Senate
10 March 1970

27th Parliament · 2nd Session



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

page 133

QUESTION

HEALTH

Senator MURPHY:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Health, ls it not clear that the Government’s proposals for improvements in the health scheme are going to cost about twice what the Government said in the election campaign would be the cost? Is it not clear also that the proposals are unacceptable to the medical profession? What is the Government going to do about this?

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:

– The Leader of the Opposition has put to me two questions beginning: ‘Is it not clear’. In reply I would say that neither of the points has been made clear to me.

page 133

QUESTION

RURAL INCOMES

Senator PROWSE:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– Is the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry aware of a statement published in the official journal of the Associated Chambers of Commerce, ‘Canberra Comments’, concerning the effect of low rural incomes on the socio-economic structure of this country? Having regard to their expressed concern regarding increased subsidies as a palliative and the need for easing the cost burden, is it true that the Associated Chambers of Commerce have now directed the attention of their members to the part that high wholesale and retail margins play in maintaining the present huge discrepancies between the price obtained by the producers for their product compared with the price charged to consumers?

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

– I have not as yet seen the statement referred to by the honourable senator and therefore I cannot answer either of the questions, but it is well known that primary industries are going through a very difficult stage. This has been caused by rising costs allied to the fact that returns for most primary commodities have either fallen or remained static over the years. It should be remembered that it has been the continuing policy of the Government to support essential industries, and 1 think all honourable senators would agree that rural industries must be regarded as essential because of the important role they play in earning overseas currency. The Government is continuing to review the problems of rural industries. Its concern over the years has been to alleviate the burden of rising costs by a variety of measures.

Senator Devitt:

– What are the measures?

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:

– The honourable senator might place that question on the notice paper. If the Associated Chambers of Commerce desire to assist rural industries I feel sure that the rural industries will be very glad to have their assistance.

page 133

QUESTION

SOCIAL SERVICES

Senator KENNELLY:
VICTORIA

– I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Social Services. Has the Government as yet finalised consideration and arrived at a decision as to whether Maltese migrants - who are in fact British subjects - are entitled to all social service benefits under the laws of the Commonwealth from the date of their arrival in this country? May I remind the Minister that representations on this matter were made to the Government as far back as January 1968?

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:

– I recall Senator Kennelly asking me a question or speaking to me some time ago about social service payments to Maltese migrants in Australia. I know that he is very interested in the matter. My reply as to whether or not a reciprocal agreement has been reached on the payment of social services to Maltese migrants in Australia is that the matter is still under consideration. I add that the whole question of reciprocal rights to social services is currently under review.

page 133

QUESTION

ROYAL TOUR

Senator BRANSON:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– My question is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate, not to the Minister representing the Postmaster-General. The reason for this will be made clear in the last part of my question. Is it a fact that the Australian Broadcasting Commission and commercial television stations will combine their television coverage of the Royal visit which begins on 30th March? ls it also a fact that coverage of the Queen’s arrival in Australia and the subsequent arrivals in each State and the Australian national capital will be shown nationally, with the exception of Western Australia which is to be excluded specifically from the programmes shown in the eastern States? Does this exclusion of one-third of Australia apply also to the television coverage of the Royal visit to the Captain Cook bicentenary exhibition in Melbourne on 6th April? Why has Western Australia been denied this coverage when that State has been excluded totally from the Royal tour and not one member of the Royal family will visit it. Will the Leader of the Government ask the Prime Minister to intercede on behalf of the people of Western Australia to see that they do get this coverage?

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

– As far as 1 know, both the Australian Broadcasting Commission and the commercial stations will combine to give a coverage of the Royal tour. I was not aware that the whole or any part of the coverage will not extend to Western Australia, lt may be that some technical reasons are involved. 1 shall seek to ascertain those reasons and let the Senate and the honourable senator know the result. I will ask the Prime Minister whether there is any possibility of his interceding to ensure that coverage, if not a wide coverage, of the whole tour is given to Western Australia. J believe that some special technical reasons must exist within the PostmasterGeneral’s Department which preclude this coverage.

page 134

QUESTION

ROYAL AUSTRALIAN AIR FORCE

Senator WILLESEE:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I ask the Minister for Air the following question: Recently a search for a man lost in wild country near Derby in Western Australia was carried out for several days. Can the Minister say why Royal Australian Air Force aircraft were not used in that search?

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
CP

– The

Royal Australian Air Force gives assistance when called upon. I do not know whether it was called upon on this occasion. I shall make inquiries and let the honourable senator know.

page 134

QUESTION

PEAS

Senator LILLICO:
TASMANIA

– I direct a question to the Minister representing the AttorneyGeneral. Is it not correct that the overseas firm Unilever Pty Ltd has the patent rights for the manufacture of what are known as Surprise peas and that this system of manufacture is being used in the United States of America, in New Zealand and even in the United Kingdom for peas exported to Australia, which exports are certainly damaging the Australian industry? Because Part XII of the Patents Act provides for the granting of compulsory licences to work a patented invention where the reasonable requirements of the public with respect to the invention are not met by the patentee himself, is there not a case to be answered because these requirements, to the best of my knowledge, apply not to Australian peas but .to imported peas, with considerable damage to the Australian producer? Is it not competent for the Government, through the Tariff Board, to indicate clearly that if these requirements, or a considerable part thereof, are not met from within Australia. the imports will be greatly reduced or, better still, eliminated altogether?

Senator WRIGHT:
Minister for Works · TASMANIA · LP

– The honourable senator refers in his question to the importation of Surprise peas. It is well known to those of us who come from Tasmania that the importation of this product is having an adverse effect upon the production of peas in Tasmania. The specific question of whether patent rights belong to Unilever in respect of the processing of Surprise peas in the United States of America and New Zealand is a matter upon which I gave the honourable senator detailed information last year. The information is fairly technical and precise. Therefore, I would prefer to refer to the text of my answer before saying what Unilever’s position is in relation to the patent. I believe that Unilever does hold the patent, but I am unable to state that as a fact.

The honourable senator referred to Part XII of the Patents Act and in particular to an expression concerning the reasonable requirements of the public. I am inclined to think that his view is not well based, but before giving any real opinion I would have to consider the section. I should not think that it is within the competence of the Government to invoke that section for the purpose of preventing this patented article being imported into Australia. J think any restriction on its importation would have to be by means of an international agreement or a tariff and not by application of Part XII of the Act. But I shall examine that aspect of the honourable senator’s question more carefully and if it is necessary for me to supplement my answer I shall communicate more specifically with him.

page 135

QUESTION

COURTS AND JUDICIARY

Senator O’BYRNE:
TASMANIA

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Attorney-General. Having regard to the growing need for eternal vigilance in upholding and maintaining basic civil and human rights in Australia, I ask: Why does the police force in Canberra have discretionary power to intimidate people by insisting on the right to fingerprint and photograph people under arrest? Will the Minister have an inquiry instituted and a report made to the Senate on the erosion of human rights which was observed by Mr Justice Fox of the Australian Capital Territory Supreme Court when he said that the appeal of Marrilyn Lee Sernach had brought to light a rather unhappy and unedifying situation in which an instruction to the Australian Capital Territory police force as to when fingerprints were to be taken was unlawful?

Senator WRIGHT:
LP

– It so happens that I read the report which appeared in this morning’s ‘Canberra Times’ of the remarks of Mr Justice Fox in this matter. I have not had access to the full text of his judgment. All I would say at this stage is that what I read, which appeared to be a fairly full excerpt from the judgment, did not warrant the reference to human rights and a violation of civil liberties which the honourable senator has made. The judgment is to the effect that in certain circumstances it is not necessary for the identification of the person concerned to fingerprint that person. In this matter it was adjudged unlawful to do so. I make no comment whatsoever upon the judgment because I assume that there is a right to appeal and until the time for an appeal to be lodged has expired it would be inappropriate for me to make any comment upon the subject. The only thing I wish to add is that, without checking, I would assume that the police force referred to is the Australian Capital Territory Police Force and not the Commonwealth Police Force. The ACT Police Force is the responsibility of my colleague the Minister for the Interior. The Attorney-General is answerable for the administration of the Commonwealth Police Force.

page 135

QUESTION

TAXATION

Senator YOUNG:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I ask the Minister representing the Treasurer: Are the application and administration of the provisions of the Income Tax Assessment Act uniform throughout the States in relation to the assessment of relatively high rental values of houses provided for workers on rural properties by the property owners? Will the Minister inquire whether some rural workers are being unfairly taxed on unreal rental values of such housing? If so, will the Minister consider exempting rural workers from this increased tax which is yet another cost burden upon primary industry and also greatly reduces incentives for workers to seek employment in the rural industry?

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– Quite clearly the honourable senator is asking for an opinion or a judgment of the Treasurer. I therefore suggest that he place his question on the notice paper. My understanding of the assessment of rentals of rural properties is that it is across the board. However, if the honourable senator places his question on the notice paper I will get for him a considered reply from the Treasurer.

page 135

QUESTION

ROYAL TOUR

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– Earlier today, Mr President, Senator Branson asked me a question about the television coverage in Western Australia of the coming Royal visit to Australia. The Minister for Housing, who represents the Postmaster-General in this chamber, has now supplied me with supplementary information which I am sure all honourable senators will want to have. The Government is making the necessary arrangements to enable Western Australia to receive two live telecasts via the Pacific Ocean satellite during the Royal visit. In consultation with the Australian Broadcasting Commission and the Federation of Commercial Television Stations it has been agreed that the events to be telecast direct to Western Australia should be the Queen’s arrival in Sydney and the Anzac Day ceremonies in Canberra. The Commonwealth will meet the satellite charges for these two transmissions. Coverage of other Royal visit events will be available to Western Australia on film and videotape.

page 136

QUESTION

WOOL

Senator POYSER:
VICTORIA

– I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry whether it is a fact that in anticipation of adoption by the Government of the proposed wool marketing plan submitted by the Australian Wool Industry Conference wool brokers have already increased charges for items that the Government will subsidise under that plan?

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
CP

– I am not aware whether wool brokers have recently increased their charges, or whether they have clone so because a plan has come forward. I therefore ask the honourable senator to place his question on the notice paper.

page 136

QUESTION

EMPRESS OF AUSTRALIA

Senator RAE:
TASMANIA

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Shipping and Transport. As a brief preface 1 refer to the numerous industrial disputes which have interfered with the operation of the Australian National Line ship Empress of Australia’ and to the fact that the ship is at present making its second consecutive trip without passengers. T ask: ls there any foundation for the allegation made publicly last weekend that consideration is being given to converting ‘Empress of Australia’ to freight carrying only? If so, will the Minister give an assurance that that ship will not be altered or that another suitable passenger ferry will be substituted so that there will be a continuation of this most important tourist and business service from Sydney to Tasmanian ports?

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

– I am very conscious of the importance to Tasmania of regular services for both passengers and freight. I am not aware of the accuracy or otherwise of the comment referred to by the honourable senator, but I shall certainly direct his question to the Minister and get an early answer for him.

page 136

QUESTION

MICE PLAGUE

Senator BULL:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Education and Science, more specifically in his capacity as Minister-in-Charge of the Commonwealth Scientific and industrial Research Organisation. Has the Minister’s attention been drawn to the great amount of damage which a plague of mice is causing to agricultural crops in various parts of Australia? As poison appears to be an ineffective method of control, and as from past experience disease has usually wiped mice out, will the Minister request the officers of the CSIRO, as a matter of urgency, to take steps in co-operation with the States, if this is practicable, to infect mice, where they are in plague proportions, with a disease with a view to bringing them under control?

Senator WRIGHT:
LP

– Yes, I have seen references to the development of mice in plague proportions and their effect on agricultural products. I understand that the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation has not yet established a project to investigate the appropriate means with which to combat this plague. It is a question of the priority of programmes in the CSIRO, but I shall certainly bring to the. Minister the honourable senator’s opinion as to the degree of concern that should be given to the matter and ask him whether he cares to make a comment. I have no knowledge of whether there is an appropriate disease with which these mice can be inflicted but that, too, will be part of the reference to the CSIRO.

Fill AIRCRAFT

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

– I ask the Minister for Air a question. What is the total cost of providing all facilities for the introduction of the FU 1 to Australia, that is, the cost of buildings, extensions to runways, and the special training and maintenance of crews in the United Suites of America? What is the total cost of all stores and supplies for the F1 1 1 up to the present time? What is the total cost paid by the Australian Government for the purchase of these planes up to the present time?

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
CP

– Last week the honourable senator warned me that he would be likely to ask me this question. So I have ascertained some information for him. The total cost to date of providing the ground facilities at the Royal

Australian Air Force base at Amberley for the Fill and for the training and maintenance of crews in the United States of America is S8.8m. The total advised expenditure as at 28th February 1970 on all stores and supplies for the Fill and for the purchase of the aircraft was $ 194.7m. I point out to the honourable senator, however, that the provision of facilities at Amberley cannot be entirely attributed to the Fill aircraft as the buildings were of pre-war vintage and needed replacement in any case.

page 137

QUESTION

PRIMARY INDUSTRY

Senator DEVITT:

– I ask a question of the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry. By way of preface, I refer to the Minister’s invitation to me today to question him as to the variety of measures which the Government was introducing to overcome the problems of primary industry. I accept, with thinks, his invitation. I now ask him: What are the variety of ways in which the Government intends to meet and to overcome or otherwise assist in solving the problems of primary producers?

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
CP

– I have not a detailed list of the variety of measures which the Government has taken to assist primary industry. I will get it for the honourable senator. I believe that the other part of his question touches upon a matter of policy.

page 137

QUESTION

WATER CONSERVATION

Senator DAVIDSON:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– Has the Minister representing the Prime Minister any information to give the Senate regarding the Government’s assistance to South Australia for the Kimba-Polda pipeline on Eyre Peninsula? Can he advise the Senate whether or not the Government has received submissions from South Australia and, if so, when a decision might be expected?

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– The Premier of South Australia has submitted a list of projects for consideration for financial assistance under the Commonwealth national water resources development programme, and included in the list is a project involving a water pipeline to Kimba. This project will receive consideration by the Commonwealth along with other projects submitted by the

Premier of South Australia and by other Premiers. It is not possible to indicate when a decision will be available because of the number of projects in the process of being submitted by the States and the necessary studies involved; but a decision will be made as early as possible.

page 137

QUESTION

CIGARETTE SMOKING

Senator LITTLE:
VICTORIA

– Is the Minister representing the Minister for Health aware of the published results of experiments conducted in America by Drs Hammond and Auerbach titled: ‘The Effects of Cigarette Smoking upon Dogs’? Does he know that for the first time these doctors produced lung cancer in a significantly large animal as a result of heavy cigarette smoking in tests, the dogs having been conditioned to smoke cigarettes as humans do? In view of this further proof of the dangers of cigarette smoking being added to the mass of statistical data already available, will the Commonwealth treat as urgent the negotiations with the States to control the massive advertising that is designed to convince our young people that smoking is a clean, safe and adult habit? Will urgent consideration be given to forcing the labelling of cigarettes as a menace to health and the listing of the tar and nicotine content of the product on the package?

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:

– I have seen the report on the health of the dogs which had been smoking cigarettes. I note the honourable senator’s request about the tar content of cigarettes and the dangers of them being brought to the notice of people who would purchase them. I know that this matter has been under discussion with State Ministers for Health. I believe that much of this is a matter for the States. F will take the matter up with my colleague the Minister for Health, tell him of the honourable senator’s concern and obtain whatever information I can for him.

page 137

QUESTION

VIETNAM

Senator GEORGES:
QUEENSLAND

– I direct a question to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. I refer to an answer to my question on Australian Vietnam casualties which was given by him last week and in which he stated that the casualties were ‘an isolated incident which did regrettably cost lives’. Does he consider the latest casualties announced to be a result of a further isolated incident? if so, how many such isolated incidents will be required to create a situation that will persuade the Government of the tragic futility of our Vietnam involvement?

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– Despite the fact that the honourable senator has quoted from what I said, he has still taken the words out of context They have to be read in relation to the question as it was posed. The question related to the loss of nine of our servicemen who were tragically killed in what I chose to call at that time an isolated incident. I meant, of course, that they were killed in one incident - not in a battle or an action, but in one isolated incident. Having said that and having cleared the honourable senator’s mind on that point, let me say that everybody would regret profoundly the loss of life. On both sides of the chamber there are senators who during their lives have been confronted personally with such a situation. 1 think it is quite unfair for the honourable senator to try to suggest, by inference, that I am immune to that sort of feelings. I assure him F have as many feelings as he or anybody else has in that regard.

page 138

QUESTION

WATER

Senator LILLICO:

– Has the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry any information concerning a report that an American company has secured an area of land in South Australia and that the company or the South Australian Government has made water available for the purpose of producing canning peas for the Australian market? If this is so, what is the area of land involved? Will it not result in a further decline in the income of those farmers engaged in this type of production?

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
CP

– 1 understand that in recent years American companies have purchased land in South Australia and elsewhere. I think that in South Australia in one instance, a company purchased 1,200 acres of land and in two other instances 400 acres of land. I understand the companies have purchased that land for the purpose of growing fruit. They are granted water rights just the same as any other person living in South Australia engaged in the fruit industry under conditions applicable at the time of making application for that water. I do not know sufficient about the pea industry to know whether this would dampen down the present pea prices, but knowing sufficient of primary industry and having had experience of it myself in years gone by, I would think this would be the case.

page 138

QUESTION

TELEPHONES

Senator DRURY:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Postmaster-General. I ask: Is the Minister aware that many pensioners find difficulty in making necessary telephone calls, some of them of an urgent nature, because of their inability to use public telephones because of their locations? Will the Minister consult with the Postmaster-General for the purpose of giving consideration to removing the existing direct installation charge for new telephones applied for by pensioners?

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:

– I note the question the honourable senator has asked in his concern for pensioners who need to make telephone calls. 1 know this matter has been looked at, but I will take the matter up with the Postmaster-General.

page 138

QUESTION

KINGSFORD-SMITH AIRPORT

Senator BULL:

– My question is directed to the Minister for Civil Aviation. In view of the congestion of air traffic, excessive noise and increased air pollution at Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport, will the Government give early consideration to the establishment of an inland international airport with feeder services to State Capital cities?

Senator COTTON:
LP

– I think one ought to begin by saying that one does not necessarily accept that there is great congestion and great air pollution at Sydney airport. The cost of establishing international airports is of quite some magnitude. Nevertheless, I will have inquiries made and have , an answer prepared for the honourable senator.

page 138

QUESTION

OIL POLLUTION

Senator MULVIHILL:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Shipping and Transport. By way of preface I refer to an answer which Senator

Cotton gave Senator Lawrie on 4th March when he stated, in referring to the creation of a Convention for Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damage, that it would be 2 or 3 years before such a convention became effective. My question is this: In view of Senator Wright’s further reply to me on 5th March that no assurance could be given that Ampol Petroleum Ltd would pay in full the clean-up operations associated with the Oceanic Grandeur’ oil tanker spillage, does the Minister still decline to abrogate the 1923 Convention on Maritime Ports by which Australia grants port facilities to overseas vessels? In effect, would not banning port facilities for oil tankers from nations which delay signing the Convention for Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damage hasten the attainment of the minimum number of signatories to this convention to enable it to operate?

Senator COTTON:
LP

– Since the time of Senator Wright’s reply to the honourable senator’s earlier question the Commonwealth has received cabled advice from London that on the date the ‘Oceanic Grandeur’ was damaged with the subsequent loss of part of its oil cargo the owners of the vessel were participating owners in the tanker owners voluntary agreement concerning liability for oil pollution - an agreement which is known as TOVALOP. The full implications of this advice are yet to be studied, but it would appear that this may ensure that the Commonwealth and other interests are fully recompensed for any damage or other costs that follow from this casualty. It would seem that the practicalities of abrogating the convention and statute on the international regime of maritime ports of 1923 in relation to tankers would impose an immense number of problems, but the honourable senator’s views will be brought to the notice of the Minister for Shipping and Transport. I shall obtain for him an answer in detail to that part of his question.

page 139

QUESTION

COMMONWEALTH AND STATE RELATIONS

Senator MILLINER:
QUEENSLAND

– I direct my question to the Minister representing the Prime Minister. I ask the Minister whether his attention has been drawn to the statement in the columns of this morning’s edition of the Queensland ‘Courier-Mail’ and attributed to the Queensland State Treasurer, the Honourable G. Chalk, in which he stated, inter alia:

Queensland is losing more and more control over its own affairs to the Commonwealth and this undesirable trend can lead only to a stronger central government and weaker State governments’?

Will the Prime Minister, after reading the statement, answer such criticisms if they are inconsistent with the facts?

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– It is said that confession is good for the soul. I must confess that my reading has not gone so far as this morning’s edition of the Queensland Courier-Mail’. The remarks quoted by the honourable senator as having been utter-ed by Mr Chalk are, I could understand, in line with arguments relating to Commonwealth and State relations advanced prior to the Premiers Conference which was held several weeks ago. Various Premiers have since expressed the view that it may well be that, following the conference, circumstances have changed for the Commonwealth, the Prime Minister and the Treasurer. The true position is that a new agreement is to be negotiated between the Commonwealth and the States before 30th June. It is equally true that Commonwealth and State Treasury officials are currently examining proposals for a new set of arrangements to operate as from 1st July this year. In all the circumstances I suggest that it would be premature for me to comment. I am quite certain that what will emerge will maintain Commonwealth responsibility for the overall economy of Australia and will preserve the necessary sovereignty of the States.

page 139

QUESTION

RHODESIA

Senator WHEELDON:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I direct a question to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. The Minister may recall that on 3rd March I asked him whether he agreed with the statement of the honourable member for Boothby (Mr McLeay) that he was glad that sanctions against Rhodesia had failed, and whether the Government would declare whether it wished to be allied with the illegal Smith regime in Rhodesia or with our Asian allies and fellow Commonwealth members who are committed to the policy of sanctions. In his reply the Minister said that he certainly would not make any comment about a statement which I had read in the Press until he had the advantage of reading the full text of what the honourable member had said. As a week has now passed and as I have no doubt that the Leader of the Government, with his customary diligence, will have taken the opportunity to read the complete text of what has been said, will he indicate whether the Government wishes to be identified with the statements made by Mr McLeay or whether it wishes Australia to maintain its friendly relations with Malaysia and Singapore?

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– There is no question about the friendly relations between Australia and Malaysia and Singapore. How the honourable senator connects that part of his question to the first part of his question I am not quite clear. I know that Australia has implemented the United Nations sanctions. I know too that it would be very unwise for anyone to make a harsh judgment of a person on the basis of reading only part of the statements attributed to that person.

page 140

QUESTION

DAYLIGHT SAVING

Senator MARRIOTT:
TASMANIA

– I address my question to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. If and when the Prime Minister and the Premiers again discuss the advisability of the other Australian States following Tasmania in enjoying daylight saving in the summer months, will the Commonwealth Government impress upon the Premiers of the other States the opinion of the Australian Chamber of Automotive Industries that daylight saving is an important road safety factor in that the majority of accidents occur during the present eastern standard time evening peak hour traffic period and that that period would not be in operation with daylight saving?

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– The honourable senator is talking to one of the converted when it comes to daylight saving. I have always been an advocate of daylight saving and will remain so. As to the point he made relating to the automotive industry, it is true to say that when the Senate select committee dealt with the problem of road safety one of the points that were brought out quite strongly in its recommendations was that it has been established all over the world that the casualty rate is significant in the twilight period. There is no doubt - and I think it can be accepted, as the honourable senator and the automotive industry have indicated - that there is an above normal critical period towards evening. All I can say is that I hope that when the Premiers Conference reassembles those present will decide that the States will co-operate in introducing what we choose to call ‘summer daylight saving’. Tasmania has it and I would have thought that if Tasmania, which is the most southern State of the continent, could have it with the overwhelming support of the people of that State how much more impact there would be on the mainland where the advantages of daylight saving would be even greater.

page 140

QUESTION

DEFENCE

Senator BISHOP:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Defence. Is it a fact, as recently reported in. the Press, that a current review by a joint Defence Department-Army committee of inquiry into proposed new Army installations on the Australian mainland now considered to be urgently required and involving the expenditure of several millions of dollars is being restricted to sites in Western Australia and Queensland and that no consideration is being given to proposals that South Australia should be included in the provision of sites for units or for ordnance depots? Will the Minister consider the long standing request of South Australia that units might be housed in that State or, at any rate, that an ordnance depot be established at Elizabeth on land now held by the Commonwealth Government?

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– I am not informed as to the basic part of the question. I am aware of the case that has been put to me to put to the Government for consideration of South Australia in the selection of sites. I am aware also, of course, of the establishments that we have in South Australia, notably the Department of Supply establishment at Salisbury. I will seek more information and made it available to the honourable senator as soon as possible.

page 140

QUESTION

INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS

Senator FITZGERALD:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– Will the Minister representing the Minister for External Affairs advise whether the Government is in agreement with the statement made by the Indonesian Foreign Minister on the neutralisation of the Indian Ocean area and ridding the area of all defence equipment? Would the proposed defence base contemplated by the Government in Western Australia and the North West Cape installation at present under construction in that State conflict with the Indonesian Minister’s policy? In view of the close cooperation of this Government and Indonesia since the days of the handing over of West New Guinea, did any discussion take place with the Australian Government before this statement was made by Indonesia’s Foreign Minister? If the Government does not agree, what action is contemplated to have its views made known to all Australians and to the countries in this area?

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– I am sure that the Senate will recognise that it is completely inappropriate for me to give answers during question lime on matters regarding our relationship with other nations and I therefore think it is proper for the honourable senator to put the question on the notice paper.

page 141

QUESTION

VIP FLIGHT

Senator McMANUS:
VICTORIA

– I ask the Minister for Air: How many aircraft are assigned to the so designated VIP flight of the Royal Australian Air Force? What types of aircraft are operated by this flight? What is the operating cost per hour of each type of aircraft?

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
CP

– There are 7 aircraft assigned to the VIP flight, namely, 3 Mystere 20s, 2 HS748s and 2 BAC111 s. I have not any detailed information of the cost per flying hour. The guide I generally use is about $700 per hour for a BACIII, about $450 per hour for a Mystere 20, and about $190 per hour for a HS748 aircraft.

page 141

QUESTION

WYNYARD AIRPORT

Senator DEVITT:

– I direct a question to the Minister for Civil Aviation. Does the Department of Civil Aviation intend to extend the length of runways and the total area of the Wynyard aerodrome? If so, when is it proposed to put the work in hand? What additional land will need to be acquired for this project, and from whom is it proposed to acquire the land?

Senator COTTON:
LP

– I am unable to give a fully detailed answer to the question as an important issue to be resolved is the airlines’ intentions to serve north west and northern Tasmania. Until that is quite clear it is rather difficult to give clear definition to all of these points and to give a definite answer to the honourable senator. 1 will keep this question in a running file so that as later information becomes available I will convey it to him.

page 141

QUESTION

CONTINENTAL SHELF

Senator CANT:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I direct a question to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. Has the Minister seen a report in the Melbourne ‘Sun’ of 10th March 1970 which states that when referring to the proposed Commonwealth legislation on the continental shelf Sir Henry Bolte is alleged to have said: ‘They are a lot of pirates up in Canberra’? ls there any conflict between that statement and the statement of Sir Henry Bolte in 1967, when the off-shore oil agreement was signed, that the Stales had had their greatest victory over the Commonwealth since federation? Was Sir Henry Bolte speaking on behalf of Slate Liberal Party branches in 1967? In his statement of 10th March 1970 was he speaking on behalf of those branches? ls this a case of he who laughs last laughs longest?

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– Here again I am being invited to comment on something which must be taken from a complete text and I would not like to make a judgment on this until I see it in full.

page 141

QUESTION

CANBERRA AND THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Senator GEORGES:

– I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for the Interior. I refer to the court action in the Australian Capital Territory against a boy of 16 years for wearing a hate shirt bearing the words: ‘I hate every cop in this town. A good cop is a dead one’. Has the Minister ascertained who sold the shirt? If so, does he intend to take the same action against the seller as was taken against the boy?

Senator COTTON:
LP

– I am not in the shirt selling business but 1 will direct the inquiry to the Minister for the Interior and obtain an answer for the honourable senator.

page 142

QUESTION

SHIPPING AND TRANSPORT

Senator MULVIHILL:

– I direct another question to the Minister representing the Minister for Shipping and Transport. The Minister will appreciate that 1 missed the latter part of his answer to my previous question. I refer to a letter from the Minister for Shipping and Transport dated 21st August 1969, in which the Minister stated that two oil companies which were operating tankers on the Australian coastal trade, namely Ampol Petroleum Pty Ltd and Australian Oil Refinery Pty Ltd, were not members of TOVALOP. I now ask: In the light of the statement in this morning’s Press that the ‘Oceanic Grandeur’, involved in the present Torres Strait mishap, is covered by TOVALOP are we to assume that Ampol now is a direct member of TOVALOP or are we to assume that it adopts the hit and miss arrangement of leaving it to the respective overseas owners of tankers that it may charter as to whether or not those owners are members of TOVALOP?

Senator COTTON:
LP

– As far as we can ascertain at present, Ampol Petroleum Pty Ltd is not a member of TOVALOP. Which particular ship Ampol chooses to charter to carry its cargoes is a matter for Ampol and is not a responsibility, so I am informed, of the Department of Shipping and Transport.

page 142

QUESTION

CIVIL AVIATION

Senator BISHOP:

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Civil Aviation. Does the special licence to import a British made HS125 twin jet aircraft granted to a Western Australian charter company in November 1969 represent a change of policy by this Government in relation to the importation of executive jets and of its two airline policy? If this is so, what is the present position in relation to other applications by Australian operators?

Senator COTTON:
LP

– Without reference to notes and files, I shall do my best to give Senator Bishop an answer to his question. It is true that the Commonwealth does restrict the import of aircraft of above a certain poundage. It is equally true that a licence to import the aircraft he mentioned was granted to a Western Australian firm some time last year. The licence was granted on a restricted private use basis. So far as I can judge from earlier reading, this decision in no way affects the Government’s present two airline policy or any of its other expressed intentions.

Senator Bishop:

– Will the Minister make inquiries?

Senator COTTON:

– The honourable senator may rest assured that 1 will make inquiries. I will get the information to him as soon as I can.

page 142

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY: PINE FORESTS

Senator MULVIHILL:

– I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for the Interior. Why has the Department of the Interior developed an obsession for pine plantations in the Australian Capital Territory, as exemplified by the latest rash of pine plantings opposite the Canberra airport? Why are not gum trees planted in some of these areas, if for no other reason than that Australian bird life seems to be less partial to pine trees than to our own native varieties?

Senator COTTON:
LP

– I have spent part of my life amongst trees, so 1 shall endeavour to give a little brief expert knowledge. Pine trees have been planted in Canberra and in particular reasonably close to the airport because they grow very quickly and become very dense. It is hoped that the trees planted at the airport will have some useful effect later on, when they reach some density and some height, in overcoming the problem of aircraft noise around the airport. It is true, from one’s own observation, that bird life seems to prefer open eucalypt forests to the more dense and heavily covered pine forests. It is equally true that the Australian Capital Territory is one of the notable examples of the planting of eucalyptus trees for ornamental purposes. For that I think we should commend the Department of the Interior.

page 142

QUESTION

NATIONAL SERVICE

Senator MURPHY:

– Is the Minister representing the Minister for Labour and National Service aware that under the American legislation for military selective service - the equivalent of our national service - the order of the draft drawing is published in the national newspapers so that not only the birth dates but the order in which they are drawn is available freely for all citizens to see?I have photostat copies of the ‘New York Times’ of 2nd and 3rd December 1969 for him to see the dates of birth if he wishes. Can the Minister tell us why, in view of the fact that in the United States of America it is considered important to publish the birth dates to ensure that there is no nonsense about the selection, the Australian Government refuses to publish these dates but keeps them a secret from the people?

Senator WRIGHT:
LP

– I shall take the earliest opportunity to verify the prescribed methods and procedures adopted in the United States of America in regard to the drawing of the birth dates. It has been frequently stated in Australia that one of the reasons why the birth dates are not made public is that this would be of assistance to defaulters. The view has always been taken that the call-up is conducted with such integrity that nobody has really doubted the veracity of birth dates when the men concerned have been notified.

page 143

QUESTION

F111 AIRCRAFT

Senator BROWN:
VICTORIA

– I wish to direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Defence. Is it not a fact that the former Minister for Defence, Mr Fairhall - now Sir Allen Fait hall - journeyed to the United States of America last year and attended a handing over ceremony at Fort Worth, Texas, on 5th September 1969, where he formally received and accepted the first F111C aircraft on behalf of the Australian Government? If the Minister agrees that this is so, does it not compromise the Government and inhibit its ability to renegotiate the original contract in order to purchase another suitable aircraft in lieu of the F111C? Finally, what is the estimated cost of cancellation if this avenue is still available to the Government?

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– It is true that Sir Allen Fairhall, as he now is, who was Minister for Defence at the time, visited the United States of America and, at a ceremony, received nominally an aircraft in connection with Australia’s F111 project. I do not accept, and I am sure that the Government does not accept, that this will in any way inhibit the discussions the present Minister for Defence proposes to have with the United States Government when he visits that country in the near future.I am not in a position to give the figure the honourable senator seeks or to give an answer to his imputation in regard to that figure, which is, of course, a different matter again. The Minister for Defence made a statement in another place last Thursday night in connection with the F111 aircraft and I commend it to the honourable senator. The statement may contain some of the information the honourable senator seeks.

page 143

QUESTION

SHIPPING

(Question No. 34)

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

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

What Australian companies, if any, are engaged as shippers in the containerisation trade?

Senator COTTON:
LP

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

It is impracticable forme to answer the honourable senator’s question owingto the enormous number of Australian companies and individuals who are shipping goods through container services.

page 143

QUESTION

DEPARTMENT OF CUSTOMS AND EXCISE

(Question No. 36)

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Customs and Excise, upon notice:

  1. How many ministerial determinations were found by the Department of Customs and Excise to have had duplicated numbering during 1968?
  2. If there were more than one, what was the number of each duplication, the goods concerned, the name of the importer, the name of the agent, and the amount of duty involved?
  3. Which person or persons were responsible for the issuing of the duplicated number in each case?
Senator COTTON:
LP

– The Minister for Customs and Excise has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question: (1), (2) and (3) There was only one case where what purported to be a ministerial determination was issued bearing a number allocated to a valid determination.

page 144

TARIFF BOARD

Reports on Items

Senator COTTON:
New South WalesMinister for Civil Aviation · LP

– I present the following reports by the Tariff Board:

Almonds.

Belts, belting, and woven cotton fabrics over 15 ounces per square yard.

Chlorine and sodium hydroxide.

Compressed gas cylinders.

Drawing, measuring and calculating instruments.

Flexible metal tubing, piping and transmission shafts.

Syringes, injection or puncture needles, etc.

Taximeters.

Time switches and movements and parts therefor.

I present also the following reports by the Tariff Board which do not call for any legislative action:

Choline Chloride (Dumping and Subsidies Act), Forged steel flanges.

Pursuant to statute I present also Special Advisory Authority reports on:

Curtain hooks of base metal.

Metal-working machine tools.

Vegetable oils.

page 144

PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE

General Report

Senator DITTMER:
Queensland

– In accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, I present the Thirty-Second General Report of the Committee.

page 144

AUSTRALIA TO WEST COAST OF NORTH AMERICA SHIPPING SERVICE

Ministerial Statement

Senator COTTON:
New South WalesMinister for Civil Aviation · LP

– by leave - On 26th November 1968 the Prime Minister (Mr Gorton) informed the House of the Government’s decision to enter overseas shipping through the operation in its own right of Australian crewed vessels. As a result of negotiations initiated by my colleague, the Minister for Trade and Industry (Mr McEwen), the Australian National Line is now operating a vessel in the European trade and arrangements have been made for participation in the trade to the east coast of North America. In addition the Line is operating another vessel in the Eastern Scaroad Service to Japan.

As a logical development of this involvement in overseas shipping the Government has now approved the Australian National Line entering a new shipping service between Australia and the west coast of North America.

The Australian National Line will join with Trans-Austral Shipping Pty Ltd, an Australian subsidiary of the Swedish shipping company Trans-Atlantic, and Elder Smith and Co. Ltd, in a new Australian company to own the vessel. Final details of the new company are currently being negotiated but the vessel will be operated by the Australian National Line under the Australian flag with an Australian crew. In this way the Australian National Line can gain experience in association with a shipowner already in the trade and an opportunity is afforded to another Australian interest to enter overseas shipping.

The vessel will be an entirely new type of vehicle deck ship which can operate at ordinary wharves and does not require special facilities for stern loading. It will offer a joint service in conjunction with two other ships of the same type. These ships will be owned by Trans-Atlantic and Associated Container Transportation (Australia) Limited of Great Britain. The new operation will be called the Pacific Australia Direct Service and will be a development from the present service offered by TransAtlantic under that name.

Operation of a vessel in the west coast trade follows from the arrangements already made for the Line to enter the east coast North America trade in its joint venture with ACTA lines. The new vessel will be much bigger than the largest roll-on roll-off vessel now operated by the Australian National Line. It will incorporate a newly developed quarter ramp loading system which does away with the need for special wharves. I am sure that members of the Senate will agree that the operation of this vessel will provide the Australian National Line with valuable experience of yet another advanced type of ship in another important overseas trade.

Senator BISHOP:
South Australia

– by leave - The Opposition welcomes this new venture by the Australian National Line, just as we welcomed the arrangement proposed by the Government to have Australian ships operate in the cargo trade to the United Kingdom and Japan. When this proposal was announced the Opposition considered that a greater opportunity might have been given to Australian shipyards to build the necessary vessels. However, we accepted the argument that the need to have the ships operating quickly and therefore for their early delivery was highly important in order to get the Australian National Line into this operation. Honourable senators are aware that the entry of the Australian National Line into overseas shipping services has been one of the constant aims of the Australian Labor Party members in this Parliament for at least 15 years. On many occasions we have in this Parliament raised it as a matter of urgency and have pointed out to the Government the advantages of having our own ships operating in the overseas trade. Recently the Government has accepted what we have proposed.

I wish to commend the work of the Senate Select Committee on the Container Method of Handling Cargoes in recent years. The Committee stressed the need for Australian ships to operate in overseas trade. We argued then - the argument is still sound - that Australia’s participation within the shipping conferences or Australia’s operating its own ships would enable us to obtain the actual freight rates, which are highly important, which we have never been able to obtain, and without which Australian producers have been greatly prejudiced.

While we welcome the proposal for Australia to enter the West Coast of North America shipping service, one of the catches in the situation, as we see it, is the argument that the National Line should enter into a small conference so that it can operate with an experienced shipping line. There may be some advantage in this situation for a short time, but we trust that the Government will not allow the arrangements for this trade or the arrangements for the Japanese or United Kingdom trade to inhibit the Australian National Line from operating in its own behalf as a separate entity, thus assisting the Australian economy and providing great benefits to the Australian producers. In recent years the Australian National Line has made repeated requests to do exactly what it is doing now, that is. to enter the overseas shipping trade. Honourable senators will recall that in recent reports of the Australian Coastal Shipping Commission, the Chairman, Sir John Williams, has advocated that the Australian National Line should enter the overseas trade.

We ought to be considering the need to build these vessels in Australia. At the present time we are committed to a shipbuilding programme of approximately S45m. These vessels are being built overseas. It would seem to me to be possible now for the Government and the Australian National Line to plan in order to gain the other advantage from overseas shipping, that is, to have vessels built in Australia on a long term basis. Most honourable senators will know that the Australian shipbuilding industry is, to some extent, run down. There are troughs of depression in many shipyards in Australia, particularly in New South Wales. It seems to me the time has arrived when there should be discussion between the people engaged in the industry and the trade unions as tq the need to have vessels built in Australia.

The final point 1 make is one which I raised earlier, that is, that in the future the Government should ensure that we will not be hamstrung by any of the arrangements into which we have entered with the other two companies. One of the Australian newspapers made this point, which seems to mc to put the proposition fairly:

There are further complications for the Government in balancing its interests between owning and operating ships and the protection of those who use them. Its overseas ventures have meant joining four shipping conferences.

We trust that careful consideration will be given to this aspect of overseas shipping in the future.

page 145

QUESTION

GOVERNOR-GENERAL’S SPEECH

Address-in-Reply

Debate resumed from 5 March (vide page 130), on motion by Senator Rae:

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

Mav 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 -

  1. an adequate statement on Australian Foreign Policy:
  2. a comprehensive programme to rehabilitate Primary Industry;
  3. a plan mutually acceptable to the Commonwealth and the States for the equitable distribution of national revenue;
  4. adequate measures to promote family life, particularly in the fields of child endowment, maternity allowances and education; and
  5. provision for a contributory National Insurance plan’.
Senator CAVANAGH:
South Australia

– On Thursday when the Senate adjourned I had gone into some detail as to allegations of rape at the Yuendumu Aboriginal settlement near Alice Springs. To prove my case I accepted as a witness Rev. Fleming who was a Baptist Minister at the settlement. The Minister for the Interior (Mr Nixon) also accepted him as a witness. In fact, it was on the report of Rev. Fleming, which was supplied to me by the Minister, that I made out my case that rape did take place. I reserved my right to speak today for the purpose of summing up what I had attempted to prove in my speech. There is no more I can add to it. Before I spoke in the Address-in-Reply debate I had sent a message to the Minister for Civil Aviation (Senator Cotton), who represents the Minister for the Interior in this chamber, and I was pleased to note that he sat in the chamber throughout the whole discussion. I hope that he will take back the remarks I made on Thursday and the further remarks I make today, because I intend to demand answers to the questions I have raised. This is not a party political subject; it is a matter of a breach of Australian law. In summing up the final conclusions to which I have come, I will welcome any interjection as to whether they are correct.

Despite the statements of Rev. Fleming and the 13 councillors who signed the declaration for the Minister’s purpose, I say definitely that it was proved that in 1967 three girls were abducted by six Aboriginal men; there was a breach of Australian law and accordingly those men should have been or should be prosecuted. If carnal knowledge occurred then a charge of rape should succeed in a court of law and those who uphold Australian law should see that those responsible are charged in the Australian courts.

This conduct has been excused somewhat on the ground that it was Aboriginal custom because the girls were promised as brides to the men concerned. That would be a matter to be considered in fixing a penalty for the breach of Australian law. If this were one of the traditional customs of the race, one would expect that the person charged would not receive the same penalty as someone in our capital cities or someone who was not influenced by a traditional custom. But the important point about this matter is that the traditional custom was a secondary consideration for the Aboriginals concerned. Aboriginals follow tradition if it does not interfere with the white man’s law.

Honourable senators will remember that a document I read out stated that these girls were punished for not obeying the tradition and that the punishment was decided by the councillors. But the councillors were relying on the permission of the superintendent. His permission was sought and obtained. Therefore, if this white man - the Government’s representative - had not given permission, this assault on the young girls would never have taken place. So the whole point is that although this incident may have been in accordance with Aboriginal custom, it could not have occurred without the permission of the white man.

There are certain questions which I ask now and which I will place on the notice paper in the near future. Answers to them will be sought now and in the future. One question is: What action is to be taken against the superintendent who gave permission for the rape of young girls of the tribe to take place? Another important question is: What do we do with the Minister of the Crown who upholds the action of his appointed superintendent in giving permission for the rape of three young girls to take place? The Minister for the Interior said in his letter in reply to mine - I think this is a portion of the letter that I have not read:

The Aboriginal councillors at Yuendumu were asked about it and their reply was given.

That referred to my earlier complaint -

The Reverend T. J. Fleming, the Baptist resident missionary at Yuendumu for approximately the past 20 years, was quoted as having heard nothing of the alleged incident.

Another point is the lapse of time that occurred between the alleged incident which was of a most serious nature and its public mention. I would think that these factors should be sufficient to establish that an improper inquiry was made at the time when it could not be found that such an incident happened. Let me nail this point about the length of time that occurred before publicity was given to this incident. At the first interview with Mr Nichols at the time of his dismissal from the Yuendumu settlement he mentioned the details but I was not prepared to make such a serious allegation publicly without greater proof that I had at the time. The blame for the delay lies entirely with me but even delay does not justify the fact that no action was taken. The Minister for the Interior (Mr Nixon) informed me that he had made further inquiries, because on raising the matter in the House 1 had named a specific date in August or September 1967. After making inquiries the Minister stated:

It seems to me that Mr Nichols has placed an erroneous construction on an event which took place over 2 years ago. There are aspects of Aboriginal social practice or custom which would not be acceptable in the general community. Initiations, male and female circumcisions, the promising of young girls in marriage to old men are all parts of traditional culture which are still practised in Aboriginal communities of the Territory but which, judged from Western eyes, are repugnant. It would however be a grave mistake to judge Aboriginal social practices and customs from our own moral standards. Changes are taking place at a rate which is acceptable to the Aboriginal people.

In effect the Minister is saying that we should not judge their behaviour by our standards. He says, in effect: ‘If they want to carry on this practice, then let them carry on the practice. We hope in time to bring about results.’ The Minister ignores the important fact that the incident would never have occurred had his official not sanctioned it. Another important point has arisen in the Press over the weekend. Last Friday’s edition of the Sydney ‘Sun’ and last Sunday’s edition of the Adelaide ‘Mail’ reported the case of an inherited bride of the Yirrkala village and the trial at Gove Peninsula. The fact that the matter is now subject to trial inhibits me from saying what, perhaps, I would like to say. But without entering into any question that may influence the trial or have any bearing on it let me just state that the Press reported it was the case of a 14-year-old girl who was inherited by the tribal chief as a wife because the tribal chief to whom she was to have been wed had died. The next tribal chief inherited the bride. She refused to be inherited by the new tribal chief. Of course she resisted the tribal chief who enforced the Yiarrkala tradition of Aboriginal custom, took certain disciplinary action against the girl, and the Government welfare officer rescued the girl and took her to Darwin. This action was taken despite the fact that the tribal chief was acting in accordance with Aboriginal custom, lt is stated that he has now disowned the girl.

The Government is prepared to enforce and give the protection of the white man’s law at Gove Peninsula but it is not prepared to extend the same protection at Yuendumu. Not only is it not prepared to extend the same protection, but the Government’s representative gave permission for tribal law to operate. That tribal law which permits the rape of young girls would never have operated without his permission. Furthermore, in the case at Gove Peninsula to which I have referred, because the tribal chief took disciplinary action against the girl concerned the Commonwealth police are issuing prosecutions to uphold Australian law as against tribal law. No such action is being taken at Yuendumu. Why is there a separate law for Gove Peninsula? Gove Peninsula is an area where Nabalco is reported to be spending about $3 1 Om in mining ventures. It is bulldozing areas which are ancient sacred grounds of the Aboriginals. The result is that the Aboriginal community is taking action against Nabalco and the Commonwealth Government claiming that under Aboriginal tradition and law this land belongs to the Aboriginal people and is not to be bulldozed for mining ventures. 1 believe that this action is to be heard in an Australian court If the Aboriginal people are correct in their claim, this shows the desire of the mining interests to destroy Aboriginal traditions. Why do we seek to destroy Aboriginal tradition when mining interests are involved and seek to uphold it in other areas where mining interests are not involved? Is this purely a case of looking after the interests of the mining organisations?

Rape did take place at Yuendumu. It took place with the authority of the while superintendent who is the Government representative there. No action has been taken against this nian because the Minister justifies and upholds what occurred. I want to know how long this is going to be permitted. The Minister does not justify this at Gove Peninsula. An inquiry is needed into this setup. As I have told you, my informant through this whole messy business has been a Mr Nichols who was employed at Yuendumu as a mechanic and, during the absence on annual leave of the assistant manager, as assistant manager. The previous superintendent recommended that Mr Nichols be appointed manager at Yuendumu. The previous superintendent in writing to his head office and recommending Mr Nichols said that he had proved a competent and willing manager and that he had displayed a maturity of outlook and disposition. He said: ‘Mr Nichols is able and willing to take part in general social work with Aborigines and is capable of supervising European staff.’ That was said by the previous manager. At the time of the appointment of a new superintendent efforts were made to transfer Mr Nichols. On representation by Aboriginals in the area Mr Nichols refused to be transferred and suffered the consequences of dismissal from the service. At the time of his dismissal there was a strike by the Aboriginals against this dismissal. Harry Nelson and Tim Jabangardi who are mentioned in the Council’s letter - they were asked to go down to see Mr Nichols to ask him to stop telling lies - were welcome at Mr Nichols’ home as guests while he was on the settlement, and are still welcome at his home. That was the relationship that existed. I wish now to quote from a Press article which appeared on 7th September 1968. It stated:

HELPED

President of Yuendumu Village Elders Council, Tim Jabanardi said many Aborigines at Yuendumu did not want Nichols to leave. ‘He is a very good man and has helped us in many ways’, he said. ‘He and his wife have shown they are interested in us as people - not like most of the other whites who are just there to do a job and draw their pay’.

The report, which added that Nelson claimed that some white staff at Yuendumu seemed to despise Aboriginals, shows the high esteem in which Nichols was held at the time. Harry Nelson and Tim Jabanardi who are the two men involved, have expressed their feelings in correspondence and have described their efforts to gain support for Nichols. They wrote a joint letter to Mr Giese, the Director of Welfare in the Northern Territory. It is marked Attention Mr Lovegrove’. The letter stated:

Re your letter dated 19th February 1968 about Mr and Mrs Nichols transfer from Yuendumu, we noted that you said that you would discuss this matter with Tim Jabanardi and myself when you visited this settlement. As you’ve probably noticed that both Tim and I were waiting for you. We consider this an insult to our people, as well as Tim and myself there were a number of elders of the tribe waiting for results of this discussion. We repeat on behalf of our people we feel strongly about Mr and Mrs Nichols leaving this settlement. As we mentioned in our previous letter to you, both Mr and Mrs Nichols have been a great help to our people of this settlement. We have found Mr and Mrs Nichols genuinely interested in our people here, as we are anxious for them to remain, we would’ve like to have discussed this matter with you as promised. We personally feel the removal of Mr and Mrs Nichols from this settlement would be a great loss to our people, as they are both highly regarded by our people.

Mr Nichols, about whom this letter was written, is the man who today is called a troublemaker by those who have less interest in Aboriginal affairs than have Mr or Mrs Nichols. Mr Harry Nelson, in writing to Mr and Mrs Nichols, said:

You will be interested to hear that one of the welfare officers approached me on that matter (refers to letter enclosed to Mr Giese). But I told him it was none of his business and told him if Mr Giese wanted to talk to me, to come and see me himself. However I had to go office at 4 o’clock last Friday. I told them if they wanted to see me again to call me down to Yuendumu and we can all get together and talk this over properly.

There was no attempt to get together and to talk over the matter. Now, because of a number of complaints, one of which I have recited this afternoon and the other of which I have put in a question on notice, despite his approaches to sources which would not give him information relating to the documentary evidence that I produced on a previous occasion and despite the fact that he was not prepared to consider the information that I had presented to him is the Minister now prepared to open a full inquiry into complaints at Yuendumu and the dismissal of Mr and Mrs Nichols? That is what is sought on this occasion.

Does the Minister intend to take this matter up with his officers, who are deeply involved in the matter as guilty parties, merely for the purpose of exonerating them and his Department? It is a question whether the Minister wishes this matter to be cleared up or wishes only to exonerate his officers, whether or not the complaints are justified. Is it the Minister’s attitude that we cannot have blame attaching to his officers? Why is the law which operates for Aboriginals at Gove Peninsula different from that which operates at Yuendumu? These are questions which must be answered. If the prosecution at Gove is to proceed against those who are upholding Aboriginal traditions, a prosecution should be instituted at Yuendumu also. If there is to be no prosecution of those who are responsible at Yuendumu, and no inquiry or dismissal, the prosecutions by the Commonwealth at Gove Peninsula should not proceed.

Senator Scott:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA · LP

– I support the motion for the Address in-Reply so ably moved by Senator Rae and seconded by Senator Maunsell. I congratulate them on their speeches and on the amount of work that they put into them before delivering them. Senator Rae talked largely on the problems confronting Australia in relation to defence and referred in particular to the defence needs of South East Asia, including Vietnam. Senator Maunsell talked largely on the problems associated with Australia’s primary industries. I congratulate also His Excellency the Governor-General on the Speech which he was kind enough to deliver in this chamber. In the course of his Speech he touched on 60 or 70 subjects. For the first time for many years we are able to envisage, from what we have been told and from the number of Bills which have been introduced in another place and which will be ready shortly for debate in this chamber - Bills of vital importance for the development of this country - that we will be able to honour the promises given by the Government prior to the election last year.

We have heard comment in the past about the Government making promises in order to be re-elected but then immediately forgetting its promises. There have been accusations of this in the past in one or two policy speeches delivered by the Opposition. My mind goes back to the policy speech delivered in 1966 by the late Prime Minister, Mr Harold Holt, in which he made 13 or 14 different promises to the electors relating to various subjects. By the end of 1967 or the early part of 1968, 95% of those promises had been honoured. I can tell the Senate that all promises made by our present Prime Minister (Mr Gorton) in his last policy speech will be honoured during the life of this Parliament. If this is achieved we will go down in history as being members of political parties which have honoured all their promises.

Senator Hendrickson:

– The honourable senator is joking.

Senator Scott:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA · LP

– I am not joking. I ask the honourable senator when replying to enumerate any promise that was made by the late Prime Minister or by any other Liberal Prime Minister which has not been honoured. In passing I remind honourable senators that when they go to the electors of Australia and make promises it is important that they honour those promises. I do not doubt that the Labor Party would have honoured its promises within the life of the Parliament if it had been elected. However, had it done so, the Treasury purse would have been empty and the taxpayers would have been taxed at such a high rate that they would have lost the incentive to support the Labor Party as a government. We have seen the tremendous development that has taken place in Australia. The achievement of this development has been helped by the rapid inflow of overseas capital. 1 was interested to note that Senator Cameron, whom I congratulate as the newly elected senator for South Australia, stipulated in the last few words of his speech that he believed that legislation should be introduced by the Government to restrict the inflow of overseas capital. So that I do not misquote the honourable senator I shall read his words as they appear in Hansard. He said:

To ensure lhat we do not relinquish any more of our heritage and to safeguard our national independence, legislative restrictions should be imposed on the inflow of overseas investment before it is too late.

Those are the sentiments expressed by Senator Cameron and supported by many members of the Opposition.

Senator Cavanagh:

– We all agree with them.

Senator Scott:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA · LP

– No, you do not all agree with them but many of you do. I think you do. I believe, that if it had not been for the advent of large amounts of overseas capital into Australia we would not have had the large scale development which has taken place, and if we had not had the targe scale development which has taken place we would not have had established the great secondary industries and the mining industries which already have been established.

Senator Georges:

– What about primary industries?

Senator Scott:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA · LP

– The honourable senator has asked quite rightly about primary industries. I point out to him that the forsight of this Government over the past 15 or 20 years has been such that encouragement has been given to the inflow of capital for secondary industries, for mining investment and for the search for oil, if you like. It has also helped in the development of our economy which has been able to sustain a downturn in the earning capacity of our primary industries. In answer to the honourable senator’s question about our primary industries I say that if we had not had this large scale development in Australia we would be relying primarily on our primary industries for our overseas income and at this very moment we would be in a state of recession, if not of depression as occurred between 1928 and 1931 when overseas prices for our primary industries fell. We have been able to sustain full employment despite the fact that, according to Sir William Gunn, the price of wool at this time is lower than it has been since the end of World War II. Therefore I say to the honourable senator that the inflow of overseas capital is of great significance to the development of Australia.

Just because money comes in from overseas does not mean that all the profits made from that money are exported out of the country without the Commonwealth and the State governments concerned getting their share. Let me indicate how this occurs. If an overseas company invests $100m in an iron ore project in Australia and has an export income of $50m a year when the project gets going and makes a net profit of $10m a year, that profit is subject to company tax at a rate of about 45%. In other words to make it quite clear, about 45% of the $10m profit goes to Commonwealth revenue. Then on top of that, before net income is arrived at, a royalty ranging from 50c to $1 a ton is paid to the State Government concerned. After all this money has been received by the Commonwealth and the State, further moneys by way of payroll tax, which benefits Australia, are taken from the company. In the light of those circumstances the honourable senator claims that a profit of $10m from an investment of $100m is a bad thing for Australia. That claim has been repeated by many speakers on the Opposition side on numerous occasions.

Senator Georges:

– Then why is the Government setting up a corporation if it is so good?

Senator Scott:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA · LP

– I say to the honourable senator that without overseas investment we would not have our present population or the great prosperity which is running through our country at this time because, as a result of the low prices that we are receiving for our major overseas income earners, such as wool, we would be in a state of recession.

Senator Georges:

– Will you be marching with the farmers in Victoria?

Senator Scott:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA · LP

– 1 do not know about farmers marching but I say to the honourable senator that farmers in certain sections of Australia, irrespective of whether they are suffering from drought, are certainly suffering because of the low prices they are receiving for their products overseas. 1 refer particularly to farmers who are producing wool. At the last wool sales towards the end of 1969 farmers were able to obtain only about 39.94c a pound for their wool. When we compare that price with the 61.34c a pound that they received in the 5 years from 1951-52 to 1955-56 we see that there has been a fall of 40%, notwithstanding the fact that the minimum weekly male rate for a full weeks work, excluding overtime, has risen from $20.18 in 1950 to $49.14 today.

Senator Milliner:

– Costs have risen too.

Senator Scott:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA · LP

– I am not doubting that at all. lt costs an employee more to live today. That is another reason why there is a difference of practically 243% between what he is getting now and what he received in 1950. I remind the honourable senator that the wool growers of Australia have to meet all of those increased costs.

Senator Milliner:

– So the Government has failed.

Senator Scott:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA · LP

– The honourable senator says that the Government has failed, but I disagree. The wool growers are at this moment receiving less, than 39c per lb for wool, but the wage earner for a full week’s work not including overtime is receiving 243% more today than he received in 1950.

Senator Milliner says that, the Government has failed to look after the wool grower. The Government endeavoured on two occasions to bring in a reserve price plan for wool, once in 1951 and again a few years ago on the recommendation of the wool industry itself. It is the policy of the Government that when the majority of growers in any industry want a plan to look after their industry the Government will support that plan. We have never yet had a majority of wool growers wanting a reserve price plan in Australia. Whether or not it would be right I cannot say. All I can tell the Senate is that if the wool growers of Australia do not receive increased prices for their wool and the cost of producing wool continues to rise as it has risen in the last 10 years, there will be very few sheep left in Australia in a very few years.

That is the desperate position that the wool growers are in at the present time. I do not believe that it is all the fault of the wool growers. I believe that when secondary industries are established and are protected by way of tariff the cost of production is automatically increased in primary industry, which has to sell its product for what it can get on a competitive and open world market. We are advised that at this very moment the wool industry and the Government are considering the problems associated with the industry. I sincerely hope that the wool industry can put forward proposals that, firstly, are in the interests of the industry, and secondly, receive the support of a majority of the industry’s own growers. That is the problem today. Sections of the industry have on two occasions come forward to the Government with proposals and the Government has said: ‘Is this the wish of a majority of your growers or do you think it is? If so, we will have a referendum.’ The Government has twice had a referendum, and the majority of the wool growers on each occasion did not accept the recommendations which had been put to the Government by certain organisations of that industry. If we look closely at the wool industry we find that, despite what the proponents of an improved free auction system believe, there has been on two occasions a need to sell wool which has been accumulated in large numbers of bales during periods of war.

When World War I started the British Government undertook to purchase the Australian clip at the flat rate of 15 id per lb greasy. This undertaking did not expire until one full year after the end of the war on 30th June 1920. Wool stocks owned by the British Government at the end of World War I under the Imperial Wool Purchase Agreement amounted to a total of 1,773,825 bales. Those bales were purchased by the British Government from Australia, New Zealand, the Falkland Islands and South Africa. The BritishAustralian Wool Realisation Association Ltd, of which Australian wool growers were the shareholders, acquired 50% of the Australian carry-over wool on account of the Australian growers. Wool owned by BAWRA on 1st January 1921 totalled 918,002 bales. The Australian Government did not own any of the stocks of wool at the end of the 1914-18 war. BAWRA was responsible only for the disposal of wool carried over from the Imperial Wool Purchase Scheme. It did not handle the current clip for any of the 3i years in which it operated. The function of BAWRA was to dispose of the carry-over wool to the best advantage and as promptly as market conditions would permit, while at the same time contributing to stabilise the wool market which had become demoralised on the return to free wool sales.

It is interesting to note that at the end of the war Australia returned to the free auction system of selling and that system broke down completely in March 1921. Just after that time BAWRA was set up. The free auction system of selling broke down because only about half of the wool that was submitted for auction could be sold, and then it was sold at prices far less than the cost of production. When BAWRA was set up it fixed a minimum reserve price of 8d per lb. The first sale after the fixing of that price was held in March 1921 and was attended by buyers who, competing for wool, would not pay the reserve price and the sales had to be cancelled. The buyers came back a month or so later then paid the reserve price and no wool was sold at a price lower than the average reserve price.

Senator Kennelly:

– In the light of the present trouble in the wool industry, we were better off before.

Senator Scott:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA · LP

– Yes. From 1921 to about 1926 BAWRA sold over and above the wool coming to hand an amount of over 900,000 bales from the war period. BAWRA sold the wool at prices that were profitable to the growers. In about 1925-26 the Australian wool growers held an election to determine whether to continue with this so-called reserve price system or go back to the free auction system without a reserve price. The wool growers decided against going on with BAWRA and went back to the free auction system. Within 2 or 3 years we had the world-wide depression. A severe depression hit the Australian wool industry in 1929-31.

Senator Milliner:

– ls the honourable senator saying that the poor prices today are the wool growers’ own fault?

Senator Scott:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA · LP

– I say that the wool growers had the opportunity of going on with the reserve price scheme but did not. What J have said is factual. With the exception of 1 or 2 years, the price of wool dropped further and further until 1939, when the Second World War broke out. Again the British Government purchased the Australian clip at a guaranteed price of 10.5d, I think, in round figures.

Senator O’Byrne:

– Was not the price ]3.416d?

Senator Scott:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA · LP

– The price was 10.5d sterling, which is 13.416d Australian. In 1942 or 1943 the price rose to over 15d a lb. It is very interesting to note that following World War 11 the wool held over amounted to more than 10 million bales. If the number of bales purchased but which did not bring the reserve price is taken into account, the number amounted to more than 15 million. An organisation known as the Joint Organisation was set up to handle the excess wool held by Australia, New Zealand and South Africa and to dispose of it without interfering with the wool industry. It was feared that the 10 million bales to go on the market from 1946 to 1949 would ruin the wool market under the free auction system. Again a reserve price scheme was brought in, this time under JO, and again Australia was able to sell all its accumulated wool, in fact, the Joint Organisation handled 15,180,590 bales during its years of operation from 1st August 1945 to 22nd January 1952. The value of the wool handled was $249m. The 15,180,590 bales were made up of stocks acquired by the Joint Organisation from the United Kingdom Government totalling 10,470,000 bales plus new clips taken over in 1945-46 amounting to 4,544,000 bales and purchases made by the Joint Organisation under reserve price arrangements amounting to 229,590 bales. After the Joint Organisation finished in 1951-52, the then price under the free auction system was about 61c a lb. Under the free auction system, the price has dropped from 61c a lb to the present price, 5 years after JO, of less than 39c a lb. The growers’ costs have increased by 200%.

Senator Kennelly:

– Is the honourable senator putting a case for a reserve price or is he just telling us how foolish the wool growers have been?

Senator Scott:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA · LP

– In this chamber I always have spoken about the need for the industry to have some kind of scheme by which it does not need to sell at the price on offer. I have spoken of that need, which I believe is right. That is one of the methods of handling the present low prices - -call it a reserve price, if you like. I have said this before and I say it now: Every time that we go back to the free auction system the price collapses. Yet every time there is a referendum the growers, knowing of the previous price collapses, still vote for the free auction system. In 1.951 1 spoke in favour of a reserve price plan. Prior to the last: election I supported such a plan and I still support a reserve price plan. Evidently the growers do not want it. I do not see how a government could introduce a reserve price pia I unless the majority of the growers required it. 1 am an advocate for a reserve price scheme. There is no- clear evidence that there are such things as pies operating within the auction system or that nations are not bidding one against the other.

Senator Kennelly:

– -Who was the New South Wales or Queensland judge who inquired into the wool marketing system? What did he say?

Senator Scott:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA · LP

– There is no statistical evidence which shows that there has been a real collapse in the wool auction system. However, certain influences deserve examination since they could be operative in causing a collapse in the system. These influences were examined by the Wool Marketing Committee of Inquiry which was set up in January 1961 under the chairmanship of Sir Roslyn Philp, K.C.M.G. The terms of reference of the Committee were:

To inquire into the present systems of marketing and of promoting the sale of the Australian wool clip and matters relating thereto, and to report upon the efficiency of these systems; to report upon the merits of any other systems or of modifications of the present systems which may be advocated to the committee of inquiry or which the committee itself considers would be of long-term benefit to the woolgrowing industry and in the best interests of the nation.

The Committee considered a number of influences in the auction system which were claimed to affect competition and prices. They were: Private treaty selling; operations of wool buyers, forward selling, number of buyers, pies, aggregation of buying strength, etcetra; concentration among consumers; and wool futures. The Committee came down with the conclusion that there was still a wide spread of buying strength and the aggregation of buying strength in a few hands had not been a significant influence towards a reduction of competition in recent years. This was in 1961. I do not know that there is any clear evidence of any justification for reasoning that pies are operating in Australia.

The wool industry is one industry that is suffering because of the low prices received. I believe that the wool industry always will be able to sell the whole of its production. I believe this industry is quite different to the Australian wheat industry. As far as wheat is concerned, the nation has done its best. Because of a continuing increase in the production of wheat by some countries which have been net importers of wheat the stage is, unfortunately, rapidly being reached where those countries will be net exporters of wheal. I read recently where Pakistan is exporting wheat and India will be in a position to do so in the next couple of years. Therefore, we have to protect our wheat growers by having a guaranteed price for a certain number of bushels. The Government has provided large amounts of money to meet the first advance on wheat. In fact, this year provision is to be made by way of legislation for an extra S200m or $300m to be made available to the Australian Wheat Board for distribution to the growers. I think this will place the total sum provided at somewhere in the vicinity of S600m.

Senator Devitt:

– You say you have no fears that the total clip will be sold. Do you take into account the fact that there has been a partial lifting of the ban on the export of merino rams?

Senator Scott:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA · LP

– I do not think it enters into the matter at all. A man’s suit which can be purchased for $60 to $80 has only 2 lb of wool in it. So the price of a suit would not be affected very much if the price of wool went up another 5c or 6c a lb. The Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation is making new discoveries in regard to the treatment of woollen garments and new techniques are being developed for the manufacture of wool. The world’s population is increasing rapidly, particularly in some of the colder countries. At the moment there is no fibre which can equal wool. Because of all these factors I believe that there will be always a ready market for the wool produced in Australia, particularly the finer types of wool. If one closely examines the market one will find that the price obtained in the last month or so for the finer types of wool - the 70s in count - has gone up 2c a lb.

Senator Sim:

– I think it is 2%.

Senator Scott:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA · LP

– I do not think so, but we can discuss that later. I think the price obtained is 2c higher. I had a look at this aspect, Senator Sim, and I think I am correct. However, I do believe that fine wool is readily saleable throughout the world. Unfortunately, the same thing cannot be said for wheat. I hope that the wool and wheat industries will get together with the Government and work out a scheme whereby some of those people who are now growing wheat will be able to go into other forms of primary industry, such as growing fine wool, which I believe is readily saleable.

I notice that Western Australia received quite a deal of mention in the GovernorGeneral’s Speech. His Excellency said that the acquisition of the fighting equipment which was announced in the last Budget is proceeding. He said also that investigation into the construction of a causeway to the naval facilities to be built in Western Australia had begun and that construction on the development of Learmonth airfield would start shortly. In regard to defence personnel the Governor-General said that the strength of Australia’s permanent forces, which was 83,794 at the end of 1969, was expected to increase to 86,500 by June of this year. He went on to say that legislation would be introduced to provide a uniform code of discipline for the three Services. This brings us back to the question of defence. When one looks at the question of defence one has to take into consideration national service training. There have been two forms of national service training. Under the first system youths had to register and do their training over a period of 6 months, but this was found by the defence chiefs to be insufficient time to train personnel adequately. As a result it was decided to do away with that system and rely on the volunteer system - a matter which is being discussed at considerable length throughout Australia at present by various sections of the community. It is interesting to note that after doing away with the first national service training scheme the Government found that it could not get sufficient volunteers to join the armed forces.

Senator Devitt:

– It could have if it-

Senator Scott:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA · LP

Senator Devitt says that the Government could have done so. The fact remains that it was an impossibility. The Government has endeavoured to get volunteers to join the Army, but-

Senator Cavanagh:

– At what rates of pay?

Senator Scott:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA · LP

– At rates of pay which are 30% higher than any other country is prepared to pay. In an affluent society such as we have in Australia today, with virtually no unemployment, one will not get many volunteers to join the Army. It does not matter what type of advertisement is placed in the newspapers or what form of payment is offered one will not get many volunteers. The Government endeavoured to increase the number of volunteers by considerably increasing the rates of pay. I believe the rates of pay are about 30% higher than those paid in other armies throughout the world. The Government also endeavoured to increase the number of volunteers by advertising but it did not get the desired results. The Governor-General said that by June there will be 86,500 men in our permanent forces as against the figure of 83,794 at present. This will be an increase of almost 3,000 in 6 months. Could the Australian Labor Party guarantee such an increase if it were in office and had to rely on volunteers? If the Labor Party were in office it would not get the volunteers it thinks it would get. Certainly it would not gel them in such a period of time.

Senator Young:

– There could be so much unemployment if the Labor Party took over that there would be a certain supply of volunteers.

Senator Scott:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA · LP

– I was about to mention this fact. I left it as the last shot to fire. I have no doubt that if a Labor government adopted a policy of restricting overseas investment in Australia it might be able to get sufficient volunteers because the moment overseas investment in Australia is reduced a situation of mass unemployment will occur. No doubt the unemployed would have to take the jobs available, and those jobs could be in the Army. I have very great pleasure in supporting the motion.

Senator FITZGERALD:
New South Wales

– I congratulate Senator Donald Cameron on his maiden speech. At some time all honourable senators have gone through that procedure. I believe the honourable senator is to be complimented upon his very fine contribution to this debate. A period of about 5i months elapsed between the time that Parliament rose last year and the time at which His Excellency the Governor-General delivered his speech when we re-assembled last week. I entered Parliament in 1949, at the same time as His Excellency the GovernorGeneral. He is a man of great principle. He has not been a stooge as some people expected him to become. It is something new to hear from a Governor-General speeches which are not simply a re-hash of all the old material that has been delivered over a period of time.

Unfortunately, His Excellency’s Speech last week was a rehash of much of the material he was familiar with as a Minister. Much of it had previously been said by his precedessors as Governor-General. I do not think that the Governor-General was very happy at being placed in the position of having to rehash that material. I have heard His Excellency include in his speeches a call for leadership. Such a call must have been embarrassing to the Government. Although His Excellency has called for leadership for many months he has not been heeded, as is obvious from the Speech he had to deliver last week.

The hostility that has been manifested by the Opposition in the Senate to the actions of the Government is not as great as the hostility that has been shown by Liberal Premiers of the States in statements they have made for some -weeks. Mr Askin, Premier of my home State of New South Wales, has reacted strongly. It has been pointed out that school children in New South Wales are taking lessons in corridors; hospital wards are closing through lack of nursing staff; and about 175,000 homes in Sydney, and the Wollongong area, are without sewerage. The suburbs of Bayview and Ingleside, about 14 miles from the centre of Sydney, are without sewerage facilities at present. The City of Sydney is losing its great natural advantages because of the flow of effluent from many sources around the coast. I am sure that honourable senators appreciate the concern of the people of New South Wales. They , are worried about shortages of police, hospital overcrowding and lack of trained teaching staff. The Speech of the Governor-General held no great thrill for the States.

His Excellency acknowledged the great mineral discoveries and the technological advances we are making at present. It can be truly said that Australia is sitting on a gold mine. Most Australians appreciate the great advantages inherent in that situation. However, all Australians want to know the means by which they can share in the benefits. What is our programme for the abolition of poverty? This is one of the most important problems facing governments all over the world. In the early days of this Parliament I proposed the setting up of a Senate select committee to inquire into all aspects of poverty in this country. It has been said many times that over 1 million people today live in Australia below the breadline - in what is termed an ‘affluent society’. This must be the concern of all Australians, but unfortunately it does not appear to be the concern of the Government.

The Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Anderson) said in reply to a question I asked that various groups, all with good intentions, have set up bodies to make a study of the problems of poverty. He said that the Government had access to the reports of those bodies. I am aware that reports have been made on this subject, but we want to see something done. If Labor was in office today we would be very concerned to act on this matter. Proposals are before Parliament at present to set up a new timetable of sittings, so that we could meet for 2 weeks to do the business that at present, takes us 3 weeks, and then in the third week we could conduct the business of Senate committees. I believe that a Senate select committee should be set up to inquire into all aspects of poverty in Australia and to bring down a report upon which we could act. I have already said that about 1 million people live below the breadline in Australia. At least 500,000 people are living in complete poverty, about one-quarter of whom are age pensioners. Many of them are cold in winter because they cannot afford heating. Some of them are dirty because they are too ill and too weak to wash. They cannot do their own washing and have no-one to do it for them. This unfortunate situation exists at present.

Although these stories have been told before, nothing has been done about them. Amongst the poor are 10-year-old children who wear their mothers’ shoes to school or go barefooted in winter and girls of 12 years who are exempted by the authorities from going to school so that they can stay at home and care for the younger children in the family. This is necessary because the mothers are sick and unable to cope. In the community are widowed mothers who starve themselves so that they can buy books and uniforms for their school children. Investigators have brought out these facts on many occasions, but they have not been accepted by this Parliament because we have never made a study of them. I believe it is fitting that the Senate should initiate an investigation of all aspects of poverty amongst our people.

Last year at the Australian Law Convention in Brisbane Mr R. S. Watson, Q.C., said that there are about 90,000 deserted wives in Australia, about 33,000 of whom have children. We do not hear of these people in the talk of the great wealth that this nation is producing. I have made these appeals before. 1 hope that before the end of next week 1 will be permitted through the forms of the Senate to request again an investigation into the problems of mentally and physically handicapped people. We know very little about these people. Are we doing all we should for these people in our affluent society in an age of great advances? We should be developing our understanding of handicapped and disabled people. Are there adequate services and the knowledge necessary to meet the demands of disabled people? Such questions should be considered by this Parliament. When they are considered we will have a different understanding of the situation that confronts these people at present.

I should like to have heard more in the Governor-General’s Speech on the problems in education. I asked Senator Wright, who represents the Minister for Education and Science, a question concerning overseas students who are coming to Australia. Having been to both Malaysia and Singapore, I know that these people coming here as private students are looked upon unfavourably by the universities and by the governments of both Malaysia and Singapore. When we realise that many of our own students are unable to enter universities because of lack of facilities, I wonder whether we are doing the right thing in allowing these overseas students to come here. In New South Wales over 3,000 students, who passed the higher school certificate examinations and who were suitably qualified, were refused teachers training scholarships due to lack of Commonwealth funds. This is happening at a time when New South Wales is desperately short of trained teachers and classrooms are overcrowded. These are questions upon which we expected the Governor-General to be more explicit in his Speech to this Parliament.

Senator Rae:

– What did you say about Asian students? Did you say something about failures? I am not sure whether you said they were failures or something like that.

Senator FITZGERALD:

– No. I said that the private students who are coming here are looked upon unfavourably by both the universities and the governments of their own countries. Those governments endorse the Colombo Plan, but they are not favourably disposed towards private students coming to Australia. There are many thousands of them here, and I believe that they are excluding our own students from universities. We heard the report of the GovernorGeneral, on the subject of health and hospitals, and we know that in the very near future the Government proposes to bring down a statement on this issue. The headlines in the Press, of course, inform us that the Commonwealth’s health scheme is an elaborate bluff by the Government in an attempt to force doctors to accept the common fee. The cost of the Government’s election promises regarding health was approximately $16m, but now 1 am led to believe that the figure is in the vicinity of $32m.

Senator Devitt:

– It could be even higher than that.

Senator FITZGERALD:

– As my colleague points out, it could be even higher than that figure. A threat has been made to doctors about what will happen to them if a Labor government is elected to office. That seems to be the only reason why doctors are backing the Government’s proposal at the present time. A recent headline in the Press read: ‘Fees: Government Warns Doctors’. Another Press report states that the Australian Medical Association has asked for major changes in the health scheme, that doctors do not agree with the list of common fees, and that the health scheme has been rejected. The unfortunate part is that while this controversy is proceeding the patients have to pay. J believe that the Government should be concerned about what is actually taking place.

Turning to the subject of housing, I point out that more than 60,000 Australian families are living in sub-standard accommodation. Some of them, according to reports, have to continue to live this way because they are not in a position to purchase homes. This is the situation with which we are presently confronted. I believe that a Labor government would alter this situation. It was pointed out in the last election campaign the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Whitlam) put forward a proposal for a subsidy to reduce by 2% the interest paid by newly weds in their first 10 years of marriage. It was pointed out that this would mean that on a permanent building society loan of $12,000 over 20 years they would save $200 a year. This was a good system which deserved attention. The Government has stolen a number of policies from the Labor Party. It would not do any harm for it to look at this proposal. I believe that Australians generally, as well as we in the Australian Labor Party, would be quite happy to see such a scheme introduced because we are anxious to see that the Australian people are properly looked after, irrespective of what political party forms the government. It is our job and responsibility to see that the best assistance is provided. We on this side of the Parliament are prepared to co-operate and to assist in every possible way.

I turn now to the war service homes scheme. This is a scheme which also is petering out because less demand is being made on it. The huge profits which are now flowing to the Government from the scheme could be utilised in many ways to provide opportunities for the Australian people. Senator Cavanagh did quite a good job in raising a question concerning Aboriginals, and later on I want to deal with this subject of Aboriginals because there are certain areas in which 1 think the Government could help considerably, particularly in my own State of New South Wales. With regard to the burden of debts on the Slates and on local government and semi government authorities, I ask: What is the Government’s intention? We have never heard anything about it. Very little was said about this matter in His Excellency’s Speech, and very little has been said by the Government itself. What is the Government’s intention regarding our primary producers? Something more will have to be done for primary producers because they, too, are creating a tremendous furore at the present time.

Senator Devitt:

– 1 was assured this afternoon that it is to be done in a variety of ways.

Senator FITZGERALD:

– That is right. As Senator Devitt has pointed out. it is being done in such a variety of ways that it is mesmerising everyone at the present time.

We support the United Nations, because it must succeed for the world to survive. The Australian Labor Party played a special role in the formation of the United

Nations. Dr Evatt was the first President of the United Nations, and he was one of the principal authors of the Charter of Human Rights. He was a defender of the small nations. Labor - and I say this without hesitation - would provide another man in the United Nations with the same drive and the same principles as Dr Evatt applied. As I have said on a number of occasions, if Dr Evatt were at the United Nations today he would tear asunder that chamber in striving, demanding and trying to solve the problems that exist throughout the world, particularly in countries such as Vietnam, Biafra, Northern Ireland, the Middle East and Laos. Dr Evatt was a great defender of and fighter for world peace. Again I say that in the United Nations at the present time we need a spokesman for democracy - a man who will defend the small nations. Dr Evatt was certainly crucified in his own country, but he was revered elsewhere throughout the world. He was one of the founders of Israel. The war in the Middle East must be stopped. There is no question about that. A Press headline in the past week mentioned King Hussein’s reference to a major Israeli blow being possible soon, with some degree of terror. Another headline said that Moscow is to boost Arab defence aid. Of course, we know that a third world war could eventuate unless the present dispute is settled. 1 have been to Israel. 1 was very pleased and thrilled to be there. I was delighted to see the great dedication to duty of the younger and the older people in Israel. They have a job to do. They recognise it and they do it. Israel is virtually a garden in an arid area. When one looks from a plane over Israel one sees the work that has been done. People throughout the world who do not appreciate the great contribution that has been made by the Israeli people are very hard to please. As I have said, the present dispute must be stopped. I brought back books which indicated exactly how the Israelis feel at the present time. Statements such as ‘Israel must be annihilated’ are distributed throughout Israel from the Arab world. I am not suggesting for one moment that there is not some fear on the side of the Arab people and 1 am concerned that the problems confronting them should be solved. But. surely to God, somewhere in the world at the present time there is somebody whom the United Nations should be utilising in order to bring about understanding between these people.I believe that both sides want peace. Certainly disharmony exists, but there is so much distrust between the two sides that somebody must be there to bring about a realisation that peace should and must be brought about. I believe that it is our responsibility to procure such an understanding.

Senator Rae:

– Why has the United Nations not been able to be more effective?

Senator FITZGERALD:

-I do not know, butI believe that we in Australia must also answer for that. We should be doing something more effective in the United Nations. Our people should be speaking and continuing to speak until something is done or somebody takes some action. For the life of me,I cannot understand why these people are not brought together and why some degree of understanding cannot be secured. It is shocking to find the loss of life that is taking place there at the present time.

We have made statements on the question of Vietnam. There is no doubt that the Government knows exactly what our thoughts on Vietnam are. Some 15 years ago the British Commissioner-General for South East Asia, Mr Malcolm MacDonald, addressed a gathering of people in the high echelons in Washington. A report of his address contained these words:

  1. . the most potent weapons for fighting Communism in Asia are good wages, adequate food, social security and personal liberty.

Mr MacDonald said that these essentials were more effective than guns and planes.

He added that the Communists could be stopped in South East Asia if the United States and Britain gave Asian governments firm and sympathetic support in resisting either economic, political or military aggression.

He pointed out that Asian Communists were preparing for intensive political warfare which could be extremely dangerous to the security of the democratic nations.

Mr MacDonald added that the struggle between the Communist and anti-Communist forces in the area might alternate between armed hostilities and a bitter struggle on the economic and political fronts.

I used that quotation in a speech in the House of Representatives about 15 years ago. Dr Evatt, who followed me in the debate, supported the statement. The fact is that the democratic nations have been warned.. Everyone knew what would happen. People today talk about the impossible war or the unwinnable war in Vietnam. The democratic world was warned about this years ago. The democratic world has been warned about a lot of other things, too.

The Vietnam war is the only war in history which is being lost by superior forces with complete charge of the air fighting against enemy forces which, according to United States official figures, have been wiped out at least twice. The reason is that the people who are supposed to be their friends are opposed to the United States forces, the Australian forces and everyone else being there and fighting in that country. The sooner we get out of Vietnam the happier everyone throughout the length and breadth of the world will be. I repeat that warnings of what would happen were issued. Warnings were issued about India. Today India is becoming a great threat and great menace to the democratic world.

Senator Rae:

– India?

Senator FITZGERALD:

– Yes, India.

Senator Cotton:

– How?

Senator FITZGERALD:

– India is in grave danger of going Communist. About 10 or 12 years ago that very well known columnist, Walter Lippmann, said: ‘I warn the democratic world of the dangers of what is taking place in India. If we want to show the Communist world that democracy has more to offer than Communism has, let us take a country that is desperately in need, build it up and show that something can be done there. I suggest that we do not take a country adjoining China because that would be scorned. Let us take India and let the great democracies show that India can be built up, conditions of hunger can be eliminated and conditions of want, pestilence and disease can be wiped out in that country. That is the way we can win the Asian people to the side of democracy. I challenge America and Britain to take up this challenge now and to make India a worthwhile country and one to which everyone can look and say: “This is a country in which democracy has shown exactly what it can do”.’

India was the country for which we should have done something because if it had gone Communist at the same time as Russia went Communist the whole world may have followed. When this situation occurred we should have said: ‘Here is the opportunity. Let us do something along these lines.’ But unfortunately the situation has just gone on and on. When Walter Lippmann issued his challenge he said: ‘I do not expect the democratic countries to take up my challenge because there are no profits to be made and one can understand that if there are no profits to be made the democratic countries will not be greatly interested’.

Honourable senators opposite talk about their fear and dread of Communism. Many men on this side of the Parliament are just as concerned as they are. However, we recognise that unless poverty, unemployment and disease are removed and unless security is given to people in all parts of the world Communism will always be a great threat. We have the opportunity right now to do something to solve the problems that produce Communism. The Government can do something if it wishes to. This is a question that should concern us not only here in Australia but also in the United Nations and in other parts of the world where our spokesmen voice our opinions. If we members of the Australian Labor Party were in government today we would produce once more a man of the calibre of Dr Evatt - a man who won world standing as a fighter for small nations and made Australia’s name respected throughout the world. But, unfortunately, that is not the position at the present time. Until such time as we have somebody from the Labor Party speaking for Australia in the United Nations and in other parts of the world we will continue to find ourselves in awkward positions such as those we are in at present.

Sitting suspended from 5.45 to 8 p.m.

Senator FITZGERALD:

– At the suspension of the sitting I was discussing aspects of the Speech by his Excellency the Governor-General. I wish to touch on the subject referred to by Senator Cavanagh this afternoon: That is the disgraceful conduct exhibited towards Aboriginal women at Yuendumu settlement. My plea is of a somewhat different type from that of Senator Cavanagh. I hope it will be drawn to the attention of the Minister-in-Charge of Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Wentworth). We are all very much concerned about this subject. I ask leave to continue my remarks at a later stage.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 159

DEFENCE

Ministerial Statement

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

– by leave - In making this defence statement, honourable senators will understand that where I use the first person singular pronoun I am referring to the Minister for Defence (Mr Malcolm Fraser).

I propose in the course of my remarks to provide a broad view of our defence policy and the considerations that have contributed to it. 1 shall refer to the Government’s defence objectives and to our planning arrangements which support them, to the capacity of our armed forces, and to our proposals to increase that capacity.

I will set the Services’ capability against the roles we have assigned them. I shall also mention the organisational changes which are still continuing in the defence structure which, 1 believe, are important in helping the Government to come to decisions in defence matters. Some of what I say will not be new but I feel it would be useful if the House could have as full a view as possible of our approach to defence policy.

Defence policies and the decisions we take to give effect to them must have meaning not only for the immediate present; they must also fit the situation that we assess will face us in the future. This task is not easy. There is a dynamic in the policies, the economic and the social changes of the countries of our region. The rapidity of technological and scientific development introduces yet another dimension. Yet if we are to take the right decisions, we must have a defence organisation which is equipped to analyse all the facts, and perceive as best it may what lies ahead.

My colleague, the right honourable the Minister for External Affairs (Mr McMahon), will, in the course of this session, be giving the House a survey of the international situation and of Australia’s external policies.I shall confine myself to describing in brief terms the strategic setting against which the Government has made certain decisions and in the context of which v/e are elaborating our defence policies.

page 160

STRATEGIC SETTING

The world wars of this century had their roots in political conflict in Europe: 1945 heralded the end of European dominance. In the time since then the two themes of over-riding importance in world affairs have been the pre-eminence of the continental superpowers in North America and Eurasia and the dramatic end of European colonial rule over much of the rest of the world. In 1945, apart from New Zealand, there were three sovereign states within 5,000 miles of Australia. Today there are seven times that number in the same distance.

In retrospect we can discern the distinctive characteristics of the last 25 years. We need now to recognise that we are entering a new era. Since 1945, we have had a longer period of what is imprecisely called peace’ than prevailed between the two World Wars. A generation which neither created nor experienced the last Great War has matured in, or in spite of, its aftermath. In what are still called the ‘newly independent’ countries, the first fully postcolonial generation has already emerged. Many nations, whose policies and roles are important to us and interact with our own, are now in a process of transition and reappraisal.

In Indonesia- our nearest neighbour and not so long ago a cause of concern to us - remarkable changes have been worked in favour of moderation and national rehabilitation. A large part of the world - certainly our part of the world - cannot but be interested in the way the new generation of Indonesian leaders further shape their country’s future.

In mainland China, the so-called cultural revolution was intended to mobilise the new generation in support of Mao Tse-tung’s extreme radical and nationalistic policies. The cultural revolution was conceived in ideology: Its purpose was to perpetuate the revolutionary spirit of early Communism. Its immediate results are difficult to ascertain, let alone assess. But you cannot turn inside out a society so large, and on average so young, as the Chinese, without there being many consequences within, if not beyond, the borders of China. The Chinese have been taught to see themselves as the sole repository of the true Communist doctrine and practice. China is developing a nuclear capability. She continues to give encouragement and support to revolutionary movements in neighbouring countries. She has border disputes with India. She maintains pressure on Burma. She is engaged in building roads in northern Laos that could facilitate activities directed against Thailand. How much her border arguments and ideological disputes with Russia will affect the future history of Asia it is impossible yet to predict.

Japan is now the world’s third industrial power. Japan’s defence forces are of no mean dimension and there is currently a programme to expand them. It is unlikely that the Japan of the coming decades - an economic giant confident in its technological sophistication and advanced standards of living - will have the same outlook as the Japan of the 1950s and 1960s. Indeed there is already wide agreement, including among the Japanese themselves, that some kind of break with the postwar era is developing. Japan in the 1970s and 1980s will have great opportunities to play a progressive and constructive part in Asia. She has a substantial interest in the stability of the area because much of her trade, upon which her industrial growth and high living standards depend, originates in the South East Asian region or is funnelled through its narrow seas.

For 25 years the United States of America has carried the main burden of defence of the free world. Today it is a matter of public record that a re-appraisal is taking place of the manner in which American commitments might be discharged in the future. That re-appraisal focuses largely on Asia. The Nixon doctrine, first enunicated at Guam, is full of meaning for the countries to our north and to us. American help will be more readily forthcoming to those countries that help themselves; insurgency situations are expected to be contained - better still, prevented from developing - without United States combat manpower. It is to be expected that there will be some contraction of total United States forces and installations. However, the Americans have proclaimed that they will stand by their treaty obligations. Two of these are of major concern to us - ANZUS and SEATO.

Turning to the Soviet Union, her Far East fleet is growing and honourable members will be aware of the increasing Russian interest in the Indian and Pacific Oceans and in the South East Asian region. Likewise she has sought to expand the scope of her diplomatic and trade relations with South East Asian and other nations touching the Indian Ocean. She has placed great emphasis on the development of a worldwide maritime capability, both merchant and naval, which are closely co-ordinated. We have recently had demonstrations of this capability, close to our shores. We have noted her ability to maintain groups of vessels at sea for unusually long periods. This extension of Soviet maritime interest, particularly in the Indian Ocean, is not something we can afford to be disinterested in. I have already said Australia cannot confront the Soviet Union, but we must take account of her Indian Ocean activities in our defence policies and planning.

I refer now to Great Britain. The United Kingdom has been searching for a new kind of role. Economic problems and what she regards as the necessity of her future, are leading her to Europe and the Common Market. Her present intention is not to maintain forces in her areas of traditional responsibility in Singapore and Malaysia. Nevertheless, her economic and commercial interests in this region are widespread. She intends to demonstrate her capacity to transport forces to Malaysia and Singapore quickly and she has undertaken to train and exercise in the area after 1971. Her present plans to have no forces permanently based in MalaysiaSingapore, and particularly no naval forces, add to the significance that we must attach to the increasing Russian activities in the Indian Ocean.

India, on the northern shores of the Indian Ocean, maintains one of the world’s largest armies and some significant air and naval power backed by a growing economy. India strives to create a productive system which will provide one-seventh of the human race with better living standards. In the next 10 years the Indian population will almost certainly exceed 700 million. Australian interests cannot fail to be affected by India’s success or failure in solving its problems with its neighbours and in building on the foundations of a great independent democracy.

What total situation will emerge from all of this we cannot foresee. Clearly, forces working around the world are going to affect South East Asia and Australia. Whilst we must not fear change, and indeed social change is necessary in many countries, it would be foolish to act as if we had assumed that the overall thrust of future events will automatically enhance our security. We must note that of the 7 major countries mentioned, Indonesia is our closest neighbour. Changing policies of the others are certain to have a cumulative impact on the region of our strategic interest.

In addition, our region of particular concern has its own problems of divisions between and within states. There is, of course, promise in countries which are marching boldly towards a better future for their citizens. At the same time, ethnic, religious and political tensions and the pressure of rising populations, not matched by economic and social development, must cause concern. Another point has to be made. The very nature of war has changed. We now have to contend with a variety of politico-military situations. These include subversion, confrontation, guerilla wars, revolutionary warfare’ and other limited conventional operations short of a ‘declared’ war. Propaganda is an important weapon in these situations.

page 161

OUR BASIC APPROACH TO DEFENCE POLICY

Against the strategic background I have sketched, two basic approaches were available to us. We, on the periphery of the region, might have sought to avoid its uncertainties and imponderables. Some might have taken the view that our growing wealth, our high productivity, our advanced technology and our geographical advantages equipped us to take care of ourselves except against nuclear attack or a largescale invasion, and that no additional effort was required. This is a strange, odd, concept. lt smacks of Australia being in the region but not of it, of Australia passively waiting to be overtaken by events. It would be an attempt to have all the advantages at no risk. This surely is not the way to a viable, meaningful community of, friendly nations devoted to economic growth and development in an environment of stability and security.

The Australian Government has. consistently engaged itself in political policies and in trade, financial and. developmental aid activities which are designed to make an effective Australian contribution to the economic growth and political stability of the region to which we belong. It would be irrational for us to pursue these policy objectives while at the same time refusing to contribute to military security and to creating an environment of confidence which is indispensable for countries embarking on long range developmental plans.

If a policy of isolating ourselves ever made any sense, which I deny, the Nixon doctrine to which I have alluded makes it a complete nonsense. Considered from the narrowest military ground a policy with isolation as its central concept would pose one inescapable question: How long could we stand aloof in armed - or unarmed - detachment from our environment? One can only guess - probably a decade, perhaps a generation. There might be comfort in that for us - less for our next generation perhaps. For you do not make South East Asia or the Indian Ocean disappear by turning your back on them. The region of South East Asia and the surrounding Pacific and Indian Ocean waters comprise our environment: We are as well a part of the environment of the other nations in our region. If that environment is going to change we want to be able to play a meaningful part in the changes - not work out a relationship after the region had been transformed by processes with which we were not associated and of which we had accumulated little knowledge or experience.

Of course we and other countries hope that by diplomacy and policies of aid we will reduce and ultimately eliminate threats to the region so that we may all devote our energies to improving the standard of life of our people. Military isolation on Australia’s part would obstruct this objective. Military co-operation is designed to establish security so that the governments concerned can work for their own people without hindrance.

We reject the concept of detachment. We accept the risks and opportunities of involvement, within the limits of the Prime

Minister’s statement of 25th February last year, because we believe isolation would lead to greater risks both for the region and for Australia. We do not believe there is any security in isolation. We believe there will be no permanent security for any of the small countries of the region until there is permanent security for all. This being the case, within our resources our military capability must be geared for deployment in the region of which Australia is a part when in our judgment we conclude that this is demanded by our concept of regional security as well as for the obvious purpose of meeting possible threats to Australian territory. This is the only proper conclusion, to which an analysis of our basic situation should lead us.

It should be noted also that any other course would involve the denial of our treaty obligations, lt would mean the elimination of our SEATO associations, lt would be incompatible with ANZUS which some tend to suggest wrongly is a treaty of one way obligation. ANZUS does not mean merely that other people should prepare themselves to defend Australia’s national interests. A policy based in isolation would have meant a different response from the one we gave the Malaysian and Singaporean requests that Australia continue to maintain forces in their countries. For the future it would mean standing aside from other forms of regional cooperation in defence. If anyone imagines that we could effectively maintain a broad ranging co-operation with the region but without forces capable of fulfilling a regional role, then I can only say that such a policy would earn no response from our friends in the area. Politically it would lack credibility. In purely military terms, it would be impracticable. To be fully effective a regional policy at present requires deployment of forces in the area.

The decision the Government has taken concerning involvement in South East Asia and the maintenance of a force from our three Services in Singapore-Malaysia might appear superficially to represent little change from previous policy. But I hope I have said enough about the changing strategic setting to demonstrate that, if our decision is one for continuing involvement, it is also one for involvement in a new set of circumstances. So far as the region of South

East Asia is concerned, the withdrawal of Britain as a power with major forces permanently stationed in the region is irreversible; the United States of America is re-appraising the nature of its involvement; Soviet political and strategic policies impinge progressively upon the region; a changing Japan must feel its interests in security and stability affected by developments in the region: while China continues in a position of self imposed isolation and of intransigence towards all non-compliant regimes in its vicinity.

It is against this background of change that we are moving from a situation in which we have been supporting commitments of major powers, to a position of partnership with other regional countries which must now accept greater responsibility for their own defence.

The familiar forces which have influenced international events for the past 20 years are changing in directions which we cannot yet fully foresee. We are developing defence policies designed to serve us into the 1980s in a situation where we are faced with formidable uncertainties about the world in which we will be living.

It follows that Australia will be required to show initiative and flexibility in the execution of her defence policies.

At the same time our commitments must be related at all times to our capabilities and it must be clearly understood that there are limits on both.

page 163

MALAYSIA-SINGA PORE

I want to refer in more detail to our relationship with Malaysia and Singapore. Since the early 1950s Australia has had a tradition of co-operation with, and of assistance to, these countries. We provided military help at the time of Communist emergency; we provided help during confrontation; and now when the British have announced a decision no longer to station forces in the region, we have said that, providing the two governments continue to desire our presence, we will maintain forces in the Malaysia-Singapore area after 1971.

This commitment should be judged against the spirit of co-operation and assistance that has prevailed over a great number of years. Governments nowadays do not sign blank cheques saying automatically that if something happens their troops will march. Our friends in Malaysia and Singapore will judge us by the pattern of past relationships. The past could give them no cause for doubt or hesitation as to where Australia would stand. They understand fully that decisions about the actual commitment of our troops at any particular time, and in any particular situation, must be just as much the prerogative of the Australian Government, as would be decisions by them affecting their forces.

The arrangements we are developing with these two countries both in the context of the Five Power arrangements, and separately, are well known. There have been Five Power meetings in Kuala Lumpur and Canberra at ministerial level and at Kuala Lumpur at senior official level. As well, the many details involved, including those connected with the proposed new air defence system, are being worked out in four advisory groups dealing with Navy, Army, Air and Joint Service matters.

In a variety of ways we have done much to strengthen the defence capability of Malaysia and Singapore; the Sabres for Malaysia are a well known example. Discussions continue with the Malaysians about the co-location of Royal Malaysian Air Force units with ours at Butterworth and with the Singaporeans about the final location of our forces there now that their move from Terandak has been completed.

page 163

VIETNAM

The Governor-General’s Speech reiterated the Australian and allied purpose in Vietnam to oppose aggression and to seek to establish the circumstances in which the citizens of South Vietnam can live under a government of their choice. The GovernorGeneral’s Speech went on:

My Government is glad to note that the increasing capacity of the South Vietnamese to defend themselves has already permitted the withdrawal of some Allied Forces. Should the future situation permit a further substantial withdrawal of troops - beyond those announced by President Nixon on 16 December 1969 - then in consultation with the Government of the Republic of Vietnam and the Government of the United States, some Australiantroops will be included, at some stage, in the numbers scheduled for such withdrawal.

My department, the Department of the Army and others have been examining the situation closely so we will be in a position to discuss the matter with the Governments of South Vietnam, the United States and New Zealand.

page 164

GUIDING PRINCIPLES FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF DEFENCE CAPABILITY

Our strategic situation coupled with our basic approach to regional defence leads to certain broad principles in developing our defence capability. They are:

page 164

THE DEFENCE ORGANISATION

The development of defence capability is a much more complicated procedure than was once the case; we need the professional military advice of our most senior officers; we need the best possible political and military intelligence; we need the best possible scientific and technical input; we need procedures for assessing our requirements for complicated equipments; we need to be able to question and probe effectively to make sure that the best possible solution to a particular military need is achieved. We need planning and preparations for the development of our forces based on joint concepts and plans to meet the various situations that may confront us. We need to ensure that each of the Services prepares for the same kind of conflicts, in the same places and in the same time scale.

We must not be bound by tradition. If a matter has been pursued in a certain way that in itself is no argument for continuing in the old way. On the other hand, before tried and proven methods are abandoned, we must be sure that new ways and techniques will be better. Above all, change for its OWn sake is to be avoided.

The factors that we need to have in mind are twofold. Firstly, there are the likely circumstances for which we need to raise, train and equip forces. We have to project a view about this as far ahead as is sensibly possible. Secondly, there are the technological developments that are likely to bear on our choice of weapons systems.

I propose now to deal with the organisational changes we have made to aid our decision making.

Joint Staff

I want first to refer to the new Joint Staff arrangements established in the Department of Defence by my predecessor. The Joint Staff replaces most of the numerous committees which previously existed to which people were allocated by the individual Services. The Service members of the committees had a dual responsibility: to the committee and to their Service chief.

Now senior officers from each of the Services are seconded to the Defence Department generally for a 3-year period to work on the Joint Staff along with selected officers of the Departments of Defence and External Affairs with responsibility only for the Joint Staff function. By this means members see problems as defence, not individual Service, problems. At the same time each gains an insight into, and invaluable experience of, the totality of defence planning, which should later stand him in good stead in his own Service.

The Joint Staff represents an integration within the Defence Department of the best Army, Navy and Air Force expertise. The Department also provides for the coordinated examination of military, political, scientific and economic factors. The Joint

Staff provides more effective support for the Joint Planning Committee and the Chiefs of Staff Committee. Its work is essential to consideration by the Defence Committee, the Minister for Defence and, where appropriate, the Cabinet.

Intelligence Arrangements

Australia must have intelligence arrangements of the highest order to ensure the availability of the best political, strategic and tactical information relevant to our interests.

The House is aware of the recent changes in our intelligence arrangements. We have amalgamated within the Defence Department, in a Joint Intelligence Organisation, the former Joint Intelligence Bureau with sections of the three Services Directorates of Intelligence. We have provided for the full participation of the Department of External Affairs. The purpose is to provide a unified environment for the quick and complete pooling of information and the consideration of the diverse factors that have to be weighed at the national or strategic level of assessment. Matters that must be considered include strategic, political, military, economic and scientific factors. Within this framework the former Joint Intelligence Committee has been replaced by a National Intelligence Committee at a higher level. It will include representatives from the Department of External Affairs as well as from the Joint Intelligence Organisation. It will be responsible for broad assessments and projections relevant to the planning of national security policy. I add that each of the Services remains responsible for meeting its own operational intelligence requirements.

Defence Science Arrangements

To provide the necessary scientific input, organisational changes have been made in my Department and the whole defence group. In the first place, there is now in the Defence Department an appropriate and active Defence Science Branch headed by a chief defence scientist. Through the Defence Research and Development Policy Committee, all scientific research in the Department of Defence and the three Services and the Department of Supply is coordinated. The number of scientific advisers seconded to the Services and the scope of their responsibilities have been increased.

10721/70-$H:7J

Considerable support continues to be provided by the Research and Development Establishments in the Department of Supply. These laboratories maintain a high level of scientific competence over a wide range of disciplines, and are able to provide direct scientific assistance in solving many problems which arise from time to time in defence activity. The resources and facilities at Weapons Research Establishment formerly allocated to the development and support of the joint project operations at Woomera have progressively been reoriented to meet the needs of Australian defence. A new Central Studies Unit has been established in Supply to engage in operational research studies on behalf of the defence group of departments and the armed Services. Its role will complement the operational analysis activities being undertaken within Defence and Service departments and within other establishments of the Department of Supply. A number of project development tasks are in progress designed to provide solutions to specific local defence needs, and if successful some of these could lead to production of various items of defence equipment.

Policy and Analysis

The policy and analysis sections of the Department have been greatly strengthened. A Policy Planning Branch has been established to ensure that proper attention is given to the more fundamental and long range issues in the strategic field that impinge on our security. In addition, proposals for equipment and major works coming from the Services are submitted to the Department of Defence for examination. The critical task is to make sure that regardless of individual Service interests, the best ‘defence’ solutions are found and the best allocation is made of those resources which are available to defence.

To assist in this decision making, we have established another group within the Department whose task it is to examine proposals and possible alternatives, taking account of the benefits and costs of each. Provided that our military requirements will satisfactorily be met, a proposal that will contribute to our industrial or technological skills in Australia, or put broader, to our economic and national development, is more attractive than one that will not. Costs cover more than the price tag on prime equipment. So we require the identification and costing of all ancillaries - for example the cost of support facilities, manpower, training and maintenance. The Services will adopt the same techniques. The procurement of defence equipment is so important that it is my firm belief that all techniques must be used and exploited to ensure that our military needs are most effectively and economically met.

Special Studies Branch

A Special Studies Branch has been established in the Defence Department to examine aspects of the functions, organisation and activities of the defence group of departments so that we may achieve the most effective use of existing resources. Rationalisation or integration will not be pursued for their own sake; traditions have a value that should not be hastily discounted. But, if rationalisation or integration or co-location, or single-service management, or the standardisation of equipment, methods and procedures can achieve savings in manpower or in money without affecting efficiency, then those changes must be pursued. Within this context a number of studies are being undertaken. I shall refer to these later.

page 166

DEFENCE AND INDUSTRY

We recognise industry as the ‘fourth arm of defence’. With this in mind, we have promulgated guiding principles for the procurement of defence equipment. They aim to ensure that the scope for Australian production is considered in the early stages of a Service requirement. It is in the interests of our allies as well as our own that the Australian industrial base is sound, diversified and technologically competent. Much credit is due to my predecessor for being the first to enunciate the policy of offset arrangements. It remains to see that those arrangements work. A mission concerned with these matters recently visited the United States led by Sir Ian McLennan who is also Chairman of the Defence (Industrial) Committee. This committee was established and the Business Board restructured to give my Department the best possible advice on the capability of Australian industry and the best means of harnessing Australian production to the defence effort. The businessmen members of this Committee and Board have already, in their examination of some matters of major importance, contributed much. We look to them playing a vital role in the general development of Australia’s defence capacity and in aiding us to get the greatest value for every defence dollar. In this context I should also note the general logistic arrangements that my predecessor concluded with New Zealand.

page 166

PLANNING FOR THE FUTURE

Within the new Defence organisation we are looking at a number of long-term problems. In these studies special emphasis has been given to joint service-civilian participation to make the best use of available knowledge, military experience and analytical ability. Where possible, our efforts are directed to ensure that defence and national development march together. This applies not only to our relationships with industry to which I have referred, but also to the infrastructure required for military purposes - for example, airfields and dockyards. Wherever we can, we aim to develop facilities which will equally serve civil and national development objectives.

Army Establishment

In recent years modern barrack accommodation has been built for 6 battalions. After Vietnam, additional accommodation will be required. There is a joint DefenceArmy examination of this matter.

Naval Dockyards

We have under study the whole gamut of our requirements for naval dockyard facilities. Considering the withdrawal of the Royal Navy from the Indian Ocean, it is no longer wise to concentrate all naval support facilities in the eastern States. A major question concerns the facilities that we should provide in Cockburn Sound that might earlier have been considered for Sydney or Melbourne.

Inter.Relationship between Naval and Air Power

There is the highly complex problem of the inter-relationship of naval and air power embracing the character and place of naval platform and land-based aircraft. It is to be remembered that ‘Melbourne’ has a life expectancy only until about 1980. So we have under study the whole complex of problems that relate to the place of carriers in our force structure.

Armed Forces of Papua and New Guinea

We have under study the kinds of forces that ought to be developed in Papua and New Guinea to meet the needs of an emerging independent community. Whatever may lie in the future, we have a responsibility to ensure, as far as we may, that the forces in Papua and New Guinea will enable their future governments to meet their longer term defence needs.

Manpower

We are making a full examination of the total Service manpower problems including national service. In our full employment society, whatever other countries in their circumstances believe possible about fully volunteer forces, f see no likelihood that we will be able to sustain the forces required without national service in Australia. The purpose of this survey is not only to assess manpower requirements but also to ensure that we make the most effective use of available manpower, not only for the regular forces, but also for the reserve and citizen forces which are a vital element in our total defence capability.

Medical Services

The examination of the scope for rationalisation of overall medical services of our armed forces including the military hospital facilities required and the use that might be made of the hospital and rehabilitation facilities provided by the Repatriation Commission is well advanced.

Procurement

The organisations, functions and practices of the 3 Service departments and the Department of Supply in relation to procurement matters generally, both in Australia and overseas, are under study. The questions concern the degree to which the Department of Supply can be made responsible for defence procurement - an area where much has already been achieved - and the scope for extension of the singlemanager concept in respect of control of stores.

Flying Training

An overall review of flying training for the 3 Services is in progress. In particular, consideration is being given to the possibility of establishing a Joint Service Helicopter Training Centre.

Service Communications

The scope for rationalisation of Service communications is under review. These assume great importance because we have, in many ways, entered a new era in communications and if we are to march in harmony with the many exciting technological developments in this field in a coherent and economical way, a unified defence approach will be essential.

Standardisation of Inventories

As a result of early studies, conversion of the inventories of defence equipment - some 1,300,000 items of supply - to a Defence Cataloguing System common to the 3 Services, and the Department of Supply and also to systems in the US and NATO countries has made much progress. Considerable savings will result from reduced stock holdings, and by continual screening of apparently new items.

Organisation of the Army

To conclude my remarks in this section, I might refer to the study which the Army, in agreement with my Department, is about to undertake of the present command structure and of the functions of the various branches at headquarters level. Our present structure, as is well known, is largely based on State boundaries; it is rooted in the past; it goes back to the circumstances of the first decade of this century. The examination will determine, for example, whether the geographic Army command structure should be maintained or whether other arrangements should be made. My Department will be associated with the Army’s study to watch particularly for implications on our total defence organisation.

page 167

PERSONNEL

Time will not permit me to say as much as I should like about the importance of personnel policies. Our economic and social circumstances are such that there is fierce competition for manpower. Defence is of the highest importance. Our Services require officers and men of the highest calibre. To obtain them, and retain them, we must have personnel policies in tune with our rapidly changing social attitudes and economic standards, in tune with the character of a democratic society in the hitter part of the twentieth century.

Tri-Service Academy 1 now have the report of the committee headed by Sir Leslie Martin which was appointed by my predecessor to develop a plan for the establishment of one armed forces academy which would provide education at the tertiary level for officer cadets of all three Services. This report is being processed by my Department and the Service departments and 1 am preparing a submission for the Cabinet.

Australian Services Staff College

In January this year the first course commenced at the Joint Service Wing of the Australian Services Staff College. The Wing is located in temporary premises in Canberra pending the eventual co-location in Canberra of the single Service wings of the College which, for the present, are located in separate Service establishments. The objective of the Joint Service Wing is, broadly speaking, to train selected officers from the Armed Services for Joint Service Staff and Command appointments. Senior officers of the Public Service concerned with defence also attend the course. The 6 months course places emphasis upon joint Service planning and operations and the wider aspects of Australia’s defence and foreign policies.

Pay and Conditions of Service

It is clear that matters relating to pay and other conditions of service cannot be divorced from the total stream of Services personnel administration - for example, such items as recruitment policies, duration of engagement and housing. As I announced a few months ago, we have established a Pay and Conditions of Service Branch in my Department. A new high level committee, the Defence (Conditions of Service) Committee, has assumed the functions previously discharged by the Treasury Finance Committee. This means that pay and conditions of service will, for the future, be considered by a committee having equal status with the other top level committees of the higher defence machinery and within a defence environment. i want to mention 2 matters in particular which have an impact on servicemen. The first concerns housing. That much progress has been made in providing housing for our servicemen is quickly apparent. In 1964 we had some 11,000 houses for the Services. By the end of June next we should have about 20,000 houses available. In addition, approximately 1,000 more will be under construction or programmed for early commencement. In the meantime, of course, our forces have grown, but housing has more than kept pace with that expansion. I believe that no aspect of service life gives rise to more dissatisfaction than the lack of certainty about the availability of housing at a new posting. So we intend to improve the housing position. We will continue vigorously with the major housing programme and we will be looking to see whether there are other practicable methods of cutting down delays, where they do occur, in a married serviceman becoming eligible for a married quarter after posting.

Associated with housing is the frequency of postings. Too frequent moves are particularly unsettling for families and for school aged children. While the Services are giving much attention to reducing the frequency of postings, I shall bc looking for even better results. A solution is not necessarily as easy as it seems. Particularly am I thinking of the Army so long as its obligations in Vietnam, which call for I -year tours of duty, continue. These 2 matters are of great importance. I am sure that they bear directly on the high turnover of personnel the Army and Navy have been experiencing. That turnover, of course, requires an all too great diversion of personnel to training functions.

page 168

PROGRAMMING

My predecessor told the Parliament last year that the Government had decided to move from fixed 3-year defence programmes to what he described as a 5-year rolling programme. I think the latter concept is not yet clearly understood, especially because the world ‘programme’ tends to indicate some immediately ascertainable series of items that are going to be purchased over any given period of 5 years.

The fixed period programmes of the past tended to lead to an uneven development of defence policy. Put broadly, unless some new factor emerged, proposals not included in one period programme were postponed to the next. We have now chosen a 5-year span for planning purposes. This we see as a realistic period permitting us a reasonable assessment of international political trends, while not being too short to allow for the long lead times involved in acquiring modern defence equipment. Here I should make the point that much time may elapse between the initial formulation of a Service requirement and the actual decision to acquire the equipment sought.

Under the new concept the practice will be to review each year the future requirements of the Services over a forward period of 5 years against:

First, the current assessment of our strategic situation which itself attempts to look forward over a 10-year period;

Second, consideration of the outlook for the capabilities and characteristics of the forces over the next 5-year period;

Third, against the progress being made with studies in the Services and my Department of the most effective means of providing such capabilities as are needed; and

Fourth, against the technological developments in sight.

Normally under these arrangements, defence equipment proposals will come forward at Budget time. So there will be announced, each year, additional proposals whether for needed explanation or replacement purposes. There will not be one momentous announcement once every 5 years but an announcement every year in the setting I have described. I might illustrate this. At the beginning of any 5-year period there may be a certain piece of equipment that is believed necessary for a particular Service. Research and development may not be sufficiently far advanced for firm decisions to be made, but in IS months or 2 years we may be in a position to make such decisions. Under our new programming concept there will be no inhibitions about this.

Thus, unlike the 3-year programme, the 5-year forward look will provide a continuing ability to respond to the progressive emergence of new equipment and techniques and the progressive development of defence planning and policy. This new concept will not remove problems of selection.

Indeed we will always have to be careful that we do not, at any given stage, make decisions about new projects, important though they may be, that because of their cost might shut out higher priority items which will not be ready for decision for 1, 2 or 3 years.

page 169

THE ROLES AND CAPABILITY OF OUR DEFENCE FORCES

I have spoken about the changes in my Department, for which I give full credit to my predecessor and the previous Secretary. I have indicated that these changes will be continuing; we are not in a static position. But organisation is nothing if it does not produce the desired results, that is, strong viable defence forces directed to meet the needs of Australia. I want to indicate in more precise terms the roles that we expect our defence forces to be able to fill, either in joint Service operations or on a single Service basis. I want to indicate in the broadest terms the present capacities of our forces and then I will tell the House how the decisions we have now made will add to that capacity.

page 169

FORCE ROLES

Earlier I mentioned the guiding principles for the development of defence capability. We are committed to regional defence. We are committed to the maintenance, under present circumstances, of forces overseas. We are committed to the protection of the Australian mainland and Territories. In conjunction with our friends and allies we must contribute to the security of our trade routes and our lines of communication. These commitments require that we pay particular regard to the development of certain areas of our overall defence capability. While these point to certain roles for all three Services they are better viewed in a functional setting because the roles of the individual Services are seldom exclusive; generally any function involves more than one Service.

To start with, we need a greater maritime capability in the waters around Australia, the Pacific and Indian oceans and the seas to our north. This involves both the Navy and the Air Force. We need greater strategic and tactical mobility, the capability to move forces quickly with adequate logistic support, the capability to bring to bear maximum fire power. We need to be able to maintain forces that we deploy abroad. We need the capacity for emergency airlift of troops and reinforcements and for subsequent support by sea. We have made much progress in this area and the announcements that I will shortly make will add to it. It does not mean that this capability should be exclusively Service provided, it includes making provision for harnessing commercial transport, maritime and air, if ever the need arises. Next there is scope for increasing our offensive capability.

I now come to the new decisions. The figures quoted represent for the most part the estimated capital cost of the projects.

The estimated total capital project costs of these various items is $165.9m. I recall that the estimated capital project cost of the major items announced by my predecessor last year was S140m. And let me add immediately that these figures do not include the ultimate cost of the facilities that may be developed at Cockburn Sound - merely the estimated cost of the first stage, the Causeway - or the full cost of designing the light destroyer, let alone any element of cost for the destroyers that may ultimately be ordered.

I wish to indicate on a functional basis the importance of these decisions. Our maritime capability will be enhanced by the two additional Oberon class submarines and by the new Naval communications station at Darwin. Our aim in pressing forward with the design studies for the new class of light destroyers, announced by my predecessor, is also to add to our maritime capability.

Strategic mobility will be improved by the construction of a logistic cargo ship. This will be capable of carrying the Army’s landing craft, vehicles, equipment and stores to areas of operation and of unloading them without recourse to developed ports. While this ship will be designed to serve the Army’s needs, it will, when not required for defence purposes, be available for efficient commercial operation by the Australian National Line. It should be noted that the decision made last year to construct a fast combat support ship in Australia at the cost of $42m was also directly related to the improvement of our strategic mobility.

Our tactical mobility, and at the same time fire power and battlefield surveillance of our forces, will be improved by the acquisition of 11 helicopter gunships and we will also buy 42 utility helicopters and 84 light helicopters, which will provide for replacement of the existing equipment over its period of service and also add to the eventual strength. The final decision about the type of gunship should be made in April. The choice remains between the Huey Cobra and the Armed Iroquois. There are two possibilities for the light observation helicopter. They are the Bell OH 58A and the Westland Sud SA34I. There are no technical considerations which would bias the decision for their required military purposes. The final selection will be made on the basis of the best prospects for local manufacture, including commercial sales, lt will be recalled that last year we decided to buy 12 medium lift helicopters and 8 heavy landing craft, directed to the same end - the improvement of our tactical mobility.

Our offensive capability will be improved not only by the purchase of the 2 Oberon submarines which 1 have mentioned but also by the doubling of the Skyhawk strength of the RAN to 20 aircraft. This latter purchase is subject to the proviso that we can get early deliveries and therefore a high utilisation during the remaining life of the HMAS ‘Melbourne’.

To improve the general capability of the Army, Cabinet last year gave Army permission to enter into commitments foi capital equipment which would bring expenditure up to a level of S60m for the year 1970-71. Cabinet has now approved Army entering into additional commitments up to the same level for the year 1971-72. These authorisations will enable the Army to take full advantage of forward ordering for long lead items. A great deal of Army equipment concerns very important but unspectacular items. In addition to the equipments I have specially mentioned, items now to be procured include additional armoured personnel carriers, trucks cargo 3/4 ton and other load carrying vehicles, lightweight man-pack radio sets and other communications equipment, engineering equipment, large quantities of ammunition of various calibres, tentage and shelters. These new authorisations will also enable more and better equipment to be made available to the Citizen Military Forces, which 1 regard as a matter of great importance. Procurement of new equipment planned to satisfy OMF needs includes increasingly items of operational standard such as personnel carriers of the type in use in Vietnam and man-pack radio sets.

The Government is also well aware that there are other requirements that must be met in future but on which decisions are not yet possible - in some cases because testing and evaluation have not yet proceeded far enough, in some cases because further research and development are necessary, in others because our studies are not far enough advanced. Vehicles, tanks, surface to air missiles for the Army are illustrations; maritime reconnaissance and strategic airlift aircraft for the RAAF are others. Further ahead are problems associated with the replacement of the Mirages.

As we enter a new decade I believe it would be instructive to glance backward for a moment and see how far we have come since 1960. While I do not wish to weary the House with a detailed comparison of our forces today with those of 10 years ago, may I illustrate our progress including the impact of present decisions, again in functional terms.

Our maritime capability has been built up by the addition of 3 guided missile destroyers, ali of which have performed intensive service in Vietnam; 4 Oberon class submarines, thus restoring this versatile weapon system to an important place in the structure of the RAN; a major modernisation of HMAS ‘Melbourne’ and its re-equipment with Tracker, Skyhawk and Wessex aircraft, the re-equipment of an RAAF Neptune squadron with Orion aircraft; 20 patrol boats essential for surveillance and control of centra] waters both of Australia and the Territory of Papua and New Guinea; and the replacement of Q’ class and Tribal class frigates with 6 River class destroyer escorts, the last of which will commission later this year. As well, our oceanographic and hydrographic capability, so necessary to successful maritime operations, is being developed with modern survey and hydrographic ships and an oceanographic research ship. The new Oberons and later the light destroyers will add further to maritime capability.

Our strategic mobility has been enhanced by the conversion of the former carrier HMAS ‘Sydney’ to a fast troop transport; the acquisition of a second squadron of Hercules transport aircraft; the addition of a fast fleet tanker, HMAS ‘Supply’, and the Australian built destroyer maintenance ship, HMAS ‘Stalwart’; and now the construction of a fast combat support ship approved last August; and the Army logistic ship announced tonight.

Great strides have been made in tactical mobility. In 1960 the Army was still operating much as it had in World War II. Now it is aided by 2 squadrons of Caribou short take off and landing aircraft, numbers of utility and light helicopters, a whole new range of armoured personnel carriers and related vehicles, and water craft of various kinds. The Army Aviation Corps has been established and is progressively expanding. Further purchases announced last year include medium lift helicopters and 8 landing craft heavy. The choice of the medium lift helicopter remains between the Boeing Vertol and Sikorsky. Tonight’s announcement of additional observation helicopters, of 42 utility helicopters and of 1 1 helicopter gunships adds greatly to this capacity.

Where there has been an increase in our offensive capabilities, there are yet unresolved problems concerning the strike aircraft. New equipment in service or on order includes 4 squadrons of Mirage aircraft, which are also effective in the ground support role, the Oberon class submarines which I have already mentioned, the Skyhawk aircraft embarked on HMAS ‘Melbourne’, and the fire support capabilities of the guided missile destroyers. Tonight’s announcement of the decision to procure 2 more Oberons and 10 additional Skyhawks provides significant additions.

Our general Army capability has been vastly improved both by the introduction of National Service and by the procurement of large quantities of modern and effective equipment. Today we have 9 battle proved battalions and, in addition, 3 squadrons of highly trained SAS.

Over the last 10 years the Army has in large measure been re-equipped. More modern howitzers, anti-tank weapons, mortars, machine guns and rifles and radio sets have been purchased in large numbers. Stocks of light, medium and heavy trucks have been greatly improved. The 2i-ton and 5-ton trucks have been designed and constructed in Australia and contracts have been let for the prototype of a 1-ton general purpose vehicle which will replace the f-ton truck over a period of years. More modern water transport vehicles and additional landing craft of various sizes have been obtained. One effect of the purchases made in recent years is to increase the range of modern weapons and equipment available to the CMF both during home training and particularly whilst in camp.

Manpower

The manpower of the regular forces has been built up considerably over the last 10 years from 48,000 in January I960 to 84,700 in January 1970. Of this total the Navy strength has grown from 10,600 to 17,400; the Army from 21,900 to 44,500 and the Royal Australian Air Force from 15,500 to 22,800. In the same 10-year period the Pacific Island Regiment has increased from 600 to 2,500.

page 172

INFRASTRUCTURE

Much has been done to build up the infrastructure upon which the efficiency of our Services depends. The last decade has seen the greatest building programme for the Services in Australian history. Extensive Army establishments have been built at Swanbourne. Western Australia; Puckapunyal, Victoria; Holsworthy, Kapooka and Singleton in New South Wales; Enoggera and Townsville in Queensland; while barracks for the Pacific Island Regiment have been completed at Port Moresby, Lae, Wewak and Goldie River.

For the Navy, major refitting facilities for submarines, barracks, ammunition depot extensions and patrol craft facilities have been built in the Sydney area. Very large improvements have been carried out at the training centres at HMAS ‘Leeuwin’ at Fremantle; HMAS ‘Cerberus’ at Flinders and HMAS ‘Nirimba’ at Schofields. Improvements have also been carried out to the dockyards at Garden Island, Cockatoo Island and Williamstown.

Many millions of dollars have also been spent on the rehabilitation and development of Royal Australian Air Force bases throughout Australia. The modernisation and improvement to Department of Supply factories has continued. A new plant for the production of TNT is nearing completion at the Albion explosives factory.

New works under construction or approved include the development of the RAAF airfield at Learmonth, the construction of the access causeway at Cockburn Sound in Western Australia, the establishment of the Army Aviation Centre at Oakey in Queensland, erection of a new clothing factory at Coburg in Victoria and construction of storage facilities for the Department of Supply at St Marys, New South Wales. Also in band is the provision of personnel accommodation for the Royal Australian Navy at Nowra, whilst new Citizen Military Forces depots are programmed for Blacktown and Armidale in New South Wales, and Sunshine. Clayton and Oakleigh in Victoria. Other major works proposals are under consideration.

Over the past 10 years, the Government has spent $4 13m on capital works and real estate procurement programmes for the Services and the Supply Department and $56m on the provision of houses for servicemen under the Commonwealth/State Housing Agreement. In the current financial year additional amounts of $49m and SI Om respectively will be spent.

page 172

THE CITIZEN FORCES

No statement of the character I am making would be complete without mention of our Citizen Forces. There has, I believe, been a tendency in recent years for the public to overlook the vital importance of the Citizen Forces to Australia’s defence capacity and posture. In the case of the Citizen Military Forces, factors tending to influence this have been the growth of the Regular Army, the introduction and development of the national service scheme, our involvement in the Vietnam war, and the publicity which ali of them have had.

Many people have come to think of the Regular Army supplemented by the national service scheme being all that we need for the Army to be able satisfactorily to fulfil its role. The success of our Army component in its roles in Vietnam may itself engender such notions. This must be corrected. We must plan for many contingencies. Some require forces in excess of the sort of Regular Army we can foresee as being reasonably within our capacity as a nation to man, equip and maintain in peace. If our planning is to have credibility and substance, it must be backed up by realistic and practicable methods of providing follow-up forces for the Regular Army.

So, in general, the role of the CMF is twofold: (1) to provide back up forces for the Regular Army in times of defence emergency; (2) to provide for expansion in the event of mobilisation if that should ever again be upon us.

In spite of the operational requirements of the Regular Army the overall equipment position for the CMF is as good as, if nol better than, it has ever been before. There are, however, some recognised deficiencies, particularly in Armour and Signals, which will be overcome.

Good progress has been made in the provision of new training depots and the replacement of old style or temporary buildings for the Citizen Military Forces in all commands, and significant provision is being made in this field for the future. The new type depots are designed according to the functional needs of units under modern conditions of training. It is in the field of training that the greatest advances have been made. Far greater emphasis is now placed upon centralised rather than unit training for the production and subsequent promotion of officers, the training of noncommissioned officers and specialists, and the basic training of recruits.

The present size and structure of the CMF provides a sound basis for future planning. Such matters as organisation, equipment and training will be examined along with similar features of the regular forces - for the regular and CMF components cannot be considered in isolation.

If 1 have in my remarks devoted major attention to the CMF I would not like it thought that I am unmindful of the needs of the Naval Reserve and Citizen Air Force units. These also are being given attention

page 173

CONCLUSION

I believe it is important that the House should know, that the Australian people should know, as much as can be, of what we are doing in the defence field. I have tried to depict the total picture but necessarily many of the matters have been mentioned only in the briefest terms. While I have mentioned on the broadest possible terms the kinds of roles our forces have lo fulfil, and the functional areas calling for particular attention, the level of forces necessary for these tasks and the equipment provided for them have to be decided by the Government after weighing all considerations. The Services requirements are first subjected to the kind of examination 1 have outlined. But when these requirements have been reviewed, it falls to the Government of the day to decide the resources that can be devoted to defence. There are in our sort of society ‘constraints’ on what can be done in any area. We have learned long ago that defence needs cannot be divorced from other community needs. No country can meet every possible defence contingency. So it falls to the Government, having weighed the best advice it can get from its military and civilian advisers, to judge the likely threats and the likely tasks that will fall to our forces at any one time. The Government has to judge what must be done to enable them to be discharged, and weigh the cost against the other demands that our community makes upon resources.

There is no scope for complacency about what we must do to ensure the future security of Australia. I have indicated that in the circumstances of the British withdrawal from our north, and of American re-appraisal, Australia will be required to put forth a greater effort embodying greater independence. I envisage the capability of our forces being continuously improved in the years ahead. I do not suggest that we can afford to devote resources to defence, unmindful of Australia’s needs in other areas. We must hope to establish circumstances by diplomacy, by policies of economic assistance, by policies of regional security, in which the countries of our region will be able to devote their full resources to improving the standard of life of their own people.

While this must be and will remain our objective we will be naive to think that less will be required of us in the future. Any assessment of our circumstances points to the need for a greater effort. The shape and the structure of our forces at the present time have served Australia well. For the future they will provide a basis on which further development can take place. I present the statement to the Senate and move:

That the Senate take note of the statement.

Debate (on motion by Senator Willesee) adjourned.

page 174

QUESTION

GOVERNOR-GENERAL’S SPEECH

Address-in-Reply

Debate resumed (vide page 159).

Senator FITZGERALD:
New South Wales

– When speaking earlier this evening in this debate 1 made a plea for proper hostel accommodation for young Aboriginals coming from the country to the city. I expressed the hope that that plea would be drawn to the attention of the Minister in Charge of Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Wentworth). It is estimated that each week about twenty-five young Aboriginals come to Sydney looking for work. They have no place to stay. Most people are aware that Aboriginals live by a very high code and principles. Whilst Aboriginals living in Sydney may have no extra space for beds in their homes, no Aboriginal is ever turned away. At present these people are living in fear that their homes could be condemned.

Migrants to Australia are provided with hostel accommodation. Aboriginals rightly ask: ‘Why are we not provided with accommodation?’ Church organisations provide some relief. Although the situation is known to people in authority, very little is done about it. In October 1968 the Minister in

Charge of Aboriginal Affairs stated that about $5,000 had been granted to make a start in the provision of hostel accommodation. That promise was recorded on tape by Aboriginal leaders. They ask: ‘Where?’

I draw attention to the journal entitled Kun-Mang-Gur’ which is published by the Office of Aboriginal Affairs. The issue before me points out at page 2 that about $31,616 has been provided for adult education courses run by the Department of Adult Education at the University of Sydney, and it gives details of other facilities which are available. But my information, which comes from very high sources in the Aboriginal world, is that these people do not know of one Aboriginal adult who has been educated. A number of Aboriginals may not appear to be articulate, but they know what is going on and they certainly have a number of spokesmen who are prepared to risk a great deal of security in order to put forward a case on the Aboriginals’ behalf.

The seeds of racial violence are a real thing, because of the association of all these Aboriginal people in homes. Up to 30 or 40 people are living in 2-bedroom or 3-bedroom homes. These people will sleep on the floor in order to get accommodation. This can lead to racial violence, and it is a matter about which we all must be concerned. The Aboriginal people have pointed out that we have sent men to the moon but Aboriginals are not allowed into theatres in some country towns. They recognise the desperate plight which is facing them, and they frequently repeat the statement: ‘You can send men to the moon, but unfortunately you are not able to do very much for us.’ We have the situation where in some country towns Aboriginals are barred from entering theatres. In some theatres the first four rows of seats are reserved for them and they are allowed to enter after the lights go out. Barbers in certain areas will not cut their hair. Aboriginals are not allowed into certain hotels. They are not allowed to use glasses in milk bars. These are the conditions in which these unfortunate people are living. They are not concerned about politics, but they are concerned about survival and they are greatly concerned about the injustices which must be immediately overcome. Despite all the money that is presently being spent on literature and various other things. 1 make a plea on behalf of these people to the Government, which now has power to deal with these matters, to go ahead with the job.

Although 1 spoke before the sitting of the Senate was suspended for dinner and again after the suspension of the sitting before the Minister for Supply (Senator Anderson) made his statement, there is still one other matter I want to raise. J refer to the Maltese people who are living in Australia. In doing so I point out that I met Maltese Ministers and the Prime Minister of Malta while on an overseas visit in September 1969. Dr Tabone, who is the Maltese Minister for Social Services, gave me and a number of my colleagues to understand that he believed the reciprocal social service arrangement between Malta and Australia would be signed before last Christmas. He was given to understand that, I believe, from authentic sources in Australia with whom he discussed the question. Honourable senators know of my interest in this matter. I have raised the matter in the Parliament on numerous occasions. The Maltese want an agreement similar to the one which presently operates with Great Britain and New Zealand.

In January 1968 the Leader of the Malta Labour Party, Mr Dom Mintoff, came to Australia to discuss this agreement. Before I left for overseas 1 read the correspondence which passed between Mr Mintoff and the Australian Minister for Social Services during Mr Mintoff’s visit to Australia. I personally believed that the Maltese Labour leaders were promised this agreement, and it is about time that the promise was honoured. The Maltese are British subjects. They are asking that they receive treatment similar to that given to other British citizens from Great Britain and from New Zealand.

Senator Sir Magnus Cormack:

– They are not Australian citizens.

Senator FITZGERALD:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– They are British subjects, and as British subjects they are entitled to receive the benefits of a reciprocal social service agreement. It is time that the Government took steps to honour its promise. It has given all sorts of assurances. Dr Tabone who, as I have said, is Minister for Social Services in Malta, was also told that this would be done. I am sure all honourable senators know that the

Maltese are British subjects. During the last war they were granted the George Cross for great valour. This matter should be dealt with promptly, because if we are to secure migrants we will have to give social service rights to migrants who have been naturalised. The Australian Labor Party would do this. That is part and parcel of our policy. Provided a person becomes naturalised, he should be given that right. Our policy states that Australian citizens shall not cease to receive pensions because of residence abroad, and 1 believe that this is a matter to which this Government has to give attention. Talks have been proceeding for a considerable time between the Maltese Government and the Australian Government and this agreement should be signed without delay.

I have a list of the number of migrants over 55 years of age who left Malta for Australia between 1957 and 1968. They are classified by sex and age group. This information was given to me by Dr V. Tabone, the Maltese M bister for Social Services. Between 1957 and 1968 a total of 958 migrants over 55 years of age left Malta for Australia. There were 466 males and 492 females. I repeat that Dr Tabone believed that this agreement would be signed, and the Leader of the Maltese Labour Party, Mr Dom Mintoff, endeavoured throughout his stay in Australia to see the Australian Minister for Social Services. Mr Mintoff also had an understanding that this agreement would be signed.

Senator Bishop:

– Do the Maltese people want the same rights as British people enjoy?

Senator FITZGERALD:

– They are British subjects and they want rights similar to those given to British and New Zealand citizens. As British citizens they are entitled to this benefit. Over a period of some years I have been asking questions concerning Australian imports from Malta and Australian exports to that country, and in the last few weeks I have asked a question and have been given a reply by the Minister for Trade and Industry (Mr McEwen). It shows that at the present time our exports to Malta amount to $3,175,000 and our imports from Malta amount to $173,000. When one looks at the trade situation one realises how advantageous it is to Australia.

Also I have received from the Minister for Immigration (Mr Lynch) information on the numbers of Maltese citizens who have entered Australia as settlers during the years 1965 to 1969. In 1965 the total number was 4,403. For the first 11 months of 1969 the total number was only 780. So Australia has to do something if it wants to continue the high rate of migration from Malta. The situation is that we are looking for migrants. We have hundreds of thousands of Maltese migrants here already, and they have been of great advantage to this country.

Let me conclude my remarks tonight by saying that my wish and the objective of my Party is to build a better world - a world free of war, disease, poverty and insecurity. Tremendous changes have taken place in the past 10 years. We have sent mcn to the moon. We have found more uses for atomic power. We have seen huge budgets for war and defence. We have seen programmes for the use of atomic power for peaceful purposes. We long to see that day for we on this side of the Parliament look forward to a world in which men and women the world over can live in peace and contentment. This is the policy for which my Party stands and the policy that we want to see implemented in this country and throughout the world.

Senator Sir MAGNUS CORMACK (Victoria) [9.23]- The forms of the Senate require a form of procedure to deal with the Governor-General’s Speech. This provides the Senate with an opportunity to range over a vast series of subjects. However fascinating it might be to go bushwalking with Senator Fitzgerald - I would like to do that - he has made so many botanical excursions off the road that I have not the time to go up those fascinating paths. I shall conform to the forms of the Senate and, without any reservations at all, congratulate Senator Donald Cameron on his maiden speech. I remember quite clearly - it is too long ago to give me any pleasure - being designated at very short notice as the mover of the motion for the adoption of the Address-in-Reply.

Senator Willesee:

– I remember it well.

Senator Sir MAGNUS CORMACK:

Senator Willesee remembers it well. He is getting a bit old, too. Fortunately the good manners of the Senate have been maintained over the last 20 years in that a senator making his maiden speech is listened to in respectful silence. But what I should like to say to Senator Donald Cameron is that I hope that he does not suffer the experience I had in those times. I was listened to in respectful silence when I first spoke from the corner where I sat, but the mercy and compassion of the Opposition did not extend to my second speech. That taught me a lesson.

Senator Cavanagh:

– The honourable senator has never made a speech worth listening to since then.

Senator Sir MAGNUS CORMACK:

– I have sat in the Senate for some years more than Senator Cavanagh has. I will not allow myself to make comments on the speeches he has made. However, it was noticeable that in the debate on a Governor-General’s Speech that deals with a momentous programme of Government intentions, he occupied the attention of the Senate for li hours on matters related to central Australia. He made no reference whatsoever to the Speech.

Senator Cavanagh:

– Does the honourable senator think my speech was not important?

Senator Sir MAGNUS CORMACK:

– I did not say that it was not important. In the honourable senator’s context it probably was highly important. But the forms of the Senate require some adversion at least to the Governor-General’s Speech and Senator Cavanagh did not refer to it at all.

Senator Kennelly:

– I do not know whether the forms of the Senate do require that. They give a senator an open go.

Senator Sir MAGNUS CORMACK:

– There are two situations. The Senate can confine itself to the subject matter of the Governor-General’s Speech or the debate can become a botanical expedition into central Australia. That is all I am saying. I am not denying to Senator Cavanagh in any way whatsoever his right to comment on any matter. The only point I am making is that he made the remark that I had never made a speech worth listening to and in self-defence I replied that he had not addressed himself to the Governor-General’s Speech but had occupied the attention of the Senate for li hours on matters related to central Australia.

I have a sense of sadness in that after 20 years I rise to speak for the second time in an Address-in-Reply debate. The sense of sadness relates to the changes that take place in the Parliament of which we are members. Men who were serving on both sides of the Senate when I first came here have now left the Senate. We have a whole new group of members of Parliament. But the interesting point is that the continuity of Parliament maintains itself. Although great numbers of them have left the Parliament - I made a note of how many were left after 20 years; the number is ten or eleven and includes the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Senator Willesee) and Senator Byrne - in going through the names of those who had left the Senate I was heartened to find that not all of them have gone down to the river bank and thrown their copper coins on the thwarts of the skiff manned by that curious character Charon, who I must say becomes more familiar to me as the years go by.

Another point interested me upon finding myself compelled to move into this AddressinReply debate in order to provide members of the Opposition with an opportunity to say all the things they wish to say. I went back over the Governor-General’s Speech in 1951, when 1 was the mover of the motion for the adoption of the AddressinReply. 1 found that there was a singular similarity between the Speech of 1951 and the Speech of 1970 on matters on which I hope I will enlighten and enlarge Senator Cavanagh’s mind.

Senator Marriott:

– That is a pious hope.

Senator Sir MAGNUS CORMACK:

That may be a pious hope, as Senator Marriott says, but I am willing to brace myself for the exercise. The interesting fact is that in 1951 one of the preoccupations in the Governor-General’s Speech - the main one - was that Australia found itself involved in a violent war of the United Nations, which Senator Fitzgerald has been praising, in South Korea. The preoccupation of the Australian Government of that day was that the armed excursions of a Communist power had involved us in a violent war in Korea. If one reads the Governor-General’s Speech one will notice it makes reference to a further excursion of Communist power with which Australia is involved in South Vietnam 20 years afterwards. The Speech also makes reference to the fact that Australia was involved in armed intervention in Malaya, as it was then called, in response to a Communist inspired excursion into Malaya. Twenty years later we are still involved in the problem of Communist expansion in the Asian area. I suggest that honourable senators who have come into this place in that period of nearly 20 years have overlooked this involvement. The problems posed by Communist expansion or Communist imperialism are still with us. Embedded in the Governor-General’s Speech is this preoccupation with the expansion of Communist military power 20 years later.

Involved in the Governor-General’s Speech of 1951, when I first stood in my place here in the Senate, was the problem of Russia. At that time we had just managed to escape, for the time being, from the problem associated with the Berlin air lift when Russia attempted to seize the area east of the Oder River. In 1969 the world witnessed Russian armed excursions into Czechoslovakia. The problems are still with us. Notwithstanding anything which the Opposition say and has been saying for the last 10 years, the fact remains that the problems posed by the imbalance and pressures on the world by armed Communist aggression are still with us. Nothing that the Opposition can say either in Parliament or out on the hustings can alter the fact that the western world is involved in one of the most deadly and historical problems which have beset it since time immemorial; that is the rise of new powers armed by new ideologies who do not believe that the ideology shall be maintained by the basis of argument or discussion but shall be sustained and supported by armed force.

Senator Rae:

– Laos, for instance.

Senator Sir MAGNUS CORMACK:

As Senator Rae mentioned last Wednesday night, Laos is another example. The problems in relation to Australia in 1970 are the same as existed in 1951 when I first stood in my place in the Senate to deal with the motion for the adoption of the AddressinReply. The Governor-General’s Speech of 1951 carried much of the overtones and much of the substance of the statement on defence which was delivered by the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator

Anderson) tonight. In 1951 Russia was controlled by a paranoic dictator. From intelligence which was gathered in those days it was well understood that he was a man who was willing to precipitate a third world war because, I believe, he was a man who had reached the stage of madness. I refer to the late chairman of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, Mr Stalin. He conveniently died in 1953 for reasons which have never been quite clear, but thank God it did happen.

Senator Dame Ivy Wedgwood:

– His heart stopped beating, I should say.

Senator Sir MAGNUS CORMACK:

– A heart may stop beating in several ways. It can stop beating from lead poisoning or something like that. Whatever the reason, the highest grade of intelligence available to the western world in 1951 showed that the world was on the verge of a cataclysmic clash because of the paranoia of the leader of the Communist Party in Russia. Twenty years later we are still pursuing this defensive posture. Whether we are winning or not, I do not know. However, the Communist socialist ideology, based on some philosophical concept, believes that the world has to go Communist and if it will not go Communist of its own accord it must be forced by the pressure of military power. Twenty years later we are involved in the same problem. We are involved in the problem of Vietnam. We are involved in the problem of Laos. Sir Robert Thompson said the other day that people say they do not believe in the domino theory, yet the dominoes themselves believe in the domino theory. The people of Thailand are worried-

Senator Mulvihill:

– Will we get the kind of Vietnam we want?

Senator Sir MAGNUS CORMACK:

– I do not know what kind of Vietnam the honourable senator wants. I do not know what sort of Yugoslavia he wants, either. Yugoslavia is a favourite topic with him. One of the most brutal murderers of the last 20 years is the Prime Minister of Yugoslavia.

Senator Mulvihill:

– Will we get South East-Asian Titoism or Marxism?

Senator Sir MAGNUS CORMACK:

– I am not talking about Titoism. I am talking about pressures under which Australia has found itself 20 years after 1951. The same pressures are being exerted in 1970 as were exerted in 1951. Whatever the Australian Labor Party may say to the contrary, the problem still remains.

Senator Georges:

– What have you been doing for 20 years?

Senator Sir MAGNUS CORMACK:

Senator Georges intervenes and in reply I say: I wonder what Archbishop Makarios has been doing in Cyprus? The honourable senator conveniently forgets this. Mr President, if you wish me to engage in a debate with Senator Georges across your chair on the question of Cyprus and Greece I will do so willingly, but I think I am entitled to make my own speech. Nearly 20 years after 1951 we have a redevelopment of the insurgency in Malaysia which we were involved in and preoccupied with in 1951. Requests have been made to us by the South East Asian people-

Senator Murphy:

– I rise to order. There may be some misunderstanding but perhaps the honourable senator could clear it up. Did he refer to the head of state in Yugoslavia when he was speaking of a brutal murderer? Was he referring to the Prime Minister of Yugoslavia? I submit the spirit of the Standing Orders indicates that the Prime Minister of another state should not be referred to in these terms. It is a general rule that there should not be these derogatory references to persons in high standing in friendly countries. Apparently the honourable senator did speak of the Prime Minister of Yugoslavia.

The PRESIDENT:

– May I have the number of the relevant standing order? There is no standing order on the matter. It is a practice.

Senator Murphy:

– Yes. It is a practice that these references should not be made to persons in such positions in friendly states. Whereas some of the honourable senators here may not think it is important, these remarks become part of the records of this Parliament. They are taken elsewhere and they can be extremely injurious to the relations of this country with other countries, particularly friendly countries with whom we have had arrangements and treaties in respect of various matters in recent times. I would ask that that reference be withdrawn.

Senator Cotton:

– 1 do not want to make a lot of noise about this, but the standing order which would seem to have relevance is standing order 418, which states:

No Senator shall use offensive words against either House of Parliament or any Member of such House, or of any House of a State Parliament, or against any Statute, unless for the purpose of moving for its repeal, and all imputations of improper motives and all personal reflections on Members shall be considered highly disorderly.

The PRESIDENT:

– 1 do not think that standing order strictly applies, lt has been the established practice that a senator shall not reflect on the head of a friendly nation.

Senator Sir MAGNUS CORMACK:

– 1 hope that nothing that I would say would cause you any embarrassment, Mr President. If the Leader of the Opposition feels that he has been embarrassed by any passing references I have made to the Prime Minister of Yugoslavia in replying to an interjection from Senator Mulvihill, or if my remarks offend him, I am quite willing to apologise to him.

The PRESIDENT:

– It is not a question of embarrassing Senator Murphy. The point is that under established practice you are not allowed to reflect on the head of a friendly nation.

Senator Sir MAGNUS CORMACK:

– I merely make the point - it may be a semantic one - that I deliberately avoided referring to the Head of State of Yugoslavia; I referred to the Prime Minister. Nevertheless, if this is offensive to the Senate, I withdraw and apologise.. I continue my remarks by referring to some of the curious parallels that exist between the situation at the time of my speaking and the situation in 1951. One of the problems that engaged attention in the GovernorGeneral’s Speech in 1951 was the problem of Japan in relation to the peace treaty. One of the most interesting aspects of the matter I think you will recall, Sir, was the problem of control offshore from Australia. This matter was embodied in the United States and Japanese treaty to which Australia subscribed.

Although the problem began at that stage, it now emerges in the GovernorGeneral’s Speech in 1970 as one that is not yet resolved. So the roots of the problems of the present are to be found in the past. We were involved, even in the Speech of the then Governor-General with the problem of the rise of China and the power that China represented. We were involved even at that stage with the problem of nuclear power and the disposal of nuclear power, lt will be recalled by elder senators that at that stage we were involved with the Baruch and Acheson proposals on the limitation of nuclear armanents. This problem still is not resolved. The problem of expansion still exists in the attachment to the treaty on the non-prolifieration of nuclear weapons.

The Government of Australia is not satisfied with the area referred to in the draft treaty on the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons. It feels that there is not adequate protection for Australia. When embarking on an argument about the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons and the problem of expansion, those of my juniors who lived through the period will recall the tragedy that occurred when we experimented with the inspection of weapons. The Treaty of Versailles of 1919 laid down that there must be an inspection in order to prevent the possible rearmament of Germany, but the tragedy was that the inspections did not prevent Germany from rearming in the 1930s. An interesting point was that adequate inspection under the Versailles Treaty was inhibited by the fact that Russia provided the refuge for German rearmament and training. These problems of nearly 20 years ago still exist. The problems which faced the Government which came into power in 1949 and which was re-affirmed in a most substantial way in 1951 still exist.

The Governor-General’s Speech, to which we are addressing ourselves at the moment, contains the continuation of an attempt by the Liberal and Country Party governments since 1949 and 1951 to complete the social revolution which those governments embarked upon in 1949 and 1951. The interesting thing is that there has emerged in Australia a new generation of people who have learnt nothing, as all new generations do, of the errors of their fathers. We have in Australia a revival of the belief that there is only one solution for any problem and that is to supply a Marxist and Socialist thesis to it. In my reading over this last weekend I came across a rather striking phrase. An historian, writing, of the existence of the squirocracy in England in the 18th century, said that members of the squirocracy believed that they were born into the world booted and spurred and that the mass of the community were there waiting, bridled and saddled, to be ridden. I think that basically was a pretty smart epigrammatic way of describing circumstances that existed in the 18th century in England.

Senator Georges:

– Times have not changed.

Senator Sir MAGNUS CORMACK:

– Times have not changed because there has grown up in Australia, as there has in the United Kingdom and particularly in the United States of America, a new race of people who call themselves the elitists who believe they are in possession of some imbued and embodied character and quality that makes them the natural leaders of the community - that the mass of the community are there waiting to be used up in the pursuit of an ideological concept of how society should be organised. Nothing makes this more clear than to sit in the Senate for the number of years that I have sat here. When I first came into the Senate the Opposition benches were occupied by men who had been involved, as indeed had men on the government side, in the growth of Australia. There was no difference, except in terms of concept, between the senators who sat on this side and the senators who sat on the other side. On both sides they were men and women who had worked with their hands. We were men and women who were in touch with the mood and need of the people because we were of the people. We understood the aspirations of the people.

In these 20 years there has been this great change in the pattern of the Australian Labor Party so that instead of being filled with representatives of the people - men and women - who were of the people and were part of the people, the men who sit on the Opposition benches in the Parliament are men who belong to a so-called self-elevated elitist group who believe that the mass of the people are bridled and saddled waiting to be ridden. This is no more vividly demonstrated than when they refer to the Territory of Papua and New Guinea - the Trust Territory of New Guinea and the Australian Territory of Papua. All of the Opposition’s comments in relation to Papua and New Guinea are directed to the belief that all the money that can be screwed out of the Australian taxpayers should be placed in Papua and New Guinea so that it will reinforce an elite community inside Papua and New Guinea which will then begin to ride the already bridled and saddled rest of the community which, if I can vary the simile, will become the dumb driven oxen to satisfy the elitists’ capacity for power.

We do not have to look too closely at Papua and New Guinea to see the fallacy of this because we have lived through 1951 and the rise of the African societies. Instead of the African societies as a whole being societies in which the mass of the people are elevated, we have discovered that in the African societies is an elitist group which oppresses the mass and the rich in the African socialist societies become richer and more powerful while the people become more subject. This is the new late 20th century phenomenon - the growth of the so-called self-appointed, self-elevated, self-designated elitists. This is beginning to happen inside the Australian Labor Party.

Senator Georges:

– Are you talking of Southern Rhodesia or Africa?

Senator Sir MAGNUS CORMACK:

– 1 am talking about Africa as a generality. So when this demand comes, as it does come by the Leader of the Opposition here and the Leader of the Opposition in another place, for immediate self-government and independence for New Guinea and Papua, what they are advocating is that Austraiian financial resources shall be placed behind a self-appointed, selfelected, self-designated elitist group in Papua and New Guinea which then will begin to oppress the mass. One of the characteristics which compel the Government of the day to resist this is that the Government of the day does not want to see the people of Papua and New Guinea oppressed by a self-appointed, self-elected, self-designated elitist group.

Senator Keeffe:

– How many shares have you in Conzinc Rio Tinto?

Senator Sir MAGNUS CORMACK:

– 1 have no shares anywhere. I do not wish to advert to the statement that has been made on defence. What I advert to is the amendment moved by the Opposition. If you recollect it, Mr President, the motion reads:

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.

The amendment which has been moved by Senator McManus is as follows:

That the following words be added to the Address-in-Reply . . .

I referred earlier to the Opposition’s amendment. We do not have it yet. I am dealing now with the amendment proposed by Senator McManus on behalf of the Australian Democratic Labor Party and I should like to comment on it because it brings into the context of Parliament something to which I have the gravest objection. Parliamentary practice in the past has been to make at least a specific comment but there has grown up - Senator Murphy must claim some blame for this - some of the practice adopted in the United Nations in the presentation of motions. They start off something like this: ‘Believing in this . . .’ or ‘Demanding this . . .’. We find that type of thing in the amendment proposed by Senator McManus and I will not accept it.

It refers firstly to ‘an inadequate statement on Australian foreign policy’. What does ‘inadequate’ me.’n? Next it refers to a comprehensive programme to rehabilitate primary industry’. What does ‘comprehensive’ mean? It then refers to a ‘plan mutually acceptable to the Commonwealth and the States’. What does ‘mutually acceptable’ mean? I do not know. Then it mentions adequate measures to promote family life’. What does ‘adequate’ mean. Finally it refers to ‘provision for a contributory national insurance plan’. What ‘national insurance plan’ means I have not the faintest idea. This has been looked at for the past 20 years. The United Kingdom has a national insurance plan that is not worth the paper on which it is written. The United Kingdom Government ls amending it and tinkering with it the whole time.

I am impelled, therefore, to conclude with these remarks: The problems of the 20th century remain. The Government is grappling with them. This is evident in what I consider to be the most significant speech that has been made by a GovernorGeneral for many years. The GovernorGeneral’s Speech is filled with the elements of substantial legislative promises and programmes which have begun to flow. No reasonable attack has been made on the Government’s proposals. I have heard none.

Senator Keeffe:

– What about the Australian Medical Association?

Senator Sir MAGNUS CORMACK:

– It would be interesting to inform the Senate of my experience in relation to the AMA. In 1948 I was a member of the policy research group of the Liberal Party. Part of our duty was to have discussions with the then British Medical Association. It was a very interesting experience. It evolved the concept which the then Mr Menzies announced in his 1949 policy speech to the effect - I drafted these words so I know what I am talking about - that drugs necessary for the preservation of human life would be free. The British Medical Association of course was asked how many drugs were involved before this phrase was drafted and it said: ‘Not more than twelve*. It estimated - it was checked - that if those twelve drugs were prescribed by the medical profession it would cost between $15m and $20m a year. Over 15 or 20 years the pharmacopoeia has been expanded to something like 400 drugs and the scheme is costing about $300m a year.

The lesson to be learned from this is that there has to be some precision. What has happened - I have been diverted from what I was saying - is that the people have become sodden with the belief in magic and that anything in a bottle will cure them. This is basically the problem which has engaged the attention of the Senate select committee on medical benefits. It is a sad commentary on the morality of the community.

Senator Georges:

– And of this Government.

Senator Sir MAGNUS CORMACK:

And of government and of people who support government and of people who attempt, by pressing upon the superstitions of the people, to force government to increase this magic, for that is all that it is. I am sorry for the embarrassment in which I found myself involving you, Mr President. I conclude my remarks by saying that I reject criticism of the Governor-General’s Speech and support the motion.

Senator KENNELLY:
Victoria

– As one who over the years has enjoyed listening to my friend, Senator Sir Magnus Cormack, from Victoria, I just wonder what he said in the half-hour he took to make his speech. He gave a history of what Communism has done and said what he thinks it will do. He said that there was a rising of Communism in certain countries to our north. Why did he not say that Communism, as history shows, thrives only where oppression of the people is greatest, where there is poverty and all that goes with poverty?

Senator Greenwood:

– Was that the case with Czechoslovakia?

Senator KENNELLY:

– I am talking of Communism as a whole and J shall deal with that aspect later. 1 never run away. I shall deal with the honourable senator later, too. He is one of those who want everyone except himself to shed blood in Vietnam. He and his colleague, the lawyer from Tasmania - I do not mean the Minister - remind me of that famous poem written in 1916 about conscription, lt was entitled ‘The Blood Vote’. So as to bring the poem up to date I have, with great respect to the writer of it, altered a word here and there to fit in with present day conditions as they affect the Senate. I hope with righteousness on my side I dedicate what I say to the two people in the Senate who are more war-thirsty than any other person I have met in nearly 30 years of political life in State and Commonwealth. The poem reads:

Why is your face so white, senator

Why do you choke for breath?

Oh, I have dreamt in the night, my boy

That I have doomed a man to death.

Why do you hide your head, senator

And hide it as though in dread?

It beareth a dreadful brand, my son

With the dead man’s blood ‘tis red.

J hear his fiancee cry in the night

I hear his mother and sisters weep

And always within my sight, Oh God,

The dead boy’s blood doth leap.

They got rae to cross the floor,

The grim death warrant of doom.

And I smugly sentenced the young man to death

In that blood-red carpeted room.

Oh my little son, Oh my little son,

Pray God for your father’s soul,

That the scarlet stain may be white again

In God’s great Judgment Roll.

I have made a few alterations to fit the position as it is today in this chamber. I suppose that poem was one of the greatest propaganda poems used in the conscription of 1916 and 1917. It caused some storm then and in my opinion it fits very admirably indeed the two senators that I have named.

It is quite easy for them to vote for conscription of 20-year-olds - some of them, unfortunately, to bc killed. Only the other night I read a report in the ‘Herald’ that the casualties up to date amongst Australian soldiers in Vietnam total 3 SO dead and 1,819 wounded. Is it not easy to send someone off to war? What for? The Government that honourable senators opposite support has not even declared war. Why has it not declared war? Surely one cannot say that this is other than war when such numbers of our young men are killed or wounded. Does the Government not declare war in order to protect the people who have gained most out of war over the years, whether it be this, that or any other war? We can go around living our lives without any extra taxes and without any burden at all in order that for some whim, some alleged request by - I suppose - one of the worst governments that the world has seen, as proved by what the Americans did-

Senator Rae:

– You are not reflecting on the head of that government, are you?

Senator KENNELLY:

– I did not mention the Head of State at any time. I know that it hurts. I have been waiting for a while to have a shot at the honourable senator. I always give as good as I take. I have sat here nauseated hour after hour when he and his colleague, who are nothing but jingoists, have indicated that they are pleased to send someone else to war. They make certain that they themselves do not go.

Senator Rae:

– Name two occasions on which I have done that.

Senator KENNELLY:

– There would not be a conscript in this country if it were not for the likes of the two people whom I have mentioned.

Senator Rae:

– Name any two occasions.

Senator KENNELLY:

– Whether I take more or less time than I want to take, the honourable senator is going to get it. I am getting sick of hearing what the people on this side stand for. We had first to fight accusations about Bolsheviks in 1920. I have never known of an election except those in 1943 and 1946 when the likes of the honourable senator have not put a smear on members who stood for the Australian Labor Party, and I have had enough of it.

Senator Greenwood:

– What sort of smear do you put on other people?

Senator KENNELLY:

– 1 will put it on you now.

Senator Rae:

– What did you do during the last election other than smear.

Senator KENNELLY:

– Now, let me refer to the last election campaign. I listened to the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr McEwen) when he, and no doubt others, thought in the last week before the election that the position was not so secure. Up to that time at least I had had some respect for a man who had served a lifetime in the Parliament of this nation. I was shocked that even a possibility of defeat could get him to descend to taking part in a smear campaign that candidates of this Party have suffered for a long time. One can look back over the years of politics. Possibly I have not much longer to serve in this Parliament but as long as I am here those who give it will get it in return. The Labor Party has not changed its policy on the Vietnam war. We said at the outset that we had uo right to be in it, and we still say that.

Senator Rae:

– You welshed on your agreement.

Senator KENNELLY:

– Let the honourable senator show us the agreement whereby we were compelled to send troops, whether they be regular troops or conscripts, into the Vietnam conflict. There is no agreement whatsoever.

Senator Greenwood:

– You would let the Americans fight and would do nothing to help them.

Senator KENNELLY:

– I would not do what the honourable senator did. I would not say that everyone has to go except me. I would hide my head in shame if I were the honourable senator.

Senator Greenwood:

– You would let someone else do the fighting for you.

Senator KENNELLY:

– The honourable senator has been pretty good at that. He has been excellent at it. If 1 did what he said, I would be almost as bad as he is. Australia should never have become involved in the Vietnam war. I believe history will show that we came out of there with extremely few friends in the countries to our near north.

Senator Greenwood:

– We will come out having done what the world required us to do.

Senator KENNELLY:

– My friend should listen and learn. Certain people want wars. Honourable senators opposite should ask themselves how the American economy would run today if it were not for wars.

Senator Branson:

– Good God!

Senator KENNELLY:

– It is not a case of ‘good God’. That is true.

Senator Branson:

– I said: ‘I have heard the lot.’

Senator KENNELLY:

– Come on now. Look at the manufacturing industries in the United States of America that have to make their profits either through wars or through the dispersal of the armaments that they make to practically every nation in the world.

Senator Marriott:

– The honourable senator was not called up in 1941 and was jolly glad of it.

Senator KENNELLY:

– I am not speaking about what happened in 1941. If the honourable senator recalls what happened in 1941, all the then Government did was to walk out.

Senator Marriott:

– We were overseas in the Middle East.

Senator KENNELLY:

– I was not speaking personally.

Senator Marriott:

– You have been a bit personal.

Senator KENNELLY:

– I was speaking of the Government of the day. In 1941 the Government could have run this country because it had a majority. I saw the Government run the country for 3 years with a majority of one. It had a bigger majority in 1941. The job of running the country in 1941 was done badly. The people then entrusted the job to people who would do it and who did it.

Senator Rae:

– Tell us about the Brisbane line.

Senator KENNELLY:

– If the honourable senator knows so much about the Brisbane line, he should tell us. I still want to know whether or not it was wise to consider having such a line. It was a matter of defence. No doubt strategists would know much more about this than I would.

Senator Rae:

– You have accused the Government of withdrawing. Now you say that that was a good idea.

Senator KENNELLY:

– I am not accusing the Government of withdrawing. History will show that the Government was delighted to get out of Vietnam on the best possible conditions. Year after year the Government was told that it could not win the war. Yet it continued to send troops there. When we said that the Government should reduce the number of forces stationed there it did not agree. The Government said that it could not do that. The Prime Minister (Mr Gorton), in his latest statement, said that if there is a further withdrawal of United States troops he will consider withdrawing some of our troops. In the interests of the nation the Government should make up its mind as to what it wants.

Senator Rae:

– Do not times change? Do not situations change?

Senator KENNELLY:

– Situations change, it is true. I do not know whether the honourable senator was a member of the Senate - I think he was - when the Holt Government was in office. The phrase then was ‘All the way with L.B.J.’ That did not bring the Government much success. Do not think that I am unfriendly towards the United States.

Senator Rae:

– They might think so, from the way you talk.

Senator KENNELLY:

– They might. Let people think what they like. This Government ought to have a foreign policy of its own. It ought to know where it is going. We have obligations under the ANZUS Treaty and under SEATO, however weak those ties are. 1 believe that any Australian government would honour its obligations, but those obligations do not take us into Vietnam just because other nations want to go there as the world is changing. We want to have some friends left in this part of the world. If I am any kind of judge - I do not say I am a good judge - once the United States gets out of Vietnam it will take a lot to get that country back into Asia again. I think that the history of the revolutions of the people in Asia shows that. We would be doing the United States a very good turn if, instead of blindly following what it did or what it said and instead of having no worthwhile foreign policy of our own, we helped the United

States to get out of Vietnam. We would be doing the United States a service.

Senator Rae:

– Cut and run.

Senator KENNELLY:

– The honourable senator has never become involved in order to be able to run. I suggest that, in the interests of this country, it would be wise to withdraw our troops. We are part of Asia. Great Britain is getting out of Asia to a very marked degree.

Senator Rae:

– Only because of the mismanagement of the Labour Party at home.

Senator KENNELLY:

– The honourable senator should read and learn. If he did he would see that what happened here and in New Zealand from 1929 to 1931 was happening in Great Britain when Mr Wilson took over. The honourable senator should compare the balance of payments today with the balance of payments when the Labour Party came into office. Of course a government has to do things for the good of the country. Scullin attempted to do this. The people who were in Parliament in those days applauded what he did. We all know what happened at the 1931 election. The Government is a fair weather sailor. We should look at its performances when the going is bad. In the interests of this country, in the interests of our own people and in the interests of the part of the world in which we are situated, the sooner we get out of Vietnam the better.

When the Government first announced its intention to intervene we were told that it bad received a communication from the South Vietnamese Government asking us to come to their assistance. But the communication was never produced. The present Prime Minister spoke in the Senate during the debate. The late Senator Sir William Spooner and the late Senator Sir Shane Paltridge also took part in the debate, but the document was never produced. The next thing to happen was that we heard the Government asking: ‘Is it not better to fight there than fight here?’ The Government did not take any notice of the military experts who said it would take at least 2 million men to make a successful invasion of this country. The Government also ignored the Oppositon when it pointed out that naval experts had found during the last war that it took 4i tons of shipping to shift a man. We asked: ‘Which Asian nation has 8 million or 9 million tons of shipping with which to invade Australia?’ The question was not answered. Therefore, it should not be said that North Vietnam is the villain because if there is to be an invasion of Australia it will be from mainland China or some other part of Asia. As I have asked in the Senate on previous occasions, is it expected that they will come in sampans? lt is not as easy as that. God forbid that there should ever be an invasion of Australia, but honourable senators opposite should not go round this country saying that the honourable senators who sit on this side of the Senate will not stand up to their defence responsibilities.

Senator Rae:

– Tell us again how the honourable senator would withdraw the military civil aid programme.

Senator KENNELLY:

– The Government created the situation.

Senator Rae:

– Tell us again about that aspect.

Senator KENNELLY:

– I understood, when listening to the honourable senator’s speech, that he had had an opportunity to go to Vietnam recently and he had taken it.

Senator Rae:

– And I was impressed by the programme to rehabilitate the people.

Senator KENNELLY:

– I understood that the Senate had given the honourable senator permission to incorporate in Hansard a lot of material he brought back with him. Am I correct in saying that he sought leave to incorporate certain material in Hansard?

Senator Rae:

– Yes.

Senator KENNELLY:

– I have read that material. I would like to know who the honourable senator thinks is responsible. Has Australia played any part? If we are doing work which can be described as humane who would say that we are other than pleased we are doing it? But the position is that if there had not been outside intervention such a situation may not have occurred. It is not the first struggle to occur in the portion of the world which was known as Indo-China. Fighting has occurred in that area over many years.

Senator Rae:

– For how many years were they fighting before Australia became involved in any way? For how many years has the destruction which Australia is now trying to repair been going on? This is the one which hurts.

Senator KENNELLY:

– I think the honourable senator should be a little fairer and admit that there has been war in IndoChina over many long years.

Senator Rae:

– Resisting the Communists from the north.

Senator KENNELLY:

– Were they not all united against the French? I am not the best historian in the world, but if the honourable senator’s interjection is an indication of his knowledge I am a little better than he is. I believe that Australia will be much better served the moment the war in Vietnam is ended. At one time we were told that we would win the war in a couple of years but winning a war brings with it all the atrocities which everybody in the Senate deplores. To be quite candid, I think we have reached the stage where even the most ardent supporters of our position in Vietnam admit that there is very little, if any, hope of success. I think the United States of America with all its power - if I am correct it is somewhere in the vicinity of half a million men - has learned that it cannot subdue this country. Instead of wasting the lives of precious young people-

Senator Little:

– The Americans have not been there to subdue the country; they have been there to protect it. If they wanted to subdue it they would go to Hanoi. The honourable senator knows that as well as I do.

Senator KENNELLY:

– If it is a matter of subduing a country why do we not let the people of the country be united, as they were against the French?

Senator Rae:

– For how many years were they united?

Senator KENNELLY:

– I cannot get down to exact figures, but I believe that Australia is doing itself irreparable harm. The conflict has to end sooner or later and then we will have to pick up the threads. The threads will not be as easy to cement in friendship as has been the case in the past. I deplore the thought of sending troops to Malaysia or Singapore unless we have a treaty with those countries to the effect that if we are in trouble they will give whatever help they can. Australia is a country which is large in area but small in population. Some people seem to think that we can disperse the limited resources we have to help anyone in our region who asks for assistance. 1 believe that help should be given on at least a quid pro quo basis. 1 would vote tomorrow for a policy which provided that if we help people those people will have to come and help us when we need it. I cannot see anything wrong with that. A very high-ranking Army officer once told me that if he were given bands and control of the mass media he could get as many volunteers to join the forces as were wanted.

Senator Branson:

– Not if they listened to the honourable senator’s speech tonight.

Senator KENNELLY:

– It is a matter of opinion.

Senator Branson:

– lt is the greatest pacifist speech I have ever heard.

Senator KENNELLY:

– I have never been classed as a pacifist. All I want to say is that we should look at the matter in its true perspective and take away the hatred we seem to engender for the sake of being on one side of the chamber or the other. Every time honourable senators opposite take part in an election campaign their first thought is to say that those people who carry the banner of the Australian Labor Party are Communists, are mixed up with the Communists or are fellow travellers. We on this side of the chamber are getting a bit sick of hearing such remarks and we hit back. I do not suppose honourable senators opposite like it as much when we hit back as when we sit back and take it.

Debate interrupted.

page 186

ADJOURNMENT

The PRESIDENT:

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

That the Senate do now adjourn.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Senate adjourned at 10.30 p.m.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 10 March 1970, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1970/19700310_senate_27_s43/>.