 years, is respected by the natives, has endorsed everything Mr Nichols has said and has said, in justification, that it is a tribal custom. Let us look at the matter against the background of the previous statement. Rev. Fleming did not know of such an incident when the Minister representing the Minister for the Interior reported to this chamber on 26th September, but he knew of such an incident on 17th December. The position is that the girls went bush with the men as a result of force. So we have established a case of abduction under Australian criminal law.

Senator Sim:

– Under tribal law?

Senator CAVANAGH:

– Under Australian criminal law we have established a case of abduction. Australian law applies to Aboriginals on reserves as much as it applies to any white man. We have not one law for whites and another law for blacks. Under tribal law, where adultery has occurred there is a responsibility to go out and spear and kill the offender. People who carry out that tribal custom are charged with murder in the courts of Australia. The responsibility under tribal conditions and tribal law is a question for the judge to take into consideration as a mitigating factor in fixing the sentence. Here is a case in which abduction can be’ proved. If intercourse did occur, one of the worst crimes in the Australian criminal calendar can be proved against some Aboriginal men on the reserve by the Superintendent who has knowledge of it and who is upholding the principle involved, as shown by a letter from the Minister for the Interior to which I will refer directly.

What offence had the girls committed? They were young girls who desired to marry men of their own age. They were sent 35 miles out into the bush for a fortnight because although they desired to marry men of their own age apparently under some tribal custom they had to go to the men to whom they were promised. One of the reasons why I did not read out the council lots’ report, which is here for anyone to see, is that it mentions the names of the girls and the men concerned. I do not think it would be fair to do that here. But, having found out the names, we could trace the men. They were three old men, all with at least one wife. One was a grandfather and one had advanced yaws - an ulcer disease. The girls protested. The men, with a rifle for the purpose of shooting kangaroos, forced them, with the help of four other men, into a truck and took them into the bush. The girls came back and continued their protest that they had the right that any young girl has, namely, the right to choose her mate in society.

What is rape? Under the legal definition it is intercourse with force, fear or fraud. Was not there force in this incident? Was not there fear, when these girls were 35 miles from anywhere? Of course, the three ingredients are not needed; only one is needed. Was not there fraud in this incident? The very purpose of taking them out into the bush was to get them to live with these men. This is what is happening in the reserves in which we offer protection to these people.

Senator Buttfield:

– Is the honourable senator suggesting that this tribal custom should be stopped?

Senator CAVANAGH:

– What I am suggesting is that it is not a tribal custom. On this occasion it was not a tribal custom; it was a punishment. Unable to go and obtain the full facts as a result of the Minister’s refusal to permit me to enter the area, I have accepted the best authority I can find, who is accepted by the Minister and who has given his version of what really happened. I think the version of the minister of religion has to be accepted, although a court of law does not accept the proposition that because a man is a minister of religion he cannot tell an untruth. When a minister of religion gives evidence in a court case he is put into the box and is made to take the oath, which is a declaration before his God. He also has the knowledge that he is committing an offence under an Act of Parliament if he does not tell the truth. While I am upholding the truthfulness of the Rev. Fleming, I would point out that he said that Mr Nichols was a troublemaker. Of course Mr Nichols is a troublemaker, if reporting incidents like this is making trouble. I make no apology about that. This set-up requires some explanation. It raises the question of whether or not even the Rev. Fleming could be somewhat influenced by his environment rather than by the desire to give an unbiased report. At the period to which I refer, the Rev. Fleming’s wife was manager of the store which is open 211 hours a week. As manager she was receiving $50 a week. The Rev. Fleming received $100 per annum as secretary of the store and $1 per hour when he was serving in the store. The social club has the agency for Connell an’s goods. The Rev. Fleming attends to this and he keeps any commission. He is supplementing his income. He might not be able to do this if he were held in disrespect by people in that particular area. I think I have related to the Senate all the facts in this case. I have here a statement by the Minister for the Interior (Mr Nixon) who is a responsible Minister and he cannot see anything wrong in this. Earlier, Senator Buttfield suggested by interjection that we should abolish tribal law.

Senator Buttfield:

– I was only asking you.

Senator CAVANAGH:

– Should we abolish tribal law if it means forcing a girl against her will, contrary to the laws of Australia, to go out and be raped by some old man who has a disease? Is that what these young girls are offered? Is that the development that our civilised society has given them? The tribal law was abolished because the Aboriginals would not accept it. They were accepting the right of every white person in Australia and they were seeking the protection of the administration, which they have not received. These Aboriginal males were given instructions to throw the girls into a truck. When one receives a complaint like this, one seeks out officers for the purpose of obtaining a report on the matter. Amongst all the people interviewed, why was not one of the men concerned or one of the girls concerned asked their version? Why were not any of these people interviewed? This incident was so serious that it worried the manager - not Mr Nichols - whose wife was a nurse at the hospital. The manager, after 4 days, sent out a lorry to bring the Aboriginals back. He was frightened for the girls’ welfare and was anxious as to whether they would come back alive. Before they left the storeman was instructed to issue rations for 14 days. It was a 14 day trip. One can have a lot of fun in 14 days. This is what is happening at Yuendumu. This is why I cannot visit Yuendumu. If one does not mind being taken around by the administration one can visit there. With all the power the Commonwealth has, how can the Government talk of its desire to assist Aboriginal people if it is not going to take any action in regard to this incident? I ask: Will there be an inquiry into this? Possibly I brought out the worst charges but many more charges have been made. The persecution, tyranny and injustice that is happening at Yuendumu today justifies the inquiry. I ask those questions of the Minister in the hope that he will do something. I seek leave to continue my remarks.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 131

QUESTION

PARLIAMENTARY REFRESHMENT ROOMS

The PRESIDENT:

- Senator Hendrickson at question time referred to an incident in the staff dining room yesterday, involving some female employees on the staff of Hansard. The Parliamentary Refreshment Rooms have no knowledge of any problem at lunch time yesterday, but it is believed that the incident referred to occurred at dinner when four females on the Hansard staff entered the dining room to have a meal. At the time the dining room was full except for one or two vacant seats at a table that carried a sign ‘Reserved for Attendants’. However as the women wished to have a meal together, and as this was not immediately possible, they were asked to wait outside in the entrance area. This they did and approximately 20 minutes later they returned and were served a meal. No person was refused a meal in the staff dining room last night and it is believed that al) those who wished to do so did obtain a meal. There is pressure on the accommodation available in this dining room, as there is in other parts of this building, and it is possible that, at times, staff will not be able to obtain a seat immediately they enter the dining room, but a meal will always be available to them. I might say that it is not unknown that Senators and their friends have had lo wait for their meals at times.

Senate adjourned at 4.32 p.m.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 5 March 1970, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1970/19700305_senate_27_s43/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant