House of Representatives
8 April 1970

27^th Parliament · 2^nd Session

PETITIONS
- Kangaroos
- Kangaroos
QUESTION
- PARLIAMENT HOUSE
QUESTION
- CONFERENCE ONINDO-CHINA
QUESTION
- CIVIL AVIATION
QUESTION
- FILM CENSORSHIP
QUESTION
- SOCIAL SERVICES
QUESTION
- TARIFF BOARD
QUESTION
- COLOUR TELEVISION
QUESTION
- DRUGS
QUESTION
- PRIMARY PRODUCTION
QUESTION
- BROADCASTING AND TELEVISION
QUESTION
- JAPAN
QUESTION
- OIL
QUESTION
- RURAL INDUSTRIES
QUESTION
- FRENCH NUCLEAR TESTS
QUESTION
- HEALTH
QUESTION
- INDUSTRIAL UNREST
QUESTION
- PETROL
QUESTION
- TELEPHONES
QUESTION
- WATERFRONT EMPLOYMENT
NEW AND PERMANENT PARLIAMENT HOUSE
AGED PERSONS HOMES
- Ministerial Statement
WAR SERVICE HOMES
- Discussion of Matter of Public Importance
- Suspension of Standing Orders
STANDING ORDERS COMMITTEE
TARIFF PROPOSALS
- Customs Tariff Proposals No. 8 (1970)
- Customs Tariff Proposals No. 9 (1970)
TARIFF BOARD
RIVER MURRAY WATERS BILL 1970
- Second Reading
DEFENCE BILL 1970
- Second Reading
RIVER MURRAY WATERS BILL 1970
- Second Reading
ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS UPON NOTICE
- Papua and New Guinea: Possession of Firearms (Question No. 393)
- Post Office: Management - Staff Relations (Question No. 385)
- Telephones (Question No. 528)
- Television (Question No. 241)
- Papua and New Guinea: Rabaul Bus Services (Question No. 394)
- Papua and New Guinea Act: Administrator’s Instructions (Question No. 157)
- Papua and New Guinea Houseof Assembly: Members Visits Overseas (Question No. 159)
- Papua and New Guinea: Lease of Business and Industrial Sites (Question No. 172)
- Papua and New Guinea: Movements of Expatriates and Indigenes (Question No. 437)
- Papua and New Guinea: Police Helicopter Patrols (Question No. 189)
- Papua and New Guinea: Workers’ Compensation (Question No. 297)
- Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport (Question No. 284)
- Malaysia-Singapore Air Defence (Question No. 69)
- Cotton: Financial Assistance to Farmers (Question No. 240)
- Vietnam: Australian Casualties (Question No. 332)
- Vietnam: Australian Military Forces (Question No. 333)
- Defence: Chiefs of Staff Committee (Question No. 354)
- Meetings of Defence Committees (Question No. 355)
- Defence Committees: Special Advisers (Question No. 356)
- Defence Administration Committee (Question No. 357)
- Joint Services Electronic Data Processing Committee (Question No. 358)
FUNCTIONS OF THE JOINT SERVICES EDP COMMITTEE
- Defence (Industrial) Committee (Question No. 359)
- Defence: Joint Standardisation Committee (Question No. 360)
- Defence: Joint Cataloguing Committee (Question No. 361)
- Defence: Joint Planning Committee (Question No. 362)
DARTMOUTH RESERVOIR AGREEMENT BILL 1970
SPECIAL ADJOURNMENT

Mr SPEAKER (Hon. Sir William Aston) took the chair at 2.30 p.m., and read prayers.

page 807

PETITIONS

Kangaroos

Mr JARMAN presented from certain residents of the State of Victoria a petition showing that because of uncontrolled shooling for commercial purposes the population of the kangaroos, particularly big red, the largest living marsupial has been reduced to a level which places their survival in jeopardy; none of the States have sufficient wardens to detect or apprehend people breaking the inadequate laws in existence. Only uniform laws, brought in at Federal level, and a complete cessation of killing for commercial purposes can ensure the survival of the kangaroo; it is an indisputable fact that no natural resource can withstand hunting on such a concentrated scale, unless some provision is made for its future.

The petitioners pray that the export of all kangaroo products be banned immediately, and the Commonwealth Government make a serious appraisal of its responsibility in the matter, to ensure the survival of the kangaroo.

Petition received and read.

Kangaroos

Mr JESS presented from certain citizens of the State of Victoria a petition showing that because of uncontrolled shooting for commercial purposes the level of population of kangaroos, particularly the big red is now so low that their survival is in jeopardy. The red kangaroo, the largest marsupial in existence, and Australia’s national emblem may very soon become extinct.

The petitioners pray that the exports of all kangaroo products be banned immediately, and the Commonwealth Government take measures to protect surviving kangaroos. Only a uniform law operating throughout Australia, and a complete cessation of killing of kangaroos for commercial purposes, can ensure the survival of the species.

Petition received.

page 807

QUESTION

Mr WENTWORTH:
Minister for Social Services · MACKELLAR, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– I can give the honourable member that assurance. I am not in a position to give him any policy decision in regard to it.

page 810

QUESTION

TARIFF BOARD

Dr J F CAIRNS:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

– 1 ask the Minister for Trade and’ Industry a question. Does the Minister recall the Tariff Board’s announcement that a 50% effective rate should be an appropriate ceiling for tariffs in Australia and does he recall the widespread concern and opposition in industry that this announcement produced? Did he then give a clear impression that the Government would not accept this as a general rule but would make decisions itself? Would he agree that the Tariff Board’s recommendations in the case of man-made fibres and yams appears to be an application of this 50% ceiling by the Tariff Board and it will be widely understood to be such by industry? If this is not so, will the Minister say why he considers it is not consistent with this rule and will he say what reasons he has, apart from the Tariff Board’s recommendations, to reach an independent judgment, for believing that the tariff recommended in the report and accepted by the Government will not seriously embarrass economic and efficient sections of the industry?

Mr McEWEN:
Deputy Prime Minister · MURRAY, VICTORIA · CP

Mr McEWEN:
CP

– I heard the question, but I do not know what the honourable member is driving at. It is a fact that I said in this House that, so far as I could gauge, the economic theories crf the modest member were akin to or almost identical with those of Adam Smith who lived some 200 years ago. I would think that perhaps the abstract theories are as true today as they were then. But today there is a social conscience which pays regard to human beings and does not confine itself only to figures. Adam Smith lived in days when one was transported for stealing a loaf of bread and when children worked in coal mines and that kind of thing.

Mr Hayden:

– Did you . know him personally?

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for Oxley will cease interjecting.

Mr McEWEN:

– Well, that is the limit of his intelligence. The honourable member who questions me asks: Is it not a fact that the Government’s tariff policies have failed?

Mr Whittorn:

– Not tariffs.

Mr McEWEN:

– Oh yes, you did. We live in a phase in which one could justifiably be amazed at the success of the Government’s tariff policies in producing a degree of industrial development which is there for any one to see. Not only is this a magnificent industrial development in itself, but it has produced the industries and the employment upon which our immigration policies are exclusively based. Without this industrial development we could not accept the immigrants that we have. I doubt whether we could accept any immigrants. This has had a consequence in Australia as it has had in every other industrialised country. It has had the effect of generating cost pressures which are unbearable to the great primary industries of this country.

Having regard to the economic requirements of Australia to sustain the industries which historically have been the principal earners of foreign exchange, and at the same time having regard to the social conscience and humanitarian policies of the Government, the Government has done in Australia what has been done in every other advanced industrial country; it has given a measure of support to the rural industries which need it. Without this measure of support most of our rural industries would wither and die. I do not know whether the honourable member wants both an empty countryside because rural industry has withered and died and an empty city because there are no industries there protected by tariffs which could sustain them against competition from overseas. The question represents the most muddled thinking that I could imagine.

page 812

QUESTION

BROADCASTING AND TELEVISION

Mr KEATING:
BLAXLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES

– ls the Prime Minister aware that the United States Federal Communications Commission announced recently that in future in the United States a newspaper will not be able to acquire a radio or television station? The Commission is going a step further by inquiring whether existing multimedia combinations should be broken up within 5 years. To ensure that the instruments of mass media in Australia do not remain in the hands of a few combines will the Prime Minister introduce similar legislation prohibiting a newspaper from acquiring a broadcasting licence and will he further break up existing multi-media combinations in Australia?

Mr GORTON:
Prime Minister · HIGGINS, VICTORIA · LP

– I think the question could better be answered in detail by the PostmasterGeneral, who would have at his fingertips more up to date information than 1 have. I think the honourable member will realise that in fact this Government has passed legislation seeking to prevent the accumulation of the control of media in this country passing into too few hands. 1 do not have the details in my mind but there is legislation to prevent the acquisition of broadcasting stations and television stations by, let me say, owners who at present have control of some other media. So this in fact has already been done. Perhaps the honourable member might like to address himself to the question of whether he feels it has been done enough, but the fact remains that legislation has been passed and has been in operation for quite a number of years in relation to this matter, and is from time to time used. In regard to the second part of the question asked by the honourable member, that would certainly fall under the heading of a question in relation to policy but I would have great reluctance in accepting a proposition that things which have been legally and properly done in Australia should be by a government declared to have been illegal and that people should be prevented from continuing to do what was legally possible for them to do at the time. So as for the second part of the question, I would regard that as the approach which the Government would make. As for the first part of the question, action has already been taken to prevent too much accumulation in these fields.

page 812

QUESTION

JAPAN

Mr GARLAND:
CURTIN, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– Has the Minister for External Affairs seen a Press report of a statement attributed to the new Australian Ambassador to Japan calling for Japanese re-arming? Will the Minister say whether the report is correct? Will he state the Government’s position in the matter?

Mr McMAHON:
LP

– I did read in a prominent national newspaper an article headed Japan Should Re-arm’. The article attributed to the Ambassador designate to Japan the statement that economic interests would lead to a military presence of Japan in the Pacific theatre. Prior to his departure for overseas the Ambassador designate left with mc a copy of the speech he intended to make upon arrival in Japan. He asked the Embassy to distribute the speech for him. I looked carefully at that speech before and after the Ambassador designate’s arrival in Japan and I have come to the conclusion that there is nothing in the draft of the speech which could create the impression that he was in favour of Japanese re-armament and a Japanese military presence in other parts of the Pacific. If the Leader of the Opposition would like to see a copy of that draft 1 will be only too happy to make it available.

Mr Whitlam:

– Was it approved by the Government?

Mr McMAHON:

– It did not have to be approved, and when the Leader of the Opposition sees it he will see there is no reason for it to be approved. I referred this matter to Mr Freeth and this day received a cable from him in which he says:

The report is, I need hardly say, completely misleading in both the heading and the opening paragraphs. The tenor of my remarks on the question of Japanese military efforts outside Japan was that the Japanese themselves had made it clear that they were not contemplating any sort of a military role beyond their own territory and thai their contribution to ‘ regional stability and security would be limited to the economic field.

page 814

QUESTION

HEALTH

Dr KLUGMAN:
PROSPECT, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Has the Minister for

QUESTION

INDUSTRIAL UNREST

Mr WHITTORN:

– My question is addressed to the Minister for Labour and National Service. In view of the fact that the President of the Australian Council of Trade Unions has criticised the increases in prices of BHP products, will the Minister advise Mr Hawke that BHP competes with overseas producers and must have regard to this competition? Do unions have regard to wages paid in Japan and other low cost countries before applying for and, indeed, demanding and striking for higher wages and over-award payments or do they look at these matters in isolation and have no regard for brother unionists overseas?

Mr SNEDDEN:
Minister for Labour and National Service · BRUCE, VICTORIA · LP

– There has been a very great number of disputes involving Broken Hill Pty Co. Ltd and associated companies over recent months. These disputes have cost an immense amount of production. This loss inevitably will lead to a very considerable increase in the price of the products when production is resumed, and that increase will be harmful to the economy. There are presently before the New South Wales Industrial Commission applications for the deregistration, under the State arbitration system, of a number of unions. Of the large number of unions concerned with the Broken Hill Company there are three unions which are not concerned in the applications for deregistration because, as I understand it, they have been seeking to pursue their claims through negotiation. I would hope that all unions making wage claims would follow the pattern of negotiation and, failing negotiation, then arbitration and that there should be no recourse to direct strike action which can only be harmful to the economy.

page 815

QUESTION

PETROL

Mr LUCHETTI:
MACQUARIE, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I ask the Prime Minister a question. In view of the widespread concern being expressed by all sections of the Australian people about the threatened further increase in the price of petrol, will the Prime Minister make an immediate review of legislation and policy factors which would make the increase possible? Because of the importance of the price of petrol to the lives of Australians, and particularly to the burden of costs on industry, and having regard to the generous contributions made to the oil search companies by way of subsidy, technical assistance-

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member is now giving information. I suggest that he ask his question.

Mr LUCHETTI:

– I will do that. I presume that the Prime Minister is aware of the generous concessions and other assistance given. Will he establish a joint select committee of the Parliament to investigate and report upon all aspects of the marketing, price and distribution, including pipeline policy and trade arrangements, of petrol, natural gas and other petroleum products?

Mr GORTON:
LP

– I am indeed aware of the assistance, in various forms, provided to those who have been seeking for oil throughout Australia - assistance provided by this Government and which at the time was attacked but which led to the discovery in Australia of oil resources which now meet some 60% of our requirements. This is of enormous assistance both to our defence and to our economy and, I think, is a monument to the wisdom of the assistance provided in order to enable oil to be discovered. But, Mr Speaker, the House will know that it is not sufficient merely to discover oil. The Government also has a policy which requires that oil, when discovered in Australia, will be used in Australia because it is quite clear that it might be to the interests of overseas oil combines to leave Australian oil in the ground even after discovery. So that is a second requirement that this Government has had always. That being so, it is necessary that the refineries in Australia should be required to treat the Australian oil, that they should be required to take the Australian oil, and that they should be required to take it at a price which permits those who discover oil in reasonable quantities to be able to make a profit out of the oil that they have discovered. Otherwise, of course, there would be far less requirement on anybody to search for oil and the need we have to be self-sufficient would be thereby damaged. These are the legislative provisions, I take it, to which the honourable member is referring, and I see no reason whatsoever to change them in any way because I believe it necessary that we should look for oil; there should be incentives to look for it; we should, when it is discovered, see that it is used and refined in Australia; and we should, in order to attain those objectives, see that those who discover it know they will be able to sell it commercially. I see no reason at all to change any of those requirements.

As for the price to which the honourable member referred, it has already been pointed out to the House that the South Australian Prices Commissioner - and this I should have thought would have fallen right into line with the thinking of the Opposition - after such examination is the authority which decides the price, whether an increase in price is justifiable, and if so what that increase should be.

page 816

QUESTION

TELEPHONES

Mr TURNBULL:
MALLEE, VICTORIA

– ls the PostmasterGeneral making investigations with a view to finding means whereby a reduction may be made in the cost of upgrading rural telephone lines so that they will meet the standard required for automatic telephone services? If so, when can a report on this subject be expected.

Mr HULME:
LP

– From memory, I think it Was towards the end of 1968 that a new policy of assistance to rural producers in the installation of telephone services was determined. That policy caused the Government to make advances to those who had fairly substantial costs in relation to partly privately erected lines with a requirement on the part of the individual to repay a minimum of $100 or 10% per annum plus interest at the long-term bond rate. I know of no variation in policy since that decision was taken.

page 816

QUESTION

WATERFRONT EMPLOYMENT

Mr FOSTER:
STURT, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I direct a question to the Minister for Labour and National Service. In view of the agreement between the AEWL, the ACTU and the WWF providing for 4 weeks-

Mr Kevin Cairns:
LILLEY, QUEENSLAND · LP

– What is that?

Mr SPEAKER:

– I suggest to honourable members on my right that the honourable member for Sturt be heard without interruption.

Mr FOSTER:

– Thank you, Mr Speaker. I will repeat the question. In view of the reported agreement between the Australian Employers of Waterfront Labour, the Australian Council of Trade Unions and the Waterside Workers Federation providing for 4 weeks annual leave with a 17.5% extra payment on such leave, will the Minister now give consideration to apply ing a similar benefit to all Commonwealth public servants as these employees have not received any change for some 69 years.

Mr SNEDDEN:
LP

– After a dispute which should not have occurred there was a 5-day national stoppage of work on the waterfront which involved identifiable costs directly to the community of between $4m and $5m. It is difficult to know how prices would rise when those costs were traced through to the consumer. The strike was held - 1 regret to say - and the negotiations which were taking place at the time were subsequently resumed. It was through the good agency of a presidential member of the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission that the parties were able to continue the negotiations. Certain arrangements were reached between the employers and the unions. The granting of 4 weeks leave was only one of a group of conditions granted. In return for the granting of those conditions it is proposed that an agreement will be signed by the employers, the Australian Council of Trade Unions and the Waterside Workers Federation which will provide that during the course of the agreement, which will run for 2 years from 6th May 1970, the Waterside Workers Federation and the Australian Council of Trade Unions undertake that there will be no stoppages of work on the waterfront over any issue of wages and conditions negotiated during these negotiations. Further, it will provide that there shall be no stoppage of work on the waterfront in relation to the application of wages to waterside workers following on any national wage decision. The parties have got together and, it would appear, have reached a good conclusion. 1 would hope that for 2 years we shall have absolutely strike-free peace on the waterfront.

The honourable member raised the issue of 4 weeks annual leave. I do not know precisely why that was granted by the employers or the terms under which it was asked for by the employees. I remind the honourable gentleman that almost every award provides that where shift workers are involved there is to be an extra week’s leave. As I understand the position, the Waterside Workers Federation submitted that its members were subject to shifts and therefore should get an extra week’s leave, making a total of 4 weeks. The honourable gentleman asks whether the Government will consider granting 4 weeks annual leave to Commonwealth public servants and take as the reason for doing so the granting of 4 weeks leave in the special circumstances of negotiation that I have mentioned. The answer to the honourable gentleman’s question is that the matter was considered by the Government quite recently as a result of representations made by the Public Service unions. The Government considered it closely and had regard to the cost of an extra week’s annual leave spread throughout the community. I have forgotten the precise figures but the cost can be calculated on the basis of people working overtime to make up the leave or on the basis of employing new staff. The second basis would be cheaper than the first. The pressure on costs and prices would be so great that the Government decided it ought not to take the initiative but instead should leave it to an arbitrated decision. So far as I am aware, the matter has not been carried forward to arbitration.

page 817

NEW AND PERMANENT PARLIAMENT HOUSE

Mr SP EAKER:

– On behalf of the Joint Select Committee on the New and Permanent Parliament HouseI present the report on the proposed New and Permanent Parliament House for the Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia.

Ordered thatthe report be printed.

Motion (by Mr Snedden) agreed to:

That consideration of the report be made an order of the day for the next day of sitting.

page 817

AGED PERSONS HOMES

Ministerial Statement

Mr WENTWORTH:
Minister for Social Services · Mackellar · LP

– by leave - Concurrently with this statement I am laying on the table of the House a schedule showing details of aged persons homes approved in Australia. This schedule is compiled up to 31st December last and I have arranged for copies of it to be sent to each honourable member and senator. Honourable members will observe that this schedule is compiled on the basis of Federal electorates, so that each honourable member will be able to see what aged persons homes operate in his own electorate. The information given shows the organisation, the address of the homes and the number of its beds classified into self-contained unit, hostel and nursing types.

These figures incidentally are not quite comparable with the departmental figures for approved beds, since they include some beds which antedate the commencement of the Act, and differ in certain other minor respects. The total discrepancy from these causes is of the order of 350 beds. Copies of these schedules will also be available to interested organisations, and they can be obtained by these organisations on application to my department. If any honourable member wants a few extra copies I shall be glad to let him have them.

Frankly, my objective in having this schedule compiled is to enlist the cooperation of honourable members and all other well-meaning people in the community towards the expansion of the Government’s very excellent aged persons homes scheme. Each honourable member, on looking at the information for his electorate and adjoining electorates, will be able to see what has already been achieved and will be able to assess the scope for further action in his own area. The Government stands ready to assist, with its 2 for 1 subsidy, any eligible organisation which wants to participate in this scheme.

May I draw the attention of the House to one particular matter. An organisation is eligible to receive the 2 for 1 subsidy on nursing beds (which themselves are eligible for the $2 a day and $5 a day nursing subsidy) to the extent of half the total of their self-contained and hostel beds. Realising that it is not always possible for an organisation which has self-contained units and hostel units to set up its own nursing organisation, some time ago I approved the arrangement under which two or more organisations may combine and cede their nursingbed entitlements, either to one of the combined organisations or to a completely independent nursing organisation. The objective of this, of course, is to give to the inmates of any aged persons home the maximum sense of security for their future. For these arrangements to be fully effective, it is desirable that information about nursing bed entitlements should be available among the organisations and this schedule will help to disseminate this information.

Could I ask with some confidence for maximum co-operation from honourable members in the expansion of this scheme. The printed booklet setting out the principles on which the aged persons homes scheme is based is, of course, already wellknown to them. If there is any further information which any one of them requires either I or my department will be happy to supply it.

Mr HAYDEN:
Oxley

– by leave- It is extremely difficult to understand why the Minister for Social Services (Mr Wentworth) wants to take up the time of the House to discuss this point. What he has done has been to bring into this House a table showing, by electorates, the allocation of facilities under the Aged Persons Homes Act. Some honourable members no doubt will derive some feeling of delight when reading this list. I will not. I will feel grim concern - -grim concern that so much needs to be done and that what is being done is being done in an ad hoc and pretty much by chance manner. There has been no discussion of priorities for the allocation of facilities under this Act and no discussion of the criteria upon which areas are designated as areas of greatest need. The whole thing is pretty much left to chance. If there is initiative in’ an area something will be done; if there is no initiative, no matter how great the need, nothing will occur.

What worries me is that, as with so many other aspects of social welfare policy brought into this Parliament, no comprehensive report has been produced to the Parliament indicating the basis upon which the Government has made its decision to embark on particular legislation. I find it impossible to believe that the Government has not had comprehensive information as to the need in the community for aged persons homes. The Government ought to share this information with the House; it ought to share this information with the public. It could do this by publishing a comprehensive report. I am not talking of the general public relations booklet which the Department has produced but the sort of report that is produced as a command paper by the Welfare Department in Great Britain. This is the first thing we need. In this report we require information about the extent of need in the community for this sort of service.

I am surprised most of all though that the Minister has not discussed the rather odious practice of requiring a ‘donation’ from people who go to these homes. These donations vary from $3,000 to more than $5,000, as the honourable member for Bass (Mr Barnard) pointed out to me on one occasion. But I do know from experience that people who go into these homes set up with the assistance of a Commonwealth subsidy are required to make a donation - a voluntary thing. The irony of the whole practice is that if they do not produce the donation they do not get in. Let me give an example to the House and to the Minister how suffering is caused by this practice. People have gone into these aged persons homes after producing a donation of from $3,000 to $5,000 and, on taking sick, have been moved to a nursing institution which is not attached to the home and which does not share in the collective benefits which, the Minister recommended in one part of his address to this House. Those people are not entitled to any moiety in the donation of from $3,000 to $5,000 they have made to these establishments.

What does the Minister propose to do ‘ about this? He is aware of it because I know that certain action relating to this practice has been taken. That is the sort of thing I would have expected he would have discussed in this House. I am reliably informed that an instruction has gone out to homes which benefit under this Act advising them that they are not to provide more than 50% of their maintenance expenditures from income coming from these donations. Would the Minister confirm this? He is silent - a not unusual attitude for him. Again, I am advised that the Government has informed those who control these homes that certain standards will have to be met and that if they are not met the Government will take these institutions over. This is a fairly far reaching qualitative programme that the Government has embarked upon, and it would have been more important to inform the House about this than to give the minor detail which the Minister gave.

The Government ought to accept a great deal more responsibility for aged persons homes than it is currently prepared to accept. Many of these homes are running at a loss. Most of them, especially the ones run by charitable organisations and churches, out of necessity, depend on voluntary labour to operate. They depend not only on members of the church or the charitable organisation to come along to help but also on the inmates of these institutions. People go to these homes and in many cases, to their surprise, they find they have to peel potatoes and onions and help to wash up. because if they do not do these things the system will not operate.

– No. I will move that the paper be printed if the honourable member for Bass wishes me to do so.

Mr Barnard:

– No, I want leave to make a statement.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– Leave is not granted.

page 819

WAR SERVICE HOMES

Discussion of Matter of Public Importance

Mr SPEAKER:

– 1 have received a letter from the honourable member for Reid (Mr Uren) proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:

The Government’s re-introduction’ of a waiting period for war service homes finance.

I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places. (More than the number of members required by the Standing Orders having risen in their places)

Mr UREN:
Reid

– Today I contacted the War Service Homes Division and sought from an officer there details of the waiting time for finance to purchase a war service home, and I was informed that an applicant for a loan to purchase a new home would have to wait 6 months from the date of application to receive the loan. If an exserviceman were to make an application for a loan today he would be unable to get it until 8th or 9th October 1970. I was informed that prior to the 6 month waiting time applications which were in order would have been finalised within 42 to 60 days. Last night in this House the Prime Minister (Mr Gorton) stated on 3 occasions - firstly to the honourable member for Bennelong (Sir John Cramer), secondly to myself, and thirdly to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Whitlam) - that the period of delay was some 6 to 8 weeks. This is not the position. I do not want to make an accusation that the Prime Minister is telling an untruth, but it is about time that he was fair dinkum on this matter.

The Minister for Health (Dr Forbes), who represents the Minister for Housing (Senator Dame Annabelle Rankin) in this House, and who wears his badge with pride, is sitting at the table. I ask him and those other honourable members on the other side who wear that badge with pride to give us support on this question of the waiting time for loans to purchase war service homes. I do not talk only about the Prime Minister telling untruths.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Drury)Order! The honourable member must not make any personal reflection on any other member of this House.

Mr UREN:

– I am not making any personal reflection. I want to make it perfectly clear that it is not my practice, nor has it ever been, to make personal reflections against any honourable member, but facts are facts and I am dealing with them. The Prime Minister said that there was a waiting time of 6 to 8 weeks. If you permit me, Mr Deputy Speaker, I will show clearly that not only is the Prime Minister telling untruths but also that the Minister for Housing is doing so. Last night the Minister admitted that the waiting time was 6 months. She said:

The normal processing time is 4 months.

Senator McClelland interjected and said:

Plus 2 months, making 6 months.

Dame Annabelle continued:

The normal processing time is 4 months. A slight delay of 2 months is added.

Dame Annabelle’s statement also was untrue. I have clearly stated that it takes 42 to 60 days on an average to process a war service home application and not 4 months as stated by Dame Annabelle. I state clearly and emphatically that the Prime Minister last night, and Dame Annabelle in the Senate, clearly misguided both Houses of the Parliament. There is a 6 months waiting time for a person who wishes to buy a home. It is about time the Government was fair dinkum on this issue.

Let us consider now the bridging of the gap between the maximum loan available and the cost of an average house. At present the loan is $8,000 and if a person needs bridging finance he must go to a private solicitor to arrange for a special loan. This costs $80 to $90 in legal fees. Generally special loans necessitate the payment of usurious interest rates, which are 3 or 4 times higher than the interest rate on war service home loans. If bridging finance were made available through the War Service Homes Division the legal processes would cost ex-servicemen only about $15. But at present they are forced to go to private solicitors and not only have they to pay higher interest rates but they must pay $80 to $90 to have the legal transaction finalised. With the concurrence of honourable members I incorporate in Hansard a table, extracted from annual reports of the Director of War Service Homes.

The table indicates that the War Service Homes Division’s revenue exceeds its expenditure in recent years. In 1966-67 its outlay was $59.1 2m and its revenue $67.05m. In other words, its revenue exceeded its expenditure by about $8m. In 1967-68 the Division received $23. 15m more in revenue than it expended and last year revenue exceeded expenditure by $22.43m. Last night, in reply to a question I asked about bridging loans, the Prime Minister said:

It is difficult to believe that this period of delay of some 6 or 8 weeks would require, in most cases, bridging finance to be negotiated or that it would make any significant difference in that period of time if this were to happen.

It is not a matter of ‘if this were to happen’ because it does happen, and a period of 4 months is involved. According to the table I have had incorporated the average cost of a dwelling and land in New South Wales is $12,178. The maximum loan is $8,000. An ex-serviceman must find the difference between the amount of the loan and the cost of the home and land. Most likely he must pay high interest rates on the bridging finance. It is not good enough for the Prime Minister to say: ‘We will continue with the present loan and they can get another loan*. I draw these facts to the attention of the ex-servicemen opposite. In fairness to them I might say that 1 know some of them are giving this matter consideration.

In 1950-51 when the average cost of a dwelling and land in New South Wales was $4,160 the maximum loan, aavilable for a war service home was $5,500, or some $1,340 more than the average home cost. But today the maximum loan is $8,000 and the average home cost is $12,178. The Australian average for the cost of a dwelling and land exceeds $13,000. The Government is prepared to send young men to Vietnam. It has spent over $l20m on the war in Vietnam and proposes to spend an additional $42m this year. It can find money to send men to Vietnam but when those men return the Government cannot make money available to them for homes. They have to find bridging finance and have to pay excessive interest rates on their special loans. It is not good enough. This Government should meet its responsibilities and - make money available. We are asking the Government to make money available now. The Reserve Bank in co-operation with the Treasurer (Mr Bury) can, after the Prime Minister and the Minister for Trade and Industry (Mr McEwen) have gone into a huddle, make money available to farmers at interest rates 11% lower than normal interest rates.

Mr Turnbull:

– That is a sore point with you.

Mr UREN:

– It is not a sore point, but if it is good enough for the goose it is good enough for. the. gander. The honourable member is an ex-serviceman. On the one hand he supports the farmers and on the other he conscripts young men and sends them to Vietnam, but he will not support the proposal to make money available so that they can get a housing loan when they return. The base of war service home loans should not be restricted, as it has been restricted by the Government, but should be broadened. We should not be narrowing the operations of the War Service Homes Division but should be broadening them. The Division is a fine instrumentality. The Australian Labor Party has given it support. .We have admiration for the officers and men who work in the Division and we support the principle of war service homes, but the Labor Party wants to see a broadening of the scope of the Division. We want to restore to all ex-servicemen the right which they held until 1951 to .transfer mortgages to the Division. We want the Division to take a more liberal attitude towards the granting of a second war service loan to exservicemen who are forced to change their place of residence due to illness or the requirements of their employment. A Labor government will grant to all regular soldiers, whether they served overseas or not, the right to a war service loan. A Labor government will grant to all British and allied exservicemen now residing’ in Australia the right to purchase or build a home with a war service loan. A Labor government will grant a war service loan to all members of the Citizen Military Forces who have served for 6 years.

In conclusion, let me clear up one point: Yesterday the Prime Minister said that there was a delay in the provision of war service finance only in cases involving the purchase of a new or existing home. He said that the delay amounted to 6 or 8 weeks. In the last financial year loans were granted to 7,163 applicants. Only 726 of those approvals were for homes to be constructed. The remainder involved the purchase at homes already constructed, the discharge of mortgages and other matters. With the concurrence of honourable members I incorporate in Hansard a’ list, extracted from the most recent report of the War Service Homes Division, showing the break-up of approvals for loans in 1968-69.

The list shows clearly that only 726 homes were constructed, notwithstanding that 7,163 loans were approved. When a person obtains approval for a loan to construct a home progressive payments are made as the building proceeds, but we want a person who wishes to purchase a home to be able to walk into the War Service Homes Division secure in the knowledge that he can finalise arrangements within 42 to 60 days, as he was able to do in the past. We want finance to be made available immediately for all ex-servicemen. We want to broaden the scheme to embrace those people who were covered prior to 1951. A Labor government will do all of these things.

Dr FORBES:
Minister for Health · Barker · LP

– I could not hear everything which the honourable member for Reid (Mr Uren) said because he had his back turned to me most of the time. I suppose he thought that he was less likely to be stabbed from this side of the House than from his own. The only time the Opposition gives a thought for the welfare of those who have fought for Australia or who are currently fighting for this country is when it thinks it can achieve some political end. This attitude sickens me. Over many years in this place honourable members opposite have been completely dishonest in their approach to the welfare of ex-servicemen except when they have seen some political advantage in espousing an interest in ex-servicemen.

Dr Everingham:

– 1 rise to order. I ask that the Minister be ordered to withdraw his imputation that the only time a member of the Opposition considers the welfare of exservicemen is when he thinks he can make political capital out of the matter.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Drury:

There is no substance in the point of order. There has been no personal reflection on an individual honourable member.

Dr FORBES:

– 1 base the observation on what I believe to be facts. 1 wonder why honourable members opposite have criticised this very generous war service homes scheme when at the same time they are supporting with their signatures the proposed Vietnam moratorium. Why have so many honourable members opposite associated themselves with the moratorium, which is designed to undermine the morale of our troops in Vietnam and elsewhere - the very people about whom the Opposition is professing to be concerned in initiating this debate? This constant dripping action by the Opposition is an attempt to make insecure the position of people doing a difficult job fighting for their country. At the same time the Opposition in a two-faced attitude initiates a debate of this kind with a view to creating the impression that it is interested in the welfare of our servicemen and ex-servicemen.

The honourable member for Reid could not hide his envy and dislike of the wool growers of this country. This led him to contrast the Government’s recent action in respect of interest rates for primary producers with its treatment of ex-servicemen under the war service homes scheme. Of course, there is no comparison between the two issues. The rate of interest for war service loans is 3£%- In the case of primary producers we are talking about the withholding of an increase in an already much higher rate of interest. The honourable member said that the waiting period for a war service loan is 6 months. He arrived at this figure by including as waiting time the average time taken to process an application. The time taken to process an application has always been counted as waiting time, so I regard his accusation as one designed only to mislead.

Let me refer to the table which I so generously agreed should be incorporated in Hansard. As on the last occasion he spoke about housing, the honourable member had the table prepared by trie research service of the Parliamentary Library. I have no reason to believe that the table is not accurate. My only observation is that since the table has been incorporated in Hansard honourable members will not be able to see it until tomorrow. I have already seen it. Honourable members might not realise that the way in which the honourable member for Reid used the table did not present the complete picture, to say the least. He used the table to indicate that from 1966-67 to 1968-69 more revenue came into the War Service Homes Division by way of interest and repayments than was paid out in that period. What he did not say is that the table also lists figures for no fewer than 16 years going back to 1950-51 - 1 think it goes back further than that - and in every year the amount found out of the Government’s Budget was considerably in excess of the amount that came back in receipts from interest and repayments. I have just roughly added the figures. The total exceeds $500m.

The honourable gentleman argues that because this year, according to this table, it is expected that receipts from interest and repayments will be $72.62m - I do not vouch for the validity of the figures - the Government therefore should not worry about increasing the amount available at least up to that figure. If that is correct it would be equally valid to argue that in previous years when the position was the other way round the Government should have confined the amount it made available for war service homes to the amount that was being received from interest and repayments. I do not know whether the honourable gentleman is suggesting that but it is a logical consequence of the argument he is putting forward. The Government has never done that. It has done what a responsible government should do. In the Budget context each year it has assessed the amount that it is prepared to make available out of its Budget for all the many items of expenditure for which the Government has to provide and that process took place this year. The Government does this each year irrespective of the money coming in and whether it will have to find some amount from normal taxation.

Housing for ex-servicemen is one job the community expects to be done well. I would like to take the few minutes available to me to outline facts that will show that the Government can look with pride on what it has done to help the ex-serviceman with his housing problem. The record of the Government is a factual record of achievement. I rely on facts and not on words and bogus tables of the sort used by the honourable member for Reid to provide the evidence on which this claim rests. The story simply told is that out of a total expenditure of approximately SI. 3 billion for war service homes since the inception of the scheme the Liberal-Country Party Government has provided since it took office late in 1949 $1.2 billion. Put another way, of the total funds made available under the war service homes scheme about 92% has been provided by this Government since it has been in office.

It is scarcely necessary for me to mention that these amounts have been provided during a period of unparalleled economic development and at a time when heavy demands were being made on the Government for finance for many other important undertakings. War service homes finance is easily the cheapest and best form of housing finance available and as a consequence applications are still being received at a very high rate. They have increased over the past 2 years. To meet the increased demand the war service homes allocation was increased this year to $55m, an increase of $5m over the amount provided last year. This very large sum was provided despite the fact that the number of ex-servicemen seeking war service homes assistance represents a diminishing part of the total population seeking houses. Despite the large sum provided the demand for war service homes finance has been so great that it cannot be encompassed within the allocation. That seems to be a pretty common problem these days while the nation is straining its resources in development of all kinds.

Let me make the position quite clear because it has been obscured by the honourable member for Reid. No ex-serviceman’s application is being refused on the grounds that funds are not available. In some cases it will be necessary to defer settlement for periods which vary from 1 to 8 weeks. The deferment of the settlement date will be necessary in only a relatively small proportion of applications, notably applications in respect of existing properties which would ordinarily be settled in May or June. These applications will be carried over for settlement in July. With a delay of only 1 to 8 weeks involved, it is expected that most applicants affected will be able to make arrangements with the vendors to defer settlement and it will be open to the applicants concerned to complete the transaction with temporary finance should they so desire. Some may decide to obtain temporary finance, feeling it is worth doing so to save rent and to be in their homes earlier.

The facts show in today’s circumstances we have carefully protected the interests of ex-servicemen. It might even be argued that the present scheme weighs the scales against young men now marrying who are not eligible for a war service homes loan. The Opposition may be happy to forget its record in the field of housing for ex-servicemen when it was in office. The present Government does not need to do so. It has every reason to be proud of its record in providing $1.2 billion for war service homes since it has been in office. This huge sum, together with the favourable terms on which loans are provided and the efficient administration of the scheme, surely represents a record of achievement which the Opposition should commend rather than criticise when it raises this matter.

Motion (by Mr Snedden) put:

That the business of the day be called on.

The House divided. (The Deputy Speaker - Mr E. N. Drury)

AYES: 58

NOES: 51

Majority . . . . 7

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Suspension of Standing Orders

Motion (by Mr Barnard) put:

That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended to permit a motion to be moved to provide for an immediate grant for the War Service Homes Division in order to eliminate the waiting period now being imposed.

The House divided. (The Deputy Speaker - Mr E. N. Drury)

AYES: 52

NOES: 58

Majority . . . . 6

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

page 826

STANDING ORDERS COMMITTEE

Mr LYNCH:
Minister for Immigration · Flinders · LP

– by leave - T move:

That the Standing Orders Committee be asked to recommend a suitable amendment to standing order 28 relating to the Printing Committee’s powers when conferring with a similar committee of the Senate to give effect to the objective of recommendation 67 of the Joint Select Committee on Parliamentary and Government Publications, which is as follows:

That a Joint Committee be appointed in each

Parliament with power:

To perform the function of the existing printing committees;

to review the publications of Parliament and departments, their printing, publication and distribution;

to send for persons, papers and records.

The Joint Select Committee on Parliamentary and Government Publications recommended in its report, presented to this House in May 1964, that there should be a continuing parliamentary review into Commonwealth printing and publishing. It pointed out that the existing printing committees of both Houses could not undertake the task as they were severely resticted in their powers. It went on to recommend, therefore, that a joint committee should be appointed with power not only to review the printing and publication of both parliamentary and government publications but also to undertake the function of the existing printing committees.

In his statement to the House on Government publishing policy in November 1968 the Minister for External Affairs (Mr McMahon), who was then the Treasurer, announced that the Government had accepted this recommendation and that he proposed to seek the views of the Presiding Officers in connection with its implementation. The Presiding Officers have since advised that the proposed committee could be established in any one of three ways:

By legislation, as are the Public Works Committee and the Public Accounts Committee;
by resolution of both Houses at the commencement of each Parliament, as are the Joint Committee on the Australian Capital Territory and the Foreign Affairs Committee; or
by amendment of the Standing Orders of both Houses which at present provide for the appointment of the existing printing committees.

Both Mr President and Mr Speaker have indicated that they believe the most appropriate way to give effect to the proposal is by amemdment of the Standing Orders. They have suggested that the new standing order for each House might be framed in such a way so as to enable each House independently, through its committee, to continue to exercise the existing printing committee function of considering which petitions and papers presented to that House should be printed whilst providing that when sitting together as one committee, the committees may exercise the intended additional responsibilities and powers.

The Presiding Officers suggested to the Government that the Standing Orders Committee of each House should be asked to draft suitable amendments to their orders and the purpose of the motion which I have just moved is to ask the Standing Orders Committee of this House to recommend accordingly. I commend the motion to honourable members.

Mr STEWART:
Lang

– by leave- 1 was a member of the Joint Select Committee on Parliamentary and Government Publications. One of the recommendations we found necessary was that the Printing Committee of each House should have more teeth. We found during the course of our investigation that departments were able to print large size volumes on glossy paper with extravagant pictorials. Other departments were printing their publications on paper which could be described only as inferior. Some departments were producing really high class, high cost annual reports. The Printing Committee had no say and no authority at all over those reports. A Treasury committee was supposed to investigate the cost of the publications and their distribution, but the Select Committee ascertained that this Treasury committee also was virtually impotent. One or two of the departments, in particular the Department of Trade and Industry, took very little, if any, notice of the Treasury Publications Committee. In order to give the Printing Committee of both Houses greater authority to safeguard the interests of the people in the cost of publications and to improve the general standards of the publications this recommendation was made.

I regret that I did not have a copy of the statement before the Minister made it.

I was given some warning that he would be making this statement but I did not get a copy of it until such time as he started to read it. I do not think that the Opposition will have any objection to this proposal. From what I can gather it still has to be adopted by the Standing Orders Committee of this House. 1 feel that the Opposition will support the motion because it is necessary to give the Printing Commitee of the Parliament greater authority than it has had. As I said, the Treasury found that some departments were not prepared to give information about the cost of publications which they were putting out, and that they were not prepared to allow the Government Printer to print the publications but wanted to have them done by private firms. I feel that the Joint Printing Committee should be given the authority to send for the responsible Minister or the departmental head or officer responsible and to say:Your reports are far too elaborate. They are costing too much. You are going in for too many glossy pictures in colour. You will have to come back to the standard required by the Printing Committee.’ I commend the motion to the Standing Orders Committee and to the House.

Mr BRYANT:
Wills

– The point that I want to make first of all is: How slow moving can this apparatus be? The first report was presented here in May 1964 - 6 years ago. The policy statement was announced in November 1968 - almost 18 months ago. At long last after a 6 years gestation period we have reached the point where we are passing the matter to that other slow moving organisation, the Standing Orders Committee, of which I have been a member for some time and which, as I recall, has met once during that period.

Mr Stewart:

– You might speed it up by not saying anything.

Mr BRYANT:

– That is right, but I know that this is likely to come back again if one is not careful. The real point to which the Parliament ought to apply itself is the distribution of the documents. I am not fussy about whether they are glossy or not. I would like them to contain the fullest of information and I would like them to be much more readily available to the people of Australia. It might be extravagant, but I would like to see a large number of publications from the Parliament and departments go direct to secondary schools for their libraries and this may be a way of making a library grant without undue expense. The same would apply to tertiary institutions but they are in a different position. The fact is that we do produce a tremendous amount of information which is of great value to the community, particularly education wise. I hope that the Standing Orders Committee will smarten itself up a bit and attend to this matter and also that we do not make a piecemeal approach to the Standing Orders. Instead, we should do the whole system over because it is a direct descendant of the feudal system and it is time that it was changed.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 827

TARIFF PROPOSALS

Mr CHIPP:
Minister for Customs and Excise · Hotham · LP

– I move:

Customs Tariff Proposals No. 8 (1970)

Customs Tariff Proposals No. 9 (1970)

Mr Speaker, the Customs Tariff Proposals which I have just tabled relate to proposed amendments to the Customs Tariff 1966-69. Customs Tariff Proposals No. 8 formally place before Parliament tariff changes made by notice published in the Gazette of 6th April 1970, and operating from 7th April 1970, consequent on the adoption by the Government of the Tariff Board Report on man-made fibres and yarn, tyre cord and tyre cord fabric. On this occasion, because of the technical terms that will be frequently mentioned and because I know honourable members are genuinely interested in these tariff matters I have arranged for a copy of this speech which I am now reading to be included in the usual summary of tariff alterations now being distributed so that honourable members may read it with me. A glossary of relevant textile terms is also included.

Honourable members will recall that an earlier report by the Board, dated 15th December 1966, was not adopted by the Government because the Government decided that assistance by bounty would not be appropriate and the Board had not put forward an alternative to its bounty proposal. Some major sections of the industries concerned have been protected by temporary duties which were imposed in March 1967, following inquiry and report by the Special Advisory Authority.

In the present report the Board found that the Australian demand for the manmade fibres under reference rose from 79 million lb in 1964 to 105 million lb in 1967-68. Imports supplied 62 million lb, that is, some 60% of the demand, in 1967-68. It should be noted, however, that of the total imports more than half were staple fibre and tow of types not made in Australia. Because of the importance of this industry I propose to elaborate a little on the tariff changes. To simplify the nature of the changes, I shall mention only the rates of duty applying under the General Tariff. The preferential rates are in the main 10%, ad valorem, lower. Except in respect of high tenacity continuous viscose yarns the Board has recommended a rate of 74% , ad valorem, for sewing yarn. This maintains the present rate for this type of yarn. The Board has likewise recommended in respect of unfinished yarn imported for use in the production of sewing yarn. On high tenacity viscose yarn the Board has recommended a duty of 30%, ad valorem. This is much the same as the present rale.

In respect of other continuous yarn the Board has recommended that acetate based yarn be dutiable at 20%, ad valorem, and that viscose yarn be dutiable at 74%, ad valorem. This represents, in respect of acetate yarn, a reduction from 224%, ad valorem, no change on viscose yarn, while for tri-acetate yarn it means an increase from 74%. ad valorem. In respect of the remaining continuous filament yarn the Board has recommended a basic rate of duty of 20%, ad valorem. This will mean that the duties on nylon and polyester yarn, which are at present subject to an additional temporary duty, will be substantially reduced from the level applying under the temporary duty. Other yarn currently dutiable at 1.24%, ad valorem, will be increased to the basic 20% rate. However, the Board has recommended an additional sliding-scale duty to the basic 20% rate for nylon yarn. The Board commented that the long-term assistance recommended is much lower than that under which the industry has been operating since 1965. It may be necessary for the industry to rationalise its pattern of production by concentrating on the larger volume yarn and by importing other yarn. Therefore, in the short term, the Board proposed the industry should be given special consideration by providing it with some assurance against sudden and large falls in the overseas prices of continuous nylon yarn.

The additional duty on continuous nylon yarn, which will apply up to 30th June 1971, will be equal to the amount by which the free on board price of the yarn is less than a floor price which varies according to the denier count of the yarn. To illustrate, on a nylon yarn of 20 denier count, the additional duty will apply if the free on board price is less than $1.15 per lb, and will be an amount equal to the difference. Therefore, if the free on board price of an imported nylon yarn were $1.00 per lb the additional duty would be 15c per lb. This would be equivalent to an additional ad valorem duty of 15%. However, an examination of sample values taken during the period October to December 1969 shows that the price of nylon yarn currently coming to Australia is such that the additional duties would not have operated. I turn next to uncarded and carded fibres, such as tow, staple fibre and waste. These fibres provide a basis for the production of man-made fibre yarns. The Board recommended that the existing sliding-scale duties on nylon and polyester tow and staple fibre be removed. It recommended that a duty of 10%, ad valorem, be imposed on nylon tow and staple fibre but that polyester tow and staple fibre should be free of duty. These changes represent a substantial reduction in the level of duties on these goods. The Board further recommended that waste fibres should remain free pf duty.

In respect of tops of man-made fibre the Board has recommended a duty of 20% ad valorem. This rate represents an increase from 74% ad valorem for casein or cellulose based tops and a reduction from 50% ad valorem on other types such as nylon or polyester tops. In its recommendations relating to discontinuous yarn the Board proposed a rate of 20% ad valorem for yam up to count 60. This is a reduction from 40% ad valorem on acrylic yarn and an increase from 74% ad valorem on nylon yarn, polyester yarn and viscose and acetate yarn of counts 35 to 60. For yarn of counts finer than count 60 the Board recommended a duty of 74% ad valorem. The Board recommended that gimped yarn should remain dutiable at the rates that would apply if the goods were not gimped

I now turn to the Board’s proposals on tyre cord and tyre cord fabric. The Board has recommended rates of duty equal to those currently applying to other types of cords and cordage; that is, for cotton tyre cord a duty of 40% ad valorem, while for man-made fibre tyre cord the rates proposed will be 50% ad valorem up to 31st December this year and thereafter 40% ad valorem. These rates were recommended previously by the Board in its general textile reference of 21st September 1967. The Board further recommended the duty on tyre cord of glass fibre remain unchanged at 40% ad valorem.

In relation to tyre cord fabric the Board proposed a duty of 50% ad valorem on viscose tyre cord fabric. This varies the duty level very little. However, on nylon and on cotton tyre cord fabric the Board has recommended a duty of 20% ad valorem. This represents a reduction in the present levels of duty on these goods. The Board further recommended that the present duty of 40% ad valorem on glass fibre tyre cord fabric be maintained. In respect of rubberised tyre cord fabrics, known in the trade as dipped fabrics, the Board has recommended that the level of duty should be the same as if the fabric were not dipped or rubberised.

I turn now to Customs Tariff Proposals No. 9. These relate, inter alia, to proposed amendments to the Customs Tariff to impose conditional duties on certain petroleum products that become payable only under certain conditions. Indeed, the Government expects that these duties will not in fact be operative. The proposed changes in these conditional duties are an extension of those accepted by the Parliament in September 1965, following a Tariff Board report on crude oil production in Australia. The proposed conditional duties are necessary to ensure the Government’s policy that crude oil produced in Australia will be assured of a market in Australia. In line with this policy each company processing crude oil or marketing petroleum products in Australia is required to absorb a share of the crude oil produced in Australia, in total, up to the capacity of the local market. The conditional duties will become operative only in the event that a company marketing or refining petroleum products in Australia does not accept its responsibility to purchase a share of crude oil produced in Australia. That company will then be required to pay these duties on its imports of petroleum products.

To ensure that marketers, who undertake to purchase indigenous crude oil and thereby obtain concessional rates of duty on their imports, honour their obligations a security will be required. Since 1965, commencing with crude oil produced from the Moonie fields and later including Barrow Island production, companies marketing petroleum products in Australia have purchased the total production from these fields in conformity with the Government policy that oil found in Australia will be assured of a market. For the duties to be effective they must be set at a level where it must clearly be more advantageous for a marketer or renner to purchase indigenous crude oil rather than import his requirements of petroleum products and pay the additional duty on those imports. In the situation where the Moonie and Barrow Island fields produced only about 8% of Australia’s crude oil requirements, the additional duties set in 1 965 were adequate.

However, a different situation now obtains. With the commencement of Bass Strait production crude oil will become available in steadily increasing quantities. This will result in production of crude oil reaching almost 70% of Australia’s refining requirement by mid-1971. Well before that date with the present level of duties it may become more attractive for companies marketing or refining petroleum products to elect to pay the existing conditional duties on imports rather than to purchase their share of indigenous crude oil. This situation will apply even though, as honourable members are aware, the price guaranteed to oil producers will be considerably reduced as from September 1970. In that situation, the present conditional duties will be inadequate as a mechanism for implementing the Government’s policy of maximum absorption of indigenous crude oil. Accordingly, it is necessary to take action through amendments to the Customs Tariff to ensure that the Government can effectively administer its policy that the Australian market should bc supplied from indigenous crudes as far as possible.

The Government is firmly convinced that it is of the utmost importance actively to encourage the search for and the production of indigenous crude oil. The Government intends that exploration for oil in Australia shall continue to be actively encouraged. The Government believes that, to encourage the search for indigenous crudes, it is essential that explorers be assured of an established market within Australia at a worthwhile price. This market should only be limited by Australian refinery capacity. This proposal is a necessary step towards that objective. Tariff Proposals No. 9 also propose tariff amendments consequent on the adoption by the Government of a Tariff Board report on gelatine and animal glues. In this report the Board found that a small reduction in the duties on edible gelatine was warranted. It recommended duties of 35% ad valorem or if higher, 15c per lb general tariff and 25% ad valorem or, if higher, 10c per lb preferential tariff. For animal glues and technical grades of gelatine the Board recommended that the duties remain for practical purposes, at the present level. These proposals also incorporate some tariff changes that are essentially of an administrative nature only. These maintain or restore duties as recommended by the Tariff Board and approved by the Government at the time of the changeover to the Brussels Tariff.

There is. however, a small group of amendments which I feel 1 should bring to the attention of honourable members. Item 19 of the Second Schedule is being amended by omitting the requirement that concessional entry may only be considered for goods for specified purposes or classes of users. The effect of the amendment is to delete the requirement that unless goods are for an essential purpose they are not eligible for by-law entry. Thus, purchasers of any imported goods will not now have to pay a price inflated by a protective duty when there is no Australian production to protect. The changes will mean that protection accorded to Australian industry by the Customs Tariff will not in any way be abrogated. Consideration for the concessional admission under by-law of imported goods will continue to be decided on the criterion of whether suitably equivalent goods are reasonably available from Australian production.

I would like to take this opportunity to remind honourable members that, in the administration of by-laws, suitably equivalent does not mean identical; rather, it means broadly comparable or capable of being used for a similar purpose. It follows, therefore, that in regard to certain classes or types of goods where Australian industry can satisfy normal requirements with a range of similar goods or adequate alternatives, concessional admission under bylaw would not be accorded to the imported goods. The amendment to item 20 of the Second Schedule is consequent on the proposed change to item 19. As formerly, all goods for admission duty free under item 20 must firstly be eligible for item 19 admission, in that suitably equivalent goods be not reasonably available from Australian production. Item 20 still requires that suitably equivalent goods also be not available from United Kingdom production. Item 21 of the Second Schedule is being omitted as it is now redundant.

I commend the propoals to honourable members.

Debate (on motion by Dr Patterson) adjourned.

page 830

TARIFF BOARD

Report on Items

Mr CHIPP:
Minister for Cus toms and Excise · Hotham · LP

– I present the report by the Tariff Board on the following subject:

Gelatine and animal glues.

Ordered that the report be printed.

page 830

RIVER MURRAY WATERS BILL 1970

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 17 March (vide page 487), on motion by Mr Swartz:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr SWARTZ:
Minister for National Development · Darling Downs · LP

– Mr Speaker, may I have the indulgence of the House to raise a point of procedure on this legislation? Before the debate on. this Bill is resumed I would like to suggest that it might suit the convenience of the House to have a general debate covering this Bill and the Dartmouth Reservoir Agreement Bill, as they are associated measures. Separate questions may, of course, be put on each of the Bills at the conclusion of the debate. I suggest therefore that you permit the subject matter of both Bills to be discussed in this debate.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Is it the wish of the House to have a general debate covering the two Bills? There being no objection I will allow that course to be followed.

Dr PATTERSON:
Dawson

– The object of the River Murray Waters Bill is to ratify the sixth further amending agreement to the River Murray Waters Agreement. The object of the second Bill, the Dartmouth Reservoir Agreement Bill, is to obtain the approval of the Parliament to an agreement with respect to financial assistance relating to the construction of a storage at Dartmouth. The objective of the River Murray Waters Bill is principally to allow the construction of a major storage at Dartmouth on the Mitta Mitta River and at the same time make provision in the agreement for the deferment of the construction of the Chowilla Reservoir until such time as the contracting governments decide to proceed with it. In other words, it could be said that this provision within the Bill sounds the death knell of Chowilla.

Another major provision in the Bill allows far the construction of certain works - inlet and outlet works - at Lake Victoria so that there would be a quick supply of water to South Australia when it was needed. These works would be a major factor in the control of salinity. In other words, Lake Victoria is complementary or vital to the smooth operation of the River Murray Waters Agreement and the construction of Dartmouth. Another major provision in the Bill is to allow the Menindee Lakes Storage Agreement to continue indefinitely and to be incorporated in the River Murray Waters Agreement. Other clauses of the Bill are important but they relate principally to machinery and administrative matters.

This is a most important Bill - it is one which has caused tremendous political heat in South Australia in particular and in other States. It is necessary to explore some of the background to this Bill. Honourable members will recall that in the planning of the Snowy Mountains scheme it was decided to divert or transfer some of the Murray headwaters into the Murrumbidgee. This proposal was challenged by the South Australian Government in the High Court of

Australia, and this challenge led to an investigation of the possibility of providing a storage works at Chowilla.

Further, the technical committee set up to study this position provided a favourable report for the construction of a storage at Chowilla. In 1963 the Agreement was ratified by all 4 Parliaments. One of the most important clauses of this Agreement provided for a greater relative share of the water for South Australia with respect to the other States at critical periods of the year when drought was prevailing. In other words, the Agreement providing for Chowilla was ratified by the 4 governments and became the law of the land. It is still the law of the land as far as the Commonwealth is concerned. It has been ratified by this Parliament. The then Prime Minister, Sir Robert Menzies, spoke in glowing terms of this proposal. He applauded the scheme. It was inferred that the scheme was based on very sound technical evaluation by engineers and other technical people concerned with the planning of major storages. Chowilla, it was stated, would provide major benefits not only to South Australia but to the other two States. It allowed for the control of salinity - the immediate flushing of the river when this was necessary - and would benefit the areas concerned at critical periods of drought. It was in fact of vital importance to South Australia. It has been regarded as the most important asset in post war years that South Australia could have and at the same time it would provide a great asset for Victoria and New South Wales.

Suddenly the rumblings of opposition to Chowilla were heard. The first evidence available was cost. In 1963 the estimate given was $28m. In March of 1966 this estimate had been increased to $43m. This was the estimate accepted by the contracting governments. However, in April 1967 the firm tender had jumped to $68m. The Minister for National Development (Mr Swartz) gave this as one of the major reasons for the suspension of Chowilla. He said in his second reading speech:

Accordingly it was agreed that work on the Chowilla storage should be suspended to enable a new comparison to be made between it and other possible developments in the upper Murray catchment, which had been considered in the earlier studies.

Now it could be argued that the Government was acting in a responsible way because of the increase in costs. But it should not be inferred that this is a valid reason for the suspension of any project because at no time had there been a benefit-cost analysis made of the project and the mere fact the average cost per acre foot had increased substantially was no reason to suspend the work. The only way it could be suspended on economic grounds was by a comparison of benefits with the costs. But there were no economic benefits to compare with costs. Just because the incremental cost curve increases is no valid reason for the suspension of any project unless there is available a corresponding curve for the average revenue or marginal revenue - per acre foot in this sense. These comparisons were not available then and are still not available. I say that because the Opposition disagrees with this principal given as a reason for suspension.

Another rumbling in opposition to Chowilla was with respect to salinity. Apparently when the project was first thoroughly investigated salinity was not considered to be a major problem. But, as a result of concentrated protests and more investigations, salinity became a major issue, and it was used by many as another valid reason to suspend or even knock the Chowilla Reservoir. I will deal with this later, but it might be appropriate to say now that the evaluation made by Gutteridge, Haskins and Davey has shown that salinity would be reduced in normal seasons by the equivalent of 20 parts per million below the average that would apply with a storage at Dartmouth, if Dartmouth were in operation. That is according to the computerised studies. This means that salinity was not as significant as first thought, when the opponents of Chowilla were using it as a major argument against Chowilla. Then the computer studies, which I will deal with later, based on their assumptions showed that salinity would be worse with Chowilla than with Dartmouth. I might say that it is most difficult to follow the hypotheses and the workings of this conclusion. I have not had access to the material that was fed into the computer or to the formula that was used, and it is most difficult to find out how the consultants arrived at this significant decision. I would think that this information should be made available to the Parliament.

The next point that was made in opposition to Chowilla was that Chowilla would not be able to supply the requirements of the upper States. Why? On a revision it was shown that the original estimates of evaporation were very much wrong. There are also other reasons regarding the unregulated flow of the river, but one of the main reasons given was that there were errors either of judgment or of techniques in the assessment of the amount of evaporation. This means that even if the capacity of Chowilla were increased from 3.5 million acre feet to 5.06 million acre feet the amount of water for the upper States would not be significantly increased. This was the argument put forward in opposition to Chowilla.

This could be a very serious proposition because the upper States had entered into commitments to expand production in the farming sector on the assumption that this water would be available. In fact it could be argued from the facts available that their commitments to expand production are of such a degree that they require something like an additional 700,000 acre feet of water. In other words, New South Wales and Victoria have gone merrily ahead expanding primary production on the assumption that this water would be available, but after these new studies were made it was found that Chowilla, after providing the entitlement to South Australia of 1.254 million or 1.5 million acre feet, would not allow sufficient water to be made available to meet the requirements of the upper States. This matter is urgent because, as those living in New South Wales and Victoria know, water is a very serious problem in those States as well as in South Australia. So the general conclusion with respect to this argument given by the opponents of Chowilla was that there was an urgent need for water in the upper States and that Chowilla would not be able to supply sufficient water to meet the commitments entered into.

Then there were the political pressures put on by Sir Henry Bolte. There were also very well-organised farming bodies in support of the salinity argument. All of these factors led the opponents of Chowilla to put forward an argument for the suspension of the Chowilla project. One major argument I have not mentioned is the issue with respect to evaporation. I mentioned it indirectly when talking about water for the upper States. Evaporation was estimated to be about 600,000 acre feet in the original analysis, and apparently in the revised analysis it jumped up by 50% to something like 900,000 acre feet. All these vital issues were sufficient to persuade a willing Government to suspend the Chowilla project.

It was then decided that some alternatives must be looked at for the provision of further storages in the upper catchment of the Murray. After the investigations were made the technical committee published its report based on simulated computer studies. Of course anybody famil’iar with computers knows that they are able to handle a tremendous number of variables which come up with optimum figures. It is necessary to look at the results of the technical committee’s report because it is on this that the Commonwealth and the 3 State governments have based their whole argument for Dartmouth in preference to Chowilla. They compared the relative costs - not the benefits in economic terms - of the 2 storages and formed general hypotheses. They formulated conclusions which supported Dartmouth at the expense of Chowilla and which resulted in this legislation.

From stream gauging and other data the optimum storage of Dartmouth was worked out at 3 million acre feet, but in relation to average cost and incremental cost curves as assessed by the computer. The technical committee in its wisdom - it docs not give concrete reasons for this - decided to go beyond the level of the minimum average cost. The minimum average cost allowed for a storage capacity of approximately 2.3 million acre feet. It went further than this and worked out that with an incremental cost of $200 per acre feet the storage could be increased from 2.3 million acre feet to 3 million acre feet. The reason given for this is that this figure would be the estimated relevant cost of the next development project and that therefore with such an assumption one could go ahead and construct this storage to an optimum of 3 million acre feet. In terms of the average cost per acre feet there is little difference between 2.3 million acre feet and 3 million acre feet. It is a little over $50. But the increase is significant in terms of the amount of water that is available in the end.

The results of investigations show that the optimum figure for Chowilla was 3.5 million acre feet and not 5.06 million acre feet as was originally thought. If one looks at the technical report and the operational load of between 600 and 900 cusecs, one can see a flattening of the curve as the storage capacity is increased. Apparently evaporation must be an important issue when ‘he capacity is increased from 3 million acre feet to 5.06 million acre feet. In fact the computer showed that the optimum storage capacity for Chowilla was 3.5 million acre feet. What does this mean in terms of total water supplies to South Australia and the upper States? It means that with an original entitlement of 1.254 million acre feet the total average annual supply would be 4.381 million acre feet. If South Australia’s share were increased to 1.5 million acre feet the total average annual supply would increase to 4.552 million acre feet. It may seem puzzling that if the entitlement is increased the total availability of water should increase. This mathematical anomaly is due to more efficient use of the unregulated storages.

Although total supplies represent a big issue the important factor is a comparison of the marginal or incremental increases. The evaluation showed that with Dartmouth the available supplies would be increased by 1 million acre feet as compared with between 200,000 and 380,000 feet at Chowilla. The variability at Chowilla is due, of course, to the load factor on the river - that is, 600 cusecs to 900 cusecs at Mildura. It was pointed out that if Dartmouth were to proceed works would have to be undertaken at Lake Victoria which is vital to the smooth operation of the river. There has to be a source of quick water to be available to South Australia in critical times and there has to be some system whereby water can be released quickly to control salinity. Provision was made for $5m to $7m to be spent at Lake Victoria to integrate it with Dartmouth. There is no need to mention to those who know the project that if Chowilla were to proceed after Dartmouth, all the works at Lake

-Order! The honourable member for Angas will have an opportunity to speak later in the debate. He is out of his seat and he should refrain from interjecting.

Dr PATTERSON:

– Than k you Mr Speaker, lt is obvious that there has been bungling in the past with respect to facts relating to storages, planning, evaporation and available supplies in the whole system. This simply is not good enough. All the history is known. Nobody can deny that. It is of no use saying that in 1963 a thorough analysis was made but 3 years later all the assumptions go overboard and there is a different result. Somebody must have been wrong. Obviously there was insufficient planning. Accordingly I move:

That all words after ‘That’ be omitted with a view to inserting the following words in place thereof: this House is of opinion that the Bill should not be proceeded with until the Commonwealth has negotiated with the States for the establishment of a national water conservation and construction authority, embracing the Snowy Mountains Authority, to carry out a systematic and efficient development of soundly based water storages in the major river basins including the

Murray and Darling systems.’

The Opposition will move further amendments in the Committee stage. Time and time again in this Parliament we have had this ad hoc approach to water conservation. We must plan our water resources efficiently. We must use the computers to determine the next stage of development. In the Committee stage the Opposition will move amendments which will have the effect of refusing to ratify the Agreement. We want to know more about the variables. It is not good enough to have this ad hoc approach of firstly taking Chowilla and then knocking Chowilla and saying that Dartmouth is better. We want planning to give us simple answers within the scope of the best technical assumptions of the day. We want to know the next step which is vital to both Dartmouth and Chowilla. It is no good saying that Chowilla might be the next step. It could be that in the evaluation of a storage of varying capacities Dartmouth and Chowilla would be superior to either Dartmouth or Chowilla taken in isolation. These are answers we want to know and the purpose of the amendments we will move in the Committee stage is to ascertain this information.

There are lessons to be learned from Chowilla and now Dartmouth - lessons which this Parliament and the 3 States concerned should heed because, assuming politics does not enter into the matter, never again should we enter into agreements based on alleged expert advice that a proposal like Chowilla is the best one but 3 years later is found to be all wrong and Dartmouth is now the better project. Somebody is wrong, and I have enough faith in engineers and technicians to know that-

Mr Giles:

– They are wrong.

Dr PATTERSON:

– No - that somewhere a proper evaluation was not made by the engineers. For this reason the Opposition refuses to accept the computerised studies that are now made on the existing assumptions. There are many assumptions here which we can validly criticise and we hope that the Minister for National Development (Mr Swartz) will answer those criticisms. It is no good his saying that this is the best information available, for example, with respect to stream gauging in the Mitta Mitta area. If that is the answer we want to know the variable computer result. We want to know what the results would be with respect to Chowilla. As I have said Dartmouth and Chowilla together - I stress again that this does not mean the two big storages but Dartmouth and Chowilla together - could give a better economic result than Dartmouth alone or Chowilla alone. This information is required and this is one reason why we will oppose ratification of the Agreement.

The Government’s ad hoc approach to water conservation is not good enough. We have seen the effects of it in other areas. We have not been able to get benefit-cost analyses of the Ord River, the Nogoa and the Burnett schemes. We know benefit-cost analyses have been made of these projects but we also know that no benefit-cost analysis at all has been made of Chowilla versus Dartmouth. The assumption simply is that all the benefits per acre foot are equal. As I pointed out before it could easily be that the benefits of supplying water to the people and industrial users in South Australia are greater in value than are the benefits of supplying water to the farmers in the upper reaches of the Murray. I am not saying they are; but we want at least to have an evaluation made. After all, this Government categorically insists, as does the Treasury, that benefit-cost analyses are needed to determine proper priorities. That is why we want at least to have an evaluation made of Dartmouth and Chowilla together.

In our amendment, we envisage the setting up of a Murray-Darling authority within the national authority. It would be able to plan effectively and would be properly staffed, utilising the staff of the Snowy Mountains Authority. The Acts enabling it to be established are there. A MurrayDarling authority could operate under a co-ordinated legislative framework, which could replace the present piecemeal series of Acts that cover those rivers and their tributaries. I refer to the River Murray Waters Act 1915 and amending Acts, the Snowy Mountains Hydro-electric Power Act, the Snowy Mountains Hydro-electric Authority Act, the Blowering Water Storage Works Agreement Act, the Menindee Lakes Storage Agreement Act and the Chowilla Reservoir Agreement Act. All legislative measures could be combined and we could have one competent authority. The Commonwealth and State governments and the people would then get the best results for their money. We can see that if Chowilla does not go ahead there could be a waste of money at Lake Victoria. If Dartmouth does go ahead without any comparative evaluation of Dartmouth and Chowilla together we also could have a senseless waste of money. The waters of Lake Victoria would inundate the S7m worth of works which are planned and are vital to Dartmouth.

In the Committee stage we will move an amendment to negate the clause that defers the construction of Chowilla. The law of the land today from Commonwealth legislation requires the construction of Chowilla. The Opposition believes that it should remain the law of the land until some other project can be shown without doubt and without qualification to be superior to Chowilla. We do not believe at this stage that any other project has been shown to be superior to it within the assumptions that have already been made in the technical committee’s report. There is an urgency in this problem, because of the increased commitments made by New South Wales and Victorian farmers and the decisions of the governments of those two States to expand primary production. There is an urgent need for more water in South Australia in critical periods. This was shown in the critical period of the drought 3 years ago. There is no need to argue further that there is an urgent need for water in South Australia; it is the lifeblood of South Australia. Chowilla has been described as the greatest asset that South Australia could have because it would ensure adequate water supplies and all things living, plant or human, need water. Some 85% of the people of South Australia are dependent on the Murray water supply. With the construction of the Tailem Bend pipeline this figure will rise to over 90%. In fact no State relies on water for its livelihood more than South Australia does.

This present farcical situation must never arise again. We should not in Parliament today have to compare Dartmouth with Chowilla. We should not have to walk the tight rope of politics between the various States and the Commonwealth. This would never have happened if the evaluations originally carried out had been backed. The

Government, through the technical committee’s report, has shown a reverse view now. Whatever arguments are put forward, this situation must never happen again. The Commonwealth law calls for the construction of Chowilla and as far as the Opposition is concerned that will remain until the Government convinces us that it should be altered. The second reading speech of the Minister has not so convinced us.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Is the amendment seconded?

Mr Jacobi:

– 1 second the amendment and reserve my right to speak.

Mr FAIRBAIRN:
Farrer

– The honourable member for Dawson (Dr Patterson) finished his speech by saying that the construction of Chowilla is the law of the land today. I do not think he is right because it is not the law of the land in New South Wales. It is not the law of the land in Victoria. It can be the law of the land only if we have the unanimous agreement of every State. As soon as we ratify this Agreement, which has been made between the 4 Governments, it will no longer be the law as far as we are concerned. So it is not true to say that the construction of Chowilla is the law of the land today.

Before I get on to the problem generally let me run through some of the remarks made by the honourable member for Dawson. First of all he asked: ‘How do we know that Dartmouth will cost S57m? Is it not likely it will cost $80m? Could it fluctuate as much as the estimates for Chowilla or some other works have?’ I would answer him by saying that the estimate for Dartmouth, which is a very straight forward dam, was made by the Snowy Mountains Authority after it had completed a considerable amount of drilling. I have no doubt whatever that this is a very accurate estimate. The dam is almost identical to Talbingo or Tumut 3 in the Snowy Mountains area. After the Snowy Mountains Authority had estimated the cost of Talbingo and called tenders it was discovered that the lowest tenderer would construct this dam cheaper than the Snowy Mountains Authority had estimated. I have no doubt this is an accurate . estimate. The experts have had a long time to drill and discover the various spots from which they will get the different types of soil for the dam. I have no doubt that the estimate will be close to the final cost.

The honourable member for Dawson asked: ‘Why was the figure of 900 cusecs selected as the flow past Mildura? Why was it not 600 or 300 cusecs?’ During the computer studies, every figure was considered. We did studies on 300 cusecs. The original study unfortunately was made on no flow past Mildura, but I will come to that later. Studies have been made on 300 cusecs and we do not believe on 300 cusecs Chowilla would be comparable to Dartmouth. The reason why 900 cusecs was selected - it was selected unanimously by all the Commissioners of the River Murray Commission - is that this is the figure at the present moment which it is necessary to keep flowing past Mildura in order to maintain salinity within reasonable levels. It was agreed by every Commissioner that this was the figure that experience had shown would be necessary. From there the costs and yields are calculated. The yields and benefits are calculated on this figure of 900 cusecs. It could be that at some future time, if the salinity problem could be brought under control, it would be possible to reduce this figure. Only time will tell whether this is possible. At the present moment, it is not possible.

The honourable member for Dawson spoke about the future of Lake Victoria. He said that it is necessary to spend $7m on Lake Victoria and that this may be a loss if at a later stage Chowilla is built. Well, we do not know whether it is necessary to do this work on Lake Victoria. We will not know until the River Murray Commission and its technical officers have carried out the survey on it. All the governments concerned did agree that this survey should be carried out. Obviously, these expensive works will not be built at Lake Victoria if the result of the survey is that the works are not necessary. So, at the present moment, one cannot say that any expenditure is necessary there. The matter is being looked at only. If it is shown that this work should be undertaken because of the benefits in increased yields that will result, I have no doubt that, as in the past, the Commission will agree to this work being done. But it is premature to say that at the present moment.

The honourable member for Dawson asked why no study had been made of Dartmouth and Chowilla together. Well, a study has been made of building Chowilla in addition to Dartmouth. It shows that if Chowilla were built in addition to Dartmouth, a slightly greater yield would be achieved. Instead of a yield of 200,000 acre feet per annum, the yield would be 250,000 acre feet per annum. But it is still a very small increment for the additional cost of building Chowilla.

The question that is being asked - it was asked today by the honourable member for Dawson - is: What went wrong with the original decision to build Chowilla? This question is asked because we were told at the time, as the honourable member said, that Chowilla was based on a sound evaluation. Let me run through what did go wrong. I came in as Minister for National Development nearly 6 years ago, and as such was Chairman of the River Murray Commission. Chowilla was under way at an estimated cost of $28m. Not very long afterwards, we were informed that its cost would not be $2 8m but $43m. We all took a deep gulp, informed our governments and said: ‘Well, we must press on nevertheless’. So, we pressed on. The stage of calling tenders was reached. It was at this stage that the tender cost came out to be not $43 m but $68m. This was the stage where unanimous agreement was reached to cease work on Chowilla and to look at various alternatives. I stress that the agreement was unanimous because, unfortunately, a lot of politics has been played and people who agreed to the cessation of work on Chowilla now are trying to say that Chowilla should proceed.

Mr Foster:

– That is not true.

Mr Giles:

– It is true.

Mr FAIRBAIRN:

– Certainly, the honourable member would know, from his knowledge of the position. So, the increase in the cost was the first thing that went wrong. That is why work was suspended until we had a look at the various alternatives. lt is easy to be wise after the event. We did learn one thing. I am not casting any aspersions on the South Australian Water Supply and Engineering Authority but, from the point of view of the Commonwealth, I do think that we, in any future assessment in which Commonwealth money will be used, should make certain that the designs of proposed dams are checked by the Snowy Mountains HydroElectric Authority. Unfortunately, that Authority had very little to do with this dam until right at the end - and then it was only of a quite minor nature.

As I say, I am not casting any aspersions on the Authority in South Australia because, undoubtedly, Chowilla was a most difficult dam. lt was a dam to be built on a floating site on a flood plain, lt was not possible to get down into the ground and anchor it on rock. To the best of my knowledge, such a dam has never been built in Australia. There are some such dams in Russia, on the Volga River and some of the larger rivers. These dams are not easy to build. Chowilla was not easy to estimate. In addition, when work started, the salinity problem at the actual site appeared, and it was very difficult to get saline water away. This would have necessitated piping the saline water some considerable distance to an evaporation basin. All these things tended to increase the cost of the building of the dam.

One thing that I think we have learnt is that we should have an authority such as the Snowy Mountains Authority check designs and costs before the Commonwealth enters into an agreement. I think that this will be done regarding all future dams. I do stress once again for the benefit of our friend from South Australia, the honourable member for Sturt (Mr Foster), who is seeking to interject, that all the governments backed the decision to suspend work. It would not have been possible to suspend work if they had not backed that decision. All governments backed the decision to set up a technical committee to look at alternative sites.

So, we looked at alternative sites. We went to Dartmouth and to Gibbo, above Dartmouth to Murray Gates. We even looked at the diversion of the Kiewa River to see whether we could get additional water by diverting the Kiewa into the Hume. But the study showed that there was virtually no benefit, although it could have been done quite easily. I do not think that it is really true to say that Jingellic was looked at because, although we know a dam can be built at Jingellic, the cost of and problems associated with this are very considerable. The township of Walwa would be inundated. A very large area of highly fertile land would be inundated also. Thus, the advantages would be considerably less. So, virtually that was ruled out. The result was, as everyone knows, that Dartmouth was selected. That is the first reason why things went wrong.

The next thing that went wrong was failure to make allowance for dilution flows. I cannot understand why - I know that the technical experts have said that they realise they made a grave error in this field - no allowance was made to maintain a flow past Mildura. This was one of the problems. This made an enormous difference to the assessment of the benefit to be obtained from Chowilla. The original idea was that the Chowilla dam would hold the water needed for South Australia and that this then left virtually all the water in Hume to go to New South Wales and Victoria. But the moment a steady and quite high flow had to be maintained past Mildura, this meant that the water was going down anyway and immediately the benefit that Chowilla would be was reduced quite considerably.

There were other errors which have been mentioned. Evaporation was underestimated both through estimating the area that Chowilla would cover and through the evaporation co-efficient which was not known accurately at that time. The tests with the pan showed that these were greater and so the actual loss per annum through evaporation from Chowilla would have been approximately 820,000 acre feet to 920,000 acre feet compared with 600,000 acre feet in the study. This is an enormous rate of evaporation compared with Dartmouth which would have an evaporation loss of only 15,000 acre feet per annum. Another major reason when we came to look at this alternative was the need to regulate the river properly. During the recent drought - that was in 1968 - we found ourselves in a situation in which the Hume virtually was empty at the end of April which was also the end of the irrigation season. The dam was down to 24,000 acre feet. At the same time, water was available down the river in Menindee and there was some in Lake Victoria. This water could not be used in the higher area.

It was realised that the Menindee Lakes area and Lake Victoria were very large storages with a total capacity of 2 million acre feet - 500,000 acre foot storage at the lower end of the river - and what was needed to regulate the river properly was to have another storage in the headwaters. Attempts have been made to say that Chowilla has a higher average annual discharge past it and therefore that it would fill on occasions when the Hume did not. This is quite inaccurate. What we want to know is the yield, not the flow past the area.

Some advocates in South Australia have treid to show that Chowilla, on the average, would fill every year. It is true that the average annual discharge at the Chowilla site is bigger than the capacity of the proposed storage. However the average annual discharge includes years such as 1955-56 when the discharge at Chowilla was nearly 40 million acre feet. When this information is put through a computer study it is found that in the present set of operating conditions Chowilla would have filled only once for 1 month in a period of 9 years. On the other hand, the Hume Weir undoubtedly is underregulated. There are too many spills. There was one period of 20 years during which the Hume Weir spilled in 18 years. Even recently, from 1956, it would have filled on 8 occasions and it would have spilled oh 2 other occasions except that releases were made because work was in progress. The size of the weir was being increased and special releases were made to keep the level of water down. In other words it would have spilled in 10 years out of 14. This was before the additional water started coming in from the Snowy Mountains system. We know that the Snowy Mountains system is now reaching its maximum discharge of some 500.000 acre feet per annum into the River Murray. There is no doubt whatever that the Hume Weir is not large enough and that an alternative is needed. It was this series of studies which led to the River Murray Commission deciding that the new storage should be at Dartmouth where it was shown that the increased yield would be about 5 times that which would come from virtually identical expenditure at Chowilla.

Two queries were raised. I think I have answered the first, which was whether the Government, when it suspended work on

Chowilla, made the right decision in selecting Dartmouth. I have no doubt that the right decision was made. The second query was whether the Government had done its best to ensure that such an error would be unlikely to occur again. Well, one cannot say that it will not happen again. However I believe we have strengthened the River Murray Commission enormously since the time the original decision was made. The River Murray Commission was operating before the establishment of the Department of National Development and therefore had to utilise the services of other people. For some time the Deputy Commonwealth Commissioner on the River Murray Commission was not the Secretary of the Department of National Development but was the Secretary of the Department of Works. The Department of Works is competent in building dams but is not competent in assessing yields and river flows. We altered the representation on the Commission and the second Commonwealth representative is now the Secretary of the Department of National Development. I am sure that this has strengthened the Commission.

There is now a water resources branch in the Department of National Development. A very competent officer who was second in charge in the Queensland department has transferred to the Department of National Development, and this has resulted in strengthening the water resources branch to which the River Murray Commission can refer. In addition, as executive officer there is a top level officer who originally was seconded from the Snowy Mountains Hydro-electric Authority but who now has been taken on full time. We have had closer co-operation with the Snowy Mountains Hydro-electric Authority and, also, we now have a computer programme. Until the Department of National Development obtained its computer programme it used to take perhaps 3 months to work out the state of the River Murray under one given set of conditions. Under the present programme, using computers, conditions data can be fed in and an answer obtained very quickly. Only 13 studies were undertaken in the assessment of the Chowilla site before it was agreed to proceed with it but since that time 260 studies have been made. This has helped enormously.

I have no doubt that the right decision was made. I have no doubt that the decision in favour of the Dartmouth site will be of enormous advantage to South Australia. I pay credit to New South Wales and Victoria, to their Ministers and their Commissioners on the River Murray Commission, for their very ready co-operation, especially in making the Menindee Lakes a permanent work of the River Murray Commission. South Australia will receive an increased water entitlement which it would not have got from Chowilla. If there is a restriction then South Australia will get an equal share. South Australia would have got this when Chowilla was built but there would have been virtually no restriction. With Dartmouth built there would have been only 1 year since 1915 in which a restriction would have been applied to South Australia’s new entitlement and that would have been a very minor one. There is an agreement to look at Lake Victoria. The Commission is looking at a smaller lake, known as Lake Benanee, in the Euston lock which could be increased slightly so as to give a slight addition of water, available close to Mildura, which could be called on quickly. I do not know whether this scheme will prove to be economic but it is being investigated. Also, although they were built in Victoria, South Australia receives help from 2 salinity weirs because they reduce the amount of salinity.

Unfortunately, the entire project has been bedevilled by politics. The stage has seen many actors. Probably one of the greatest actors is the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Whitlam). He does not seem to have got into his mind the enormous amount of work done by technical experts since Chowilla was originally decided upon by the 4 governments concerned. He does not seem to have grasped the fact that it has now been shown that it would bc quite disastrous and senseless to build the Chowilla dam instead of the Dartmouth dam. In the case of Dartmouth there would be 5 times as much water for the same cost. Either the Leader of the Opposition is stupid or he is playing politics. I know that he has many faults but I do not believe that stupidity is one of them. Therefore it seems to me to be tragic that during the last election campaign he was prepared to go to South Australia and say that his Party would proceed with Chowilla. He is a lawyer and he knows perfectly well that the Chowilla project could not proceed even if the Labor Party had come to power in the Federal sphere, lt could not proceed because there must be unanimous agreement on the part of the 4 parties to the River Murray Commission Agreement. The Commonwealth Government could not merely say it would build Chowilla even if it was prepared to ignore the vast amount of technical work which has shown that Dartmouth is the superior site.

The Leader of the Opposition is the first actor on the scene. The second actor is the present Leader of the Opposition in South Australia who, again, I am afraid, is playing politics up to the hilt. No-one realises more than he does that Chowilla is not on. His Government was in power when the suspension was agreed to. It was in office when the technical committee was set up. He came over and saw me personally, and he saw the Premier of New South Wales and the Premier of Victoria. We agreed on a form of words which said that when looking at an alternative for Chowilla we would seek to give South Australia not less than it would have received had Chowilla been built. No-one was more certain that Chowilla was not on than was the then Premier of South Australia. But for political purposes he is now going to try to defeat the present Steele Hall Government in South Australia. He is going to attempt to defeat it by saying that a Labor government would press on even though he knows full well that if he wins the next State election and attains power he would have to agree to Dartmouth dam. There is no alternative. Either Dartmouth is built or South Australia will get no additional water. Let us be perfectly clear. Today we are not voting for the Dartmouth dam as against the Chowilla dam. We are voting for Dartmouth or for nothing. It is time people realised this fact.

The last actor on the scene is Mr Stott. I will not say any more about him than that he reminds me of when, in the old days, I used to listen to the wrestling at the stadium. The commentator would say: ‘He can’t get out of it’ and then he would say: ‘He is out of it.’ Mr Stott is in such a situation. He used to be able to get out of the remarks he made in bis electorate but then someone produced a tape recorder and now he is trapped. It would be quite ludicrous if a vast national project with the enormous result which it will produce for South Australia is defeated because of the futile way in which this particular person has acted. I cannot stress strongly enough that a national outlook is what is needed. Let us get away from playing politics and trying to win elections. Let us get down to consideration of what the country needs.

Debate (on motion by Mr Jacobi) adjourned.

Sitting suspended from 6 to 8 p.m.

page 842

DEFENCE BILL 1970

Bill - by leave - presented by Mr Hulme, and read a first time.

Second Reading

Mr HULME:
PostmasterGeneral and Vice-President of the Executive Council · Petrie · LP

– I move:

The purpose of this Bill is to amend the Defence Act to provide that the pay and annual allowances payable to the Chairman, Chiefs of Staff Committee, the Chief of Naval Staff, the Chief of the General Staff and the Chief of the Air Staff shall be such as the Parliament provides. This amendment will mean that the provision for the payment of pay and annual allowances for these officers will be similar to that provided for officers of the First Division in the Public Service. Section 30 of the Public Service Act 1922-1968 provides:

Officers of the First Division shall be paid such salaries and annual allowances as the Parliament provides.’

The Defence Act enables the GovernorGeneral to make regulations providing for and in relation to the fixing of the rates of pay of members of the defence forces who are paid for their services. As with other members of the defence force the rates of pay of the Chairman, Chiefs of Staff Committee, and the Chiefs of Staff are prescribed in the Military Financial Regulations, the Naval Financial Regulations and the Air Force Regulations. When the decision was taken to extend to these officers the payment of the annual allowances, action was taken to authorise the payment by amendments to the Military Financial Regulations, the Naval1 Financial Regulations and the Air Force Regulations. In its 27th Report, the Senate Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances has recommended the disallowance of these amending regulations on the grounds that:

It is doubtful if they are properly authorised under the regulation-making power of the Statutes and therefore if they are in accordance with their relevant Statutes; and
Apart from any previous regulations which may have been issued under the regulation making power of the Statute, the provision of this annual allowance is not an administrative detail but an important innovation more appropriate to substantive legislation.

The Government’s legal advisers are satisfied that the regulations are within the regulation making power of the Statutes. But the Government nevertheless accepts that there is merit in providing specifically by substantive legislation for appropriation by the Parliament of both pay and annual allowances for these officers on a similar basis to that provided for Permanent Heads of departments who are, of course, officers of the First Division of the Public Service. This amendment will come into operation on a date to be proclaimed by the GovernorGeneral. This will permit necessary consequential amendments to the Services Financial Regulations to be made concurrently. I comend the Bill to honourable members.

Debate (on motion by Dr Patterson) adjourned.

page 842

RIVER MURRAY WATERS BILL 1970

Second Reading

Debate resumed.

Mr JACOBI:
Hawker

– With respect to the 2 Bills being dealt with concurrently by the House, namely the Dartmouth Reservoir Agreement Bill and the River Murray Waters Bill, we are in fact being asked to abrogate and destroy an agreement ratified by 3 State governments and by the Federal Government. We are being asked to deny the people of South Australia their legal and just rights. Beyond any doubt the people of South Australia have been sold out. They have been sold up the river by a weak Liberal Government in South Australia.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! Before the sitting was suspended I asked the honourable member for Angas to cease interjecting. I understand that he is to speak in this debate and he will then have an opportunity to answer the Opposition.

Mr JACOBI:

– I have extended courtesy to most members in this House and I trust that they will reciprocate. We on this side of the House and more particularly the Labor members from South Australia are being asked not only to reject what is rightfully and legally South Australia’s but also - what is even more iniquitous - we are being asked to throw away for all time South Australia’s right to its own water storage, our own dam in our own State. This is untenable and it is unthinkable. My colleagues on this side of the House would never subscribe to such a sell out. It was gross deception on the part of Ministers and other honourable members opposite to give support to the construction of Chowilla Dam throughout the passage of the legislation in this House both by way of debate and by way of ratification.

An examination of the River Murray Waters Bill shows that Chowilla is to be deferred. What does the Government mean when it says that Chowilla is to be deferred? I suggest that this means that it is to be deferred indefinitely. Before the sitting was suspended I listened to the honourable member for Farrer (Mr Fairbairn) and throughout the whole of his speech I gleaned not one jot of assurance that Chowilla would in fact be constructed in South Australia. I ask the Government to declare its sincerity in this regard by incorporating in this Bill a provision to assure the people of South Australia that Chowilla will be constructed simultaneously with Dartmouth. If the Government is not prepared to do this then Chowilla is sold out forever.

Let us have a look at a few of the geographical facts as far as they concern South Australia. Honourable members opposite ought to be repeatedly reminded of these facts. Firstly, Australia is undoubtedly one of the driest continents on the earth. Secondly, South Australia is in fact the driest State in the Commonwealth. Thirdly, the River Murray is the life line of South Australia. Fourthly, the river Murray is the life line not just of those who are dependent upon the river itself for their livelihood, such as blockers, growers of dried fruits and other fruits, and dairy farmers - that is, irrigators - but of all of the people in the metropolitan area of Adelaide and all of those who live in the Warren water district in and around Spencer Gulf. Fifthly, 90% of the State relies wholly on the River Murray because it has no permanent river of its own. To put it in another way, 90% of the State does not receive sufficient rainfall to meet the needs of the rural or secondary industries. Sixthly, the Chowilla dam is vital to the stability and continued growth of both primary and secondary industries and above all is crucial to the continued prosperity of South Australia.

While on this point let us briefly look to see whether the same geographical situation can be attributed to either of the other States which are parties to the ratification, namely New South Wales and Victoria. The people in either of those States who will benefit from the dam, whether it be Chowilla, Dartmouth or both, are restricted to a limited number who live in close proximity to the river or in the towns adjacent to it. In my considered view the situation of the dam is of limited or local importance in those two States. It is not of vital importance to all the people in those two States, although I admit that it is important in certain areas. It is crucial to all the people of South Australia, and that is the singular difference between South Australia and the other two States.

I consider it is important to put the Australian Labor Party’s point of view, and this was competently put by the honourable member for Dawson (Dr Patterson). Before the Bill is agreed to a technical computer analysis should be made as to the practicability and feasibility of the construction of both dams. This could be carried out and the findings concluded in a very short space of time. It would be an evaluation as well. We are not denying the right of Victoria or New South Wales to construct Dartmouth but what we are saying is that the people of South Australia are sick to death of being treated as a Cinderella State or as a mendicant State. If it is feasible and practicable for Chowilla to be built, then South Australia has an equal and legal right to reap the benefits which would surely flow from a dam situated at the headwaters of that State. That is elementary.

Why are the people of South Australia so adamant about Chowilla., despite what the honourable member for Farrer said? The history of this dam is simple and it is worth repeating. When the diversion of the headwaters of the River Murray to the Mumimbidgee was mooted, Sir Thomas Playford said, that that would clearly jeopardise South Australia’s quantum of water. A High Court decision was brought down to the effect that if the project had been proceeded with it would have been damaging and disastrous for South Australia. As a consequence of Sir Thomas Playford’s action in South Australia, with the support of the Labor Opposition, the Commonwealth Government gave an undertaking that in compensation for the diversion the Chowilla dam would be constructed in South Australia. That was ratified in 1963 by the three States and was subsequently ratified by the Commonwealth Government in 1964. As I said earlier, the legislation came before Parliament in another place in 1963. The then Minister for National Development, Senator Sir William Spooner, applauded the work of the River Murray Commission. He heaped plaudits upon it and was satisfied that all the necessary technical investigations had been carried out to the satisfaction of the Commission.

What will be the benefits to the people of South Australia if the Chowilla dam is constructed, as it should be? Despite the technical committee’s report, the earlier report specified that the project represented 5.06 million acre feet of water. In addition to South Australia, New South Wales and Victoria would gain considerably from the yield benefits of the storage - to the extent of an estimated amount of 589,000 acre feet per year. This disagrees to some extent with the technical committee’s report. The Hume reservoir is filled from the upper arm of the River Murray and the Mitta Mitta River. Of the two, the Mitta Mitta is the smaller contributor in normal circumstances. From Smith Australia’s point of view the alternative site, Dartmouth, is some 1,200 river miles from the Metropolitan pipeline and is 1,000 river miles from the irrigation channels. The water would take 6 weeks to reach South Australia.

Basically, it is not the volume of water from Dartmouth in a good year that is in issue. From South Australia’s point of view what is crucial is the volume of water which that State will receive in a drought year. In such years the saline content reaches its peak, particularly if that vital water has long distances to travel. It is quite safe at the headwaters or at the outlet of the dam but it is disastrous for the irrigators at the end of the flow. The water becomes so saline that irrigators are forced to destroy their plants rather than risk destroying the soil, by salination. In short, when the water level decreases the saline content increases. More importantly, Chowilla would provide an effective buffer between South Australia and the other States by diluting the saline water.

Much has been and will be said by honourable members opposite about the recent computerised technical committee’s report which has lent support and some illconceived credence to the Liberal Government’s abrogation of the current River Murray Agreement and which is being used to bludgeon the people of South Australia. My answer to this aspect of our claim and a refutation to those people who rely so heavily upon the conclusion of the report is to quote from the Adelaide Advertiser’ a direct attack on Premier Hall by a former Liberal Premier, Sir Thomas Playford. I would venture to say that there is no man either in this House or outside it who has more knowledge of the effects of Chowilla on South Australia, and the details associated with it, than has Sir Thomas Playford. He said that unless the Chowilla dam was built South Australia was doomed. The article reads:

He said he disagreed Mock stock and barrel’ with the Chowilla technical report. lt was a computerised report fed with a lot of irrelevant politically biased information rather than technical data. The report did not stand up technically nor did it cater for the welfare of South Australians. .

Sir Thomas Playford said the report was a computer ultimatum which had informed South Australia that the Dartmouth plan would provide the Stale with 860,000 acre feet of water a year more than Chowilla.

The Chowilla site was for 5 million acre feet of water, but for the purpose of comparison the technical committee decided that its size would be 3 million acre feet.

The dam was going to be built on the Mitta Mitta River above the Hume Dam, which had filled only 3 times in 10 years.

The proposal was for it to hold 3 million acre feet of water on a river that flowed with an annual Sow of 580,000 acre feet.

With average years it would take 5 years to fill if no water was taken out.

The report says we are going to get a benefit of 860,000 acre feet a year from a river that flows at 580,000 acre feet a year”.

The only answer i can get to this is that we are going to store it up’.

He said Lake Eucumbene, in the Snowy Mountains project, was an example of a large dam built on a small watershed.

We were told it would hold as much water as Sydney Harbour’. lt has now been in operation for 10 years and the best it has ever done has been 40% filled’.

The average flow in SA over the past 20 years from the Murray has been 9 million acre feet and it was projected that in the next 20 years it would be 6 million acre feet because of diversions in tributaries taking place each year.

On the average, the Chowilla Dam would be filled every year and 6 million acre feet would flow into the sea every year.

Sir Thomas Playford questioned whether SA, with its meagre water resources, could afford to see 6 million acre feet of water flowing into the sea when later the same year the State could be up against water salinity problems and possibly restrictions.

I do not intend to elaborate on the technical details except to congratulate the honourable member for Dawson (Dr Patterson) on the speech he made. The honourable member dealt with this matter in depth so far as the technical details were concerned. One point which he brought out, which was valid and which has yet to be answered was in regard to computer analysis. If the assumptions are erroneous it is conclusive that the findings likewise are erroneous.

Let me state categorically that the assessment by Sir Thomas Playford, a man who is respected in South Australia and indeed is almost an institution, may not impress honourable members opposite but they have my personal assurance that it will impress a very large number of people in South Australia. To give further support to this view and to dissipate the argument regarding salinity - that is the fear by people who have the most to fear from this problem, namely the irrigators - I ask: How do they assess the situation? This matter has been critically debated in South Australia with a great deal of emotion. The Adelaide Advertiser’ of 6th April, had this to say:

Mr Stott said he had not yet drafted his proposed amendments to the Bill, but would be along the lines of forcing the Government to negotiate for two dams to be built at the same time.

I have received hundreds of letters requesting me to support the building of both dams at the same time. I have also received copies of letters from fruit growing organisations protesting vigorously against the decision of the Loxton District Council to favour Dartmouth dam alone. These associations include the Australian Dried Fruits Association, the Wine and Grape Growers Council, the South Australian Canning Fruitgrowers Association, the War Service Land Settlement Scheme and the Fruitgrowers Liaison Committee - and just about every fruit grower in the river area belongs to one of these associations. I am not making any silly guess when I say that almost 100% of growers are for both dams being built.

On 26th September 1969 a special meeting of interstate Murray irrigators called for the construction of Dartmouth and Chowilla at the same time. What I find singularly odd is that in a Press statement early last December the Australian Country Party’s Federal Council adopted the South Australian motion calling for a close study of the case for building the Dartmouth and Chowilla dams at the same time. I wonder what decision the Country Party members in this chamber will make on both of these Bills.

Mr Webb:

– They are not speaking on it.

Mr JACOBI:

– Certainly not. These organisations, coupled with the support of the overwhelming number of people in the metropolitan area of South Australia are a voice which this Government, but mora particularly the Hall Government in South Australia, would be most ill-advised to ignore.

Let me now turn to the 3 basic reasons why 1 consider Dartmouth was chosen in preference to Chowilla. They are all simple of analysis. Firstly, obvious in the latest - the recent - technical committee’s report was the blatant biased expressions of opinion by the then Minister for National Development,- then honourable member for

Farrer (Mr Fairbairn). He had more than a personal interest in Dartmouth because the electorate that he represents is slap bang along side it. The second basic reason was the obvious difference in approach, attitude and capabilities - and here I am making a contrast between Liberal Premiers, Sir Thomas Playford and Steele Hall in keeping the welfare of their State constantly to the forefront. I venture to suggest in all sincerity that the preceding Minister for National Development, Senator Sir William Spooner, the honourable member for Farrer, certainly the current Minister for National Development and Sir Henry Bolte would never at any time have outmanoeuvred or overawed Sir Thomas Playford. In simple terms South Australia has the contrast between an amateur and a professional.

The third reason is the question of costs. This is the factor which above all has mitigated against Chowilla. Initially the cost of constructing Chowilla was set at $28m. It then rose in 1966 to $43m; then to $68m in 1967. It was when it reached this latter figure that all enthusiasm for Chowilla died. All sorts of obstacles and reasons were advanced for the alternative, namely Dartmouth. What I suggest motivated Sir Henry Bolte in particular to opt out is based on 2 simple deductions on the debit side - increased cost by way of increased contribution with no capital return. But if the dam is to be built at Dartmouth, on the credit side is the fact that the bulk of the cost money would be spent in Victoria. More than this, if one applies the multiplying theory of economics - that is to suggest $1 of minimum activity leads to $3 of total activity - it is not hard to calculate the volume of money to be injected into the Victorian economy. It is a factor which has obviously escaped the Premier of South Australia but it did not escape Sir Thomas Playford and certainly not Sir Henry Bolte.

I am justified in taking this point by reference to the Minister for National Development’s statement in the second reading speech of the River Murray Waters Bill. The Minister said:

Obviously an increase of about 250% in the estimated cost over » period of 4 yean raised doubts as to whether the early basis for selection of Chowilla as the most favourable development for the next stage was still valid.

The estimated cost of Dartmouth at this stage was to be $57m. Are members opposite naive enough to believe that the cost having escalated some 250% in the case of Chowilla, it will not correspondingly escalate for Dartmouth given the same period of time? I have proved my point; the Minister has justified my analysis. It is not a question of acre feet or salinity and not a question of computer analysis. In my view it is the sheer weight of cost that is the determining factor which has mitigated against Chowilla. Let me put this forcefully to the House. The fear that is expressed in the minds of the people and responsible organisations throughout South Australia is simply this: Ratification of these Bills now would mean abandoning Chowilla for ever. This is unpalatable, untenable and will be rejected by the overwhelming majority of people in South Australia, despite the blackmail that appeared in this morning’s ‘Advertiser’.

I warn this Government, and I particularly warn the Liberal Government of South Australia, that the people declared at the polls in last October that they will no longer tolerate the raw deal that they have received at the hands of this Federal Government. I know the issues which motivated the electoral patterns in South Australia. They were bread and butter issues. The people of South Australia were interested in the issues concerning their welfare and prosperity. These are the basic issues. These are the issues on which this Government has failed the people in South Australia. If this Government persists in this ridiculous course and rejects this plea for an alternative by assessing the possibility of constructing both dams, it is on a sure course to disaster. I note from yesterday’s Australian’ that Steele Hall has conjured up another gimmick. His gimmick in 1 968 was expressed in the words:

The LCL promises the electors they could trust Hall and his Party to complete the dam as soon as possible and alone if necessary.

His gimmick this year is:

First let us keep Dartmouth - thirst things first.

What I suggest to the Premier of South Australia is a very simple political dictum. If he had put his State first we would not be suffering from thirst. The Chowilla controversy should never have reached the point where a decision had to be made between the building of a major water storage at Chowilla or Dartmouth. The situation should not have come down to a decision based on technical argument and political considerations. The Government instead should be evolving an overall plan for the development of the Murray which includes both Chowilla and Dartmouth.

During the 7 years of indecision more than 20 million acre feet of water has run to waste into the sea. This is surely some measure of the challenge to this country and in particular to this Government. It is a national disgrace that this wastage occurred during years of chronic drought while no major work was carried out along the Murray at all. All these methods of conservation require research even during the drought. This Government did not allocate funds for this purpose. For the interest of honourable members opposite, Australia spends only 0.7% of national income on water research compared with 3i% in the United States, 2±% in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and 2% in the United Kingdom. In addition Australia’s total expenditure on water research is only 0.001% of all expenditure on research. These Bills represent a sellout of the Chowilla concept, and I place on record my complete opposition to such a sellout.

Mr GILES:
Angas

– I make it plain at the commencement of my speech that I support the 2 Bills that are being debated together and intend to vote against the Opposition amendment that I know of so far. Of course I would be interested to see what further amendments they can pluck out at the Committee stage, because up to this point of time I cannot see an awful lot of success in what they have done so far. Both the honourable member for Dawson (Dr Patterson) and the honourable member for Hawker (Mr Jacobi) have referred - and this is only a small1 point - to the Government’s deferring the building of the Chowilla dam. Let us start off correctly from the word ‘go’ and say that the River Murray Commission deferred the building of Chowilla dam. This Commission has 4 commissioners, one from each State, and it can make no decision unless it is unanimous.

The honourable member for Hawker, if I can briefly deal with the next point, said that computer studies on both dams need to be undertaken. That of course is quite wrong, as the honourable member for Farrer (Mr Fairbairn) already explained before dinner. These studies have taken place. I had a look at them last week in Adelaide, and I have had a look at them again tonight. These studies have taken place. It is quite apparent that if both Chowilla and Dartmouth are built the increase in yield to the River Murray system will be 200,000 or more acre feet a year. This compares with an increase in yield to the river system of 1.1 million acre feet a year if Dartmouth alone is built, lt is a small increase, and I will elaborate on that point in a few minutes’ time. I suppose the next thing I should do is to try to pick up the points made by the honourable member for Dawson. In so doing I would say there is one section of his speech to which I need not refer, and that is the section on costs, because I thought his memory of the graphs, as I remember them, was exact and in accordance with the facts. So I will exclude costs completely from the rest of my remarks. One point he made was that a cost benefit analysis should be done in relation to the Murray system. I would like to reply to this because it seems to me that any cost benefit analysis is usually carried out to see what benefit can be gained from such irrigation waters in terms of irrigation or other similar schemes downstream. In the case of Dartmouth and in the case of Chowilla the water woul’d flow into an already established system. It is expected that in my State of South Australia there will be no increase in plantings for irrigation. I will touch on this matter a little while later when I get on to the individual flow requirements for that State year by year.

The honourable member for Dawson seemed to me to make a very ‘iffy* approach. He said that if this or if that could be done possibly something else could occur. In other words, it was a hypothetical speech in an attempt to get his own Party off a very difficult hook. The River Murray Waters Agreement has so far been ratified by 2 States, New South Wales and Victoria. My understanding is that the Labor Party in both those States supported the Government that introduced this measure which was supported in both Houses.

The honourable member for Dawson also said that a river authority should be set up to control the Murray-Darling system and he said that this authority should be properly staffed. Does he think that the River Murray Commission is improperly staffed7 Does he think that the Snowy Mountains Authority, which has done a lot of work on Dartmouth, is improperly staffed? What about the consultants, both Australian and international? Do they not have competent people on their staffs? I would have hoped that the Labor Party, which likes to feel that it has a new look in the eyes of the community, would have been capable of seeing the need in the community in years to come of coming to a courageous decision every now and again when it was the correct one instead of making a cheap emotional appeal based on political expediency. I would have hoped that people wth some competence and training on the Opposition benches would reveal a slightly more intelligent and valid approach to the problems than the comments I have heard today.

– Does the honourable member never put a cork in it? The situation could well be that within a few years we will be short of water. When will honourable members realise the saving grace to South Australia of the Dartmouth Dam? We now have an assurance of water. I gave the figures a while ago - 900,000 acre feet of divertible water. We used 500,000 acre feet in the drought and our average before that was 337,000 acre feet. For the first time in many years South Australia can look forward to an assurance of water in a very real way. May 1 remind the Opposition and those South Australian members who may follow me in this debate that Chowilla was built to take out the periods of restriction - every 20 years or so - at a quota of 1.25 million acre feet? It took them out on all but 4 or 5 occasions over 60 years. Dartmouth Dam backs up that quota from 1.25 million acre feet to 1.5 million acre feet for South Australia and also takes out the odd period of restriction with only one occasion, on computer studies of the last 60 years, when we would have been short, this shortfall is not of our average usage like the two upstream States but of our entitlement, which is the first claim on the River Murray system.

This is the biggest breakthrough the State of South Australia has had in assuring its water supply since the foundation of the River Murray Commission. I trust that nothing will be allowed to stop the advantage that accrues from this scheme to the State of South Australia. If we lose this advantage we could be in such trouble, depending on seasons, within a few years that the people will remember those who were ignorant enough, stupid enough or misguided enough to dare stop this increased amount of water that South Australia needs.

I have here a table giving the figures relating to the Dartmouth construction. It is based on the 60 years I have just mentioned. It shows a deficiency in normal usage in Victoria and New South Wales and a deficiency on quota for South Australia. We have first claim on the waters of the Murray. The table contains 3 categories - 0 to 10% down; 10% to 20% down; and more than 20% down. The table is as follows:

As can be seen, Victoria would have been down once in the minimum category, twice in the middle category and four times in the highest category, on Dartmouth figuring. The pattern for New South Wales would have been the reverse.

South Australia has first claim and an assured quota and it would be down only once in the last 60 years on the Dartmouth figuring. That once was in 1945-46. Although the figures for the 1967 drought have not been fully computerised as a study, initial work suggests there would be no period of restriction in South Australia on our assured quota at an increased size, even in a drought as bad as that of 1967. These are facts and those who do not take account of them, particuarly those from South Australia, deserve the censure they will eventually get. I finish my remarks by saying that, although I naturally want Chowilla in my electorate, mere wish cannot ensure the proper treatment, a proper flow of water required by the people in my area for irrigation, in South Australia generally and in other Slates. 1 suggest that honourable members, particularly those from my own State, take full cognisance of three points. The State is overcommitted on our old quota of 1,254,000 acre feet. We are committed almost fully to our new quota of 1,500,000 acre feet. If we have an increase in the average consumer usage of water in washing machines, deep freezers or whatever people have in a house, on the one hand, and if on the other hand we need more water for industrial use in South Australia the irrigation systems in that State are to receive an assured quantity of water, the volume of water available to South Australia must be increased Opponents of the scheme had better assess those facts pretty quickly. The issue is quite clear. We either vote for Dartmouth or in the near future we do not have water. There is no middle and no second course.

Mr FITZPATRICK:
Darling

– I believe that the honourable member for Angas (Mr Giles) has been very inconsistent. I am told that he was an enthusiastic member of the Chowilla Promotion Committee and that he supported every proposal brought down by it. Tonight he said that honourable members on this side of the House are using this project as a means of political promotion. Yet in 1963 members of his Party used it in their election campaign. It is very noticeable that tonight this debate was brought on at a time when the proceedings are not being broadcast, although South Australia is vitally interested in this question. The honourable member accuses Opposition members of being careful of what they say because the people in South Australia would find out about it. We on this side of the House would have been pleased if the debate had been broadcast so that the people of South Australia could have heard it.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I am opposed to the adoption of this Bill in its present form because it clearly indicates the lack of concern for people in far inland country centres. I refer particularly to those people who are vitally concerned with the Menindee Lakes Storage Agreement. These people were anxiously waiting for the termination of the Agreement because they felt that in the light of experience gained during the 7 years the Agreement has been in operation they had every justification to expect and demand a better agreement to protect the waters of the Menindee storage. As this Bill states, the Menindee Lakes Storage Agreement was only a temporary measure. As a matter of fact it was an agreement for a period of 7 years and it was anticipated that Chowilla would have been completed and operating in that time. This Agreement provided for releases from the Menindee storage so that the River Murray Commission could use the water in excess of 390,000 acre feet. It must be remembered that the storage was designed for over 2 million acre feet. Yet the River Murray Commission has an option on all water over 390,000 acre feet.

It is anyone’s guess when Chowilla will be built and the purposes of this Bill are to set aside that project in order to build Dartmouth. If the Government were to show any consistency here it could be expected to extend the Menindee Lakes Storage Agreement for another 7 years while Dartmouth was being completed. But it has not done this because, like Chowilla, Dartmouth might not even be started in 7 years. In any case the River Murray Commission now has control of the Menindee Lakes storage and there is little chance of it handing over that control, regardless of what the people in the western part of New South Wales think.

On looking at the map of New South Wales it can be seen that the Menindee Lakes are the only major water storage in the western part of New South Wales and to hand over control of this water to the River Murray Commission, as stated in the terms of this Bill, is a serious disregard for the welfare of the citizens of this area. It has already been stated on good authority that plans for New South Wales waterways show that the Darling River may be reduced to a trickle and will depend on the annual rainfall. Little water will come from its tributaries in New South Wales because in future many of its valleys and rivers from which water now flows into the Darling will have their own dams, weirs or some other form of storage which will eventually dry up the natural flow into the Darling River. Figures from the Water Conservation and Irrigation Commission show that in the 79 years before 1965 the average flow of the Darling River at Wilcannia was approximately 2,420,000 acre feet. Yet, in 1965, the figure was only 87,000 acre feet. For 1967, it was 590,000 acre feet. In 1968, it was 935,000 acre feet. The figure in 1968 is little more than one third of the average for 79 years before 1965.

In the 79 years before 1965, we had many periods of drought. Even the brochure put out by the Water Conservation and Irrigation Commission of New South Wales states that the flow in the Darling River has ceased completely on several occasions. I am told that the records at Wilcannia show that in 1902 and again in 1919 the river ceased to flow for 12 consecutive months. Of course, we have had great floods that have built up the average, but the question ls: How long, in the years to come, will the period be that the Darling stops flowing in dry years because we have dams and weirs which have been built on its tributaries? It must stop flowing for longer periods than it has in the past.

If ample storage is not left in the Menindee Lakes, this must affect the supply to Broken Hill and through the 294 miles of the Great Anna Branch and the many grazing properties that depend upon this water, as well as the 480 miles of the lower Darling River and the grazing properties in that area. It always has been assumed that, if the Darling River stopped flowing, the supplies to Broken Hill and these other places could be drawn from the Menindee Lakes storage. This Bil) does not indicate that enough water will be available in the storage should the Darling River stop flowing. It seems to indicate that, if there is a slow flow in the Darling River and the Murray is low at the same time, the River Murray Commission will draw on Menindee Lakes water. It is my intention to put forward some facts and to make some comparisons to justify these statements.

The first water was stored at Menindee in 1960. In 1962. the project was filled. On 22nd May 1962, a break occurred adjacent to the Cawndilla Lake outlet regulator. Over 1,500,000 acre feet of water escaped before the Cawndilla could be isolated from the scheme. The outlet regulator was completely wrecked. That has now been completely rebuilt. However, Cawndilla Lake has a bed level of 179 feet while Menindee Lake has a bed level of 1 84 feet. This means that the Cawndilla Lake has 5 feet of water when the Menindee Lake is dry. The Menindee Lake dried up in April 1965 and no suitable amount of water for fishing or recreation purposes was in the lake until December 1969. This means that the lake, as far as useful purposes were concerned, was dry for over A years.

It must be remembered that it was not filled for the first time until 1962. The designed storage of the scheme was 2,250,000 acre feet but, due to the Cawndilla failure, the approved storage now is only 1,500,000 acre feet. At the present time, it contains 87% of this amount. These facts and figures make it appear that the Menindee Lakes storage is only a second grade water scheme but this is far from the truth. Experts and people with great knowledge of waterways believe that it has a very bright future so long as the water is released wisely. The people of my electorate have shown confidence in the future of this water scheme as the following facts indicate.

On the north side of the Menindee Lake, we have a village called Sunset Strip. This contains 60 cottages valued from $4,500 to $12,000. Around these cottages, an area of 600 acres is fully fenced. Water is laid on and a tree planting programme is in progress. Apart from the cost of the cottages and the fact that a good deal of this work has been done by volunteers, the estimated expenditure on this area alone was $50,000. At Copi Hollow, which forms part of the connecting channel, we have a speed boat club with 80 registered boats, club houses, cottages and amenities and the estimated expenditure on this area alone was S70,000. The Menindee Lake Park Recreation Area has accommodation for 5,000 persons on an organised picnic day. lt has high class tourist facilities, ablution blocks, shelter sheds, supervisor’s home, modern kiosk, lawns and trees, and it also has 600 acres fenced in with water and power supplied. The estimated expenditure to date is in excess of $100,000.

The overall plan is to develop this area to the value of $500,000. If honourable members add all these things together, they will understand the amount of work and money that has gone into developing this area. Because of this work in developing the area, it has been estimated that the number of visitors to the Menindee Lakes scheme in 1968 was 61,000 people. Of course, it is a good thing that the people in this area have these amenities and it is also a good thing that we are able to attract tourists in order to make this scheme financially successful.

The township of Menindee itself has a very active progress committee and the people with market gardens now have formed their own co-operatives. All these people are very concerned that the Menindee Lakes Storage Agreement, which has been a temporary measure pending completion of Chowilla, now is to be continued indefinitely, as slated in this Bill. But we notice that the River Murray Commission in its annual report states that the Agreement will be continued in perpetuity. 1 have not heard any of these people complain about a quantity of water being released to flush down the Anna Branch so that the graziers along the 294 miles of the Anna Branch can have a fresh water supply. No-one complains that a certain amount of water should go 480 miles down the Darling to supply the people lower down with a better class of water.

The people of this area are good Australians. They accept the fact that release may have to be made from the Menindee Lakes storage while Chowilla is being built in order to keep an adequate supply of water in the lower Murray. Perhaps some justification would exist to extend the Menindee Lakes Storage Agreement until Dartmouth is in operation; but to say that this Agreement should be continuated indefinitely shows how much concern this Government has for the people who are doing great things to develop inland Australia.

Many of these people have made a lifelong study of the flow of the Darling River and the flow of the Murray River. They are of the opinion that, once Dartmouth is completed, little water would be required from the Menindee storage for an adequate supply in the lower Murray. What the people are really worried about is the little sentence that appears at the bottom of page 8 of the circulated copy of the second reading speech delivered by the Minister for National Development (Mr Swartz). It reads:

At that time it was also agreed to adopt an operational procedure for salinity control in the river which has been found effective in recent years, and this is dealt with in clause 22. I might mention that while this clause refers only to control of salinity upstream of South Australia, this is on the basis of control below that point being handled by releases from Lake Victoria . . .

It goes no to say:

. and if necessary from the Menindee Lakes storage.

It should be obvious to anyone, because of the geographical situation of Chowilla, that should the River Murray require flushing to remove salinity it would be easy to release the water from the Chowilla dam. It would be ridiculous to release water from the Dartmouth dam, 1,000 miles away, to flush the River Murray because after travelling that distance the salinity of the water would be greater than that of the water in the lower Murray. It is quite apparent that the obvious place from which the water would come would be the Menindee Lakes storage.

The Minister might say that these fears are groundless and that there is no intention to take water out of the Menindee storage if this would affect the usefulness of the scheme. 1 remind him again that the brochure from the New South Wales Water Conservation and Irrigation Commission states that the Darling River has ceased flowing completely on many occasions. The longest period was 11 months. I am told that records at Wilcannia show that on 2 occasions - in 1902 and 1919 - it ceased to flow for a period of 12 consecutive months. All honourable members know that the Menindee storage was filled in 1962; yet the Menindee Lake dried up in April 1965 and stayed that way until December 1969. It might be said that 390,000 acre feet of water is a lot of water and should be ample to supply Broken Hill and the people along the Anna Branch and the lower Darling River.

It must be remembered that this amount of water would be stored in an area built to cover over 2 million acre feet of water. It is known also that the shallower the water is the greater is the percentage of impurities. This fact was brought home in no uncertain manner in recent months. It became necessary to flush the Anna Branch 2 months before the recognised time because it had become poisonous due to a build-up of algae. It was necessary to make an earlier release. The question arises: How much of this 390,000 acre feet of water in the Menindee Lakes storage would be usable and for how long would it be usable? The people who depend on that storage claim that that is not a safe level, that the figure of 390,000 acre feet should be increased substantially especially if the releases of water from the Menindee Lakes scheme are not being used to supply an adequate amount of water to the lower Murray but only to adjust the salinity content in the river in the absence of the Chowilla storage.

I speak for the people of my electorate. This Bill should provide assurances on these matters. It also should state that no release is to be made from the Menindee storage for any purpose if such release would lower the Menindee Lakes below the level of 14 feet. I support my colleagues in the Opposition in saying that Chowilla dam and Dartmouth dam should be built at the same time.

Mr TURNBULL (Mallee) 19.24]-! do not want to enter into a debate on the fine points of water conservation for the simple reason that I am not an expert in this field. If I had just entered this House after coming from some other country I would have thought that most of the speakers tonight were experts in this regard. I think they will admit that, unlike engineers or members of the River Murray Commission, they do not know much about water conservation and are relying on what they have been told by other people. 1 want to rebut one or two things that have been said. I will deal first with what was said by the honourable member for Angas (Mr Giles). I did nol hear him say that he was against the construction of the Chowilla dam; I heard him say that probably it would be built at some later stage. What he did not like was the fact that the Opposition is holding the project to ransom. The Opposition is saying that if the Government does not build Chowilla dam now in conjunction with Dartmouth dam then it will not allow the construction of Dartmouth dam. That is what is happening. Noone can deny that this is what the Opposition is doing. The Opposition says that it wants the two dams to be built at the same time. Therefore if the Chowilla dam is not built at the same time as the Dartmouth dam then neither are to be built.

Mr Grassby:

– We did not say that at all.

Mr TURNBULL:

– The honourable member for Riverina has not said anything yet.

Mr Grassby:

– I will.

Mr TURNBULL:

Let me pay a tribute to both the former and the present Minister for National Development for the fighting of salinity in the Murray River at Barr Creek near Kerang and Lake Hawthorn near Mildura, where tons and tons of salt have been collected and put in evaporation areas. This has prevented salinity to a large extent in the River Murray. I said that I would not go into detail, and I am not. But let me sum up the position. Firstly, the Opposition is not in full1 agreement on what it wants. Secondly, some members of the Opposition say that the death knell has sounded for the Chowilla dam and that it has gone forever. I can see one member of the

Opposition smiling. I expect that he will rise and say that Chowilla still can be built and that it has not gone forever as the honourable member for Dawson said. The honourable member for Dawson threw in the sponge pretty quickly on this subject. He said that this was the death knell. I think that be said some time ago that the Australian Labor Party would be in office shortly. If Labor came into office and had the same enthusiasm for Chowilla as it has now, would it not be built? What about the death knell if the Bill goes through? 1 do not know whether I should mention whatI am about to mention as it really concerns the Country Party. It was reported that the Federal Council of the Country Party agreed to build Chowilla and Dartmouth together, but that is not so. A motion was passed at the meeting that the Country Party would consider investigating the possibility. That motion was passed by the Federal Council, not Country Party members of the Parliament. At the same meeting I spoke against the Chowilla Dam being built. If it was reported in the Press that the Country Party supported the joint building of the 2 storages, that is completely wrong.

I am most anxious that the Bill be passed and that we get on with the job. After all, water is the lifeblood of the Mallee electorate and also of areas further afield. Let us not give up the hope of Chowilla being built. If it is capable of providing more water and if more water can be stored there, by weight of its own advantages it will be built in the future. Honourable members opposite should not throw in the towel1 so easily on an issue like this when the people in South Australia expect them to be fighting for them to the bitter end. Why, if I took that sort of attitude in the Mallee 20-odd years ago I would not have been in this Parliament for 12 months. WhenI first came here my Party was in the Opposition. One has to fight for things and keep fighting.

Mr Cope:

– How long have you been here?

Mr TURNBULL:

– I was asked how long I have been in Parliament. The answer to that is: Too long for you, my boy. I think that there is no substitute for experience and I believe that a lot of the young members opposite are getting the experience here now. I hope that I can contribute a bit. I express to them my very good will. They may depend upon it that at any time they are speaking, whatever is said, I will never oppose them personally. But I will at all times try to support the policies of my Party. The honourable member for Sturt (Mr Foster) has just said that I attacked him today. If he would give me a little peace from his continual interjections I should be very pleased. For the first time in this place I have noticed new members - not many of them, but some of them - interjecting before they made their maiden speeches. One of the good things about this Parliament is that when a man makes his maiden speech it is traditional for other honourable members not to interject. Would it not be fair then for new members not to interject until they have made their maiden speeches? I know that some of them have made their maiden speeches and they can interject as much as they like.

Let me say finally that we should go ahead with the building of the dam. It is a great proposition. I say to honourable members opposite: Do not forget about Chowilla; keep it in mind, and every time you get the chance say something about it. I represent a great length of the Murray River and it is my intention to support the Bill and to vote against the amendment.

Mr HURFORD:
Adelaide

-I am able to ignore the honourable member for Mallee (Mr Turnbull) because he spent his time attacking this side of the House for a position that we have not taken. I hope that the honourable member will stay in the House and hear exactly what our position is. I am strongly supporting the amendment moved by my Opposition colleague, the honourable member for Dawson (Dr Patterson). Also, I shall be supporting his amendments at the Committee stage if this amendment is not successful at the second reading stage. I support the amendment moved by the honourable member for Dawson at this stage because I am appalled at the shallowness of the knowledge of our requirements and capacities in the matter of water conservation. We. have conflicting technical committee reports. We have questions unanswered to such an extent that reasonable men cannot come to rational decisions as to where the next development should be.

Confusion has been compounded by the speech delivered by the honourable member for Farrer (Mr Fairbairn) earlier this afternoon. He admitted - surely he would not have done so had he still been the Minister for National Development - gross blunders in past technical committee reports. It is no wonder that we have lost all confidence in existing material, existing data, upon which these enormous decisions have recently been made. We are practising our Austraiian predilection for taking a punt or having a bet that perhaps Dartmouth is better than Chowilla. Instead, we need more studies on these matters and we need them urgently. We need a national water conservation and construction authority to carry out systematic work in depth in this field. Instead, we have attempted to survive with a River Murray Commission which is grossly understaffed. I would mention that in one annual report that I have seen the River Murray Commission deemed it wise to include the information that they had put on an extra typist - to show just how understaffed they were. This Commission does not have authority over a sufficiently wide area of our country. I remind the House that the Commission has no control, for instance, over tributaries to the west of Albury. It is obliged to call in consultants to make ad hoc assessments from time to time. This is the situation that we are faced with under the present Government, which seems to be doctrinairely opposed to systematic planning. This subject is of vital concern not only in relation to our survival and economic development, but also in relation to our national resources. In other words, it is of vital concern to conservationists.

Concerning pollution, salinity is only one of the problems, although it is a very grave one. There is also the matter of slag and silt developing in our rivers, our vital waterways. In this effort of ours for national prosperity we need this authority. We need the Opposition’s amendment to the motion for the second reading of the Bill - we need it urgently.

Having said this, however, I do not want to give the impression that there are not immediate problems which must be tackled. Setting up a national water conservation authority might sound like a long term project. I know that there are urgent problems now and 1 know that my colleague, tha honourable member for Riverina (Mr Grassby) will be highlighting these later in the debate. I hope that he will not be gagged before he has the opportunity to do so. I do not envisage that the setting up of a national water conservation and construction authority, embracing the already existing Snowy Mountains Authority and also, of course, the existing River Murray Commission, will delay these matters of urgent necessity for any length of time. We already have the nucleus of an authority to get on with these matters which call for urgent action.

This brings me to the matter of my attitude to the Bill if our amendment to the motion for the second reading is not accepted. It also highlights my attitude and that of my colleagues to the immediate function of the water authority, if the Government agrees to it being set up. In no way at this stage must Chowilla be abandoned, just as in no way is anyone supporting the abandonment of Dartmouth. The Government is, however, virtually supporting the abandonment of Chowilla by proceeding with this Bill. I submit that this course of action, this abandonment of Chowilla, is not just a grave injustice to my State of South Australia but is at this stage a national waste, a national scandal and something of concern to all Australians.

Before driving home this point and explaining my case, 1 draw to the attention of the House once again why Chowilla is abandoned under this Bill. It is abandoned because Clause 6 of the Bill adds the eighth schedule - ‘the sixth further amending agreement’ as it is called - and this schedule contains clause 10a which provides for inlet and outlet works to Lake Victoria. It is no good the honourable member for Mallee (Mr Turnbull) saying that we must continue to fight when we have the facts before us in a Bill like this. The fight could not continue beyond tonight. The expected tender cost of these inlet and outlet works is in the vicinity of $7m. The Chowilla Dam as at present planned floods Lake Victoria - it completely inundates it. This will be $7m of taxpayers money literally down the Murray drain. Is this not the abandonment of Chowilla? Would this not be a national scandal with nearly $6m wasted to this stage on Chowilla already? This is the amount that has already been spent on that project.

Of course, we cannot envisage spending $7m on inlet and outlet works at Lake Victoria and then inundating the lake. Bui this is not all. Clause 13a of the Eighth Schedule adds to the Agreement with these words:

However, completion of the construction of the Chowilla Reservoir shall be deferred until the contracting governments agree that the work shall proceed.

With $7m already spent on Lake Victoria are all the contracting governments going to agree to the flooding of this $7m work? Of course not. That is why we propose the deletion of clauses 10a and 13a and trust that honourable members from South Australia in particular and others on the other side of the House will support us.

But the matter does not rest there. We highlight once again our considered judgment that the necessary studies had not been done to warrant the abandonment of Chowilla. If we cannot have our national water conservation authority to carry out as its first task an evaluation of the possibility of a 2 dams policy, then we know that tor this task there is a structure already in existence to carry out such an evaluation. So we propose that instead of ratifying the Agreement and approving the Bill here and now approval should not be given until an immediate computer evaluation of the construction of storages of various capacities for both Dartmouth and Chowilla has been completed.

So much for the actual position which we take on this side of the House. 1 know that the honourable member for Dawson (Dr Patterson) has already outlined this position. But from the remarks of such speakers as the honourable member for Angas (Mr Giles) and the honourable member for Mallee it would seem that they have not fully absorbed what our position is on this issue.

Mr Giles:

– You have not absorbed the position.

Mr HURFORD:

– I have absorbed precisely the position on this issue and 1 am fighting hard to see that Chowilla is not abandoned. I have indicated some reasons for taking this position, and so have my colleagues who have spoken in this debate. But I want to add to this - and in doing so 1 believe that I speak not only as a South Australian but as an Australian who believes in balanced development.

The first point I want to make very strongly is that River Murray water for South Australia is not only a matter of irrigation; it is a matter of existence for thousands upon thousands who gain their livelihood from secondary and tertiary industries, and who live in our urban communities, mainly, of course, in my own City of Adelaide. Our concern arises from the fact that 85% of the South Australian population depends on water from the River Murray. When the Tailem Bend-Keith pipeline is completed the figure rises to nearly 90%. 1 want to say more about South Australia’s needs. I am going to draw heavily from a paper delivered by Mr C. Warren Bonython entitled ‘Water Availability in South Australia in the Decade Ahead’. I should explain that, in what follows, water volumes are referred to in terms of a unit which is 1,000 million gallons. Water volumes are often quoted in acre feet, especially those concerning the flow of the Murray, but since my emphasis must be on domestic and industrial consumption in the urban areas it is felt that 1,000 million gallons or, ‘one unit’ is the more appropriate term to use. Incidentally, I should explain for those who want to do some calculations that one unit is just under 3,700 acre feet of water. Mr Bonython had this to say:

Metropolitan Adelaide now has a population ot over 780,000 and it annually uses nearly 30 units of water -

That would be 30.000 million gallons of water - half of which comes from the Mount Lofty Ranges catchments and half from the Murray. On the basis of the 1962 Town Planning report, the population will grow to Lt million by 1981 and 1.3 million by 1988. lt could then be expected to grow further to I.S million by 1995, 1.65 million by 2000 AD . . .

Mr Bonython went on in his address to explain how our average rate of usage of water has been increasing. He notes: . . departmental planning considers it prudent to base estimates on rates gradually rising to a maximum of (50 gallons per day by 2000 AD.

Using the last as a basis for metropolitan Adelaide, and adding a little extra to include the Barossa Water District, the expected consumption for all urban purposes - that is residential, municipal and industrial - in 2000 AD will be over 3 times what it is today.

That is from 30 units or 30,000 million gallons to 95 units or 95,000 million gallons per annum. This is for Adelaide alone. Mr Bonython went on to say:

Areas outside metropolitan Adelaide that are at present supplied with reticulated water - for example. Whyalla, Port Pirie, Port Lincoln, Mt Gambier and a number of country farm land areas - require an amount that is approximately 40% of that supplied to Adelaide. It is considered that this proportion of 40% will still hold good in 2000 AD, so in that year an allowance of 38 units per annum should be made for those areas.

The needs for Adelaide and other urban areas of South Australia can be summarised as follows: The needs now for metropolitan Adelaide are 30 units and for other urban areas 9 units, a total of 39 units. In 30 years hence in the year 2000 the needs are estimated to be: Metropolitan Adelaide 95 units; other urban areas 30 units - a total of 125 units. This is to mention only urban needs. About 105 units of water are at present used or committed for irrigation in South Australia, and this corresponds to about 1,105,000 acres of irrigated land. May I say that on our side of the border in South Australia, due to State government policy, this has not been haphazard development but planned development? It has been planned in relation to water availability. I wish I could say the same about the use of water for irrigation in New South Wales and Victoria, but I cannot say this. From the information I have been given, the development has not been properly planned, and my colleague the honourable member for Riverina for one has been left with the aftermath of this. Let me make a plea for more planned development in the future, bearing in mind the needs of all Australians.

One hundred and five units for our own South Australian irrigation areas is a lot, and at present rates of water availability there is not much room for expansion. It is no wonder that the citizens of the Murray are, in spite of the actions of their representative in this Parliament, vitally concerned with this important subject. It is no wonder that we in South Australia are particularly concerned with this subject. We cannot see at this point how our water needs are to be met in the year 2000 at the present rate of availability of water. But there is more than this: In spite of the fact that the present availability will be inadequate in 2000 A.D., there are other problems. There is the whole question of salinity.

Because of the lateness of the hour I will not quote further, as I had planned to, from Mr Bonython’s speech on this subject of South Australia’s needs, but I do want to say that I make no apology for reverting to his paper in a speech such as this in this Parliament. Not only does it outline the urgency of the problem of my people, the people I represent, but what I must point out is that this paper, which comes down heavily for the Chowilla dam, is a learned paper, not a shallow document concocted for any political purpose. Its message should be noted with care. It bears out the position which we on the Opposition side of this House have taken. There is a need for more study and a need for both dams.

Before concluding I would like to repeat briefly some of the reasons why we take up this position on this side of the House and say that more studies are required and there is a need for both dams or at least studies to see whether both dams are feasible. These are the reasons why we cannot countenance acceptance, on present information anyway, of the Dartmouth Dam to the exclusion of the Chowilla project; the reasons why Sir Thomas Playford cannot accept the position; the reasons why Mr J. R. Dridan, a former member of the River Murray Commission from South Australia cannot accept the position; the reasons why apparently the honourable member for Angas, who has temporarily disappeared, and who was on the Chowilla Dam Promotions Committee for so long with colleagues such as Sir Thomas Playford and Mr Dridan, as the minutes of that committee show, cannot accept the position; the reasons why the State Labor Opposition in the South Australian Parliament cannot accept this position, and indeed the reasons why the people of South Australia cannot accept this situation, as witnessed by the majorities received by myself and 7 colleagues from South Australia in the last general elections. Eight out of the 12 representatives from that State sit on this side of the House.

Firstly, there is the original River Murray Commission report on the proposed Chowilla storage, which has been discounted. I have a copy with me now. Hansard of 17th October 1961 shows that the report was introduced into the Parliament by the late Senator Sir William Spooner. It states quite clearly that full consideration was given at that stage to the possibility of constructing an additional water storage or storages above the Hume Reservoir. Secondly, there are so many unknowns in relation to the second technical committee report, so many questions to be answered and so many assumptions made which need further examination. I have been unconvinced by the whitewashing undertaken by Government speakers today on this subject. The South Australian Liberals have literally gone to water - Dartmouth water. They are as weak as Mr Hall, the Premier in South Australia. The coming elections in that State, if we are fortunate enough to have them, will be a test of character and, as much as anything, a test of leadership. I am supremely confident that the people of my State will back Don Dunstan to the hilt and that, with leadership, the rights of South Australia will be protected, not at the expense of the rest of Australia but for the economic development of my State and therefore for the benefit of all Australia.

But let me return to the unknowns - the questions yet to be answered in respect of the second technical committee report. Why has the former Minister for National Development, the present honourable member for Farrer (Mr Fairbairn), not answered the charges that he was anticipating the results of the inquiry before the technical committee had reported? I suppose it is because the evidence is incontravertible. It is in the minutes of the River Murray Commission. Why is it that an assumption has been made in feeding data to the computer for this report that 900 cubic feet per second, or 900 cusecs, is the required rate of flow past Mildura whilst a far lesser flow is apparently good enough for Loxton, Waikerie and other river towns in my State? It is not good enough for the honourable member for Farrer to tell the House that favourable results were achieved at 300 cusecs. This has not been published. Why should I at this stage accept his word for this?

Why is it that terms of reference were given to the committee to increase the yield, in fact, to maximise the yield to New South Wales and Victoria and not to seek this gain for South Australia? South Australians have a particular reason to feel resentment at this. We have had, as 1 said earlier, a proper system of licensing irrigators in our State to make sure, as far as it is possible to do so, that there will be sufficient water in drought years. We are witnessing other States in trouble because they have not been so prudent, and yet they are deriving advantages because of their mistakes. I have one more question relating to the second technical committee report. When considering evaporation why is it that the technical committee based a good deal of its comparisons between Dartmouth and Chowilla on a 3.5 million acre feet Chowilla storage and not the original 5 million acre feet storage? These are valid questions, and reasons enough to have doubts. These doubts, I remind the House, are the cause of the stand the Opposition takes tonight.

So much for the questions I raise in relation to the second technical committee report. Let me just make a few more points before leaving this report. Firstly, even the Minister in his second reading speech admitted that salinity is not a factor to be considered in comparing the 2 dams. This is the subject of confusion in a number of quarters. Secondly, a comparison of costs provides no reason for rejecting Chowilla. A modified Chowilla with a lock removed is estimated to cost $62m, Inclusive of the $5m to $6m already spent. Dartmouth, on preliminary estimates, is expected to cost $57.5m, together with up to another $7.2m for works on Lake Victoria - a total of up to $64. 7m. There is no saving of money in building Dartmouth dam. However in the case of Chowilla we are comparing a real tender price against an estimated tender price in the case of Dartmouth.

This brings me to the final reason why j think another look at this question is justified. Basic legal rights are involved. We cannot contradict the fact that at the time the Snowy River scheme was being developed South Australia withdrew an injunction in the High Court of Australia in return for Chowilla. South Australians have contributed to the Snowy Mountains scheme for more than 20 years for no return. We have rights to special consideration in the matter of having a storage nearby where water cannot flow upstream and be used by others. Let me just return to our position, which the honourable member for Mallee and others have ignored. The Government is treating this debate as though we want to kill Dartmouth or are considering the building of Dartmouth and Chowilla both at their present size. That just is not so. We are not satisfied that sufficient studies have been made of the various permutations and combinations that are possible. We want those studies. We want a proper structure to undertake those studies. We certainly do not want a Bill which, in effect, means the abandonment of the important Chowilla storage project.

Mr KELLY:
Wakefield

– The honourable member for Adelaide (Mr Hurford) spent much time protesting that South Australia needs water. No one argues with that. The object of this debate is to determine how to get South Australia most water. There is no doubt whatever about the engineering answer to this question. The honourable member for Farrer (Mr Fairbairn) spelt it out with delightful clarity. It is a long time since I have heard an honourable member speak with such complete mastery of his subject. Obviously he knew what he was talking about, and that is an advantage in this House. The honourable member for Angas (Mr Giles) followed up with a lot of technical details which spelt out the answer again. I repeat that there is no doubt about the engineering answer to South Australia’s problem of wanting more water.

Let me recount a personal experience in this regard. At one stage for a short while I was the Minister for Works. The Director pf Works, Mr Maunder, a very highly qualified engineer, came to me in some concern one day and said: ‘Mr Minister’ - he used to call me Mr Minister when I had not been Minister for long; he treated me with great respect - ‘we are in some trouble about Chowilla. It appears to us, as engineers, that it is going to be the wrong engineering answer. How do you view this?’ Being rather politically ingenuous I said: I am not really interested in the political answer. What I want is the correct engineering answer.’ This was the beginning of the uncertainty about whether Chowilla was the right engineering answer. When the price was confirmed by tender it became clear that there was even more room for uncertainty and at that stage Mr Dunstan, the then Premier of South Australia, with a proper sense of responsibility said that they ought to cease work and agreed to a cessation of work. He agreed also to the appointment of a technical committee to evaluate the engineering facts. This committee met, studied the question and confirmed that the proper engineering answer was to build the dam at Dartmouth.

My question to the House is this: What are we going to do about it, knowing these facts? Are we going to build a dam in the wrong place? May be there are votes in this, although I am glad to see an awakening awareness in South Australia that this is not a good way to behave. Are we going to agree to an answer which we know from an engineering point of view is unsound and give way to a clamour to build a dam in the wrong place? Are we going to give way to sentiment? I know that there is a place for sentiment in the world, but as far as South Australia is concerned my only interest is water.

What are the arguments against the engineering answer? What are the non-engineering questions that people raise - not the political ones? There are three. One is that South Australia will not control the dam. In South Australia there is being built up a picture of Sir Henry Bolte sitting with his hand on the tap ready to turn it off. The fundamental facts are that during the recent drought when Victoria and New South Wales were desperately short of water, because of the honour of governments in Australia and because of the River Murray Waters Agreement, those States let water down to South Australia. That is the way in which we would expect governments of all colours - responsible governments - to behave. It happened then; it will continue to happen. Another argument is that Dartmouth is too far away and the water will not get through to South Australia in time. This is just engineering nonsense. I point out that Lake Victoria contains 500,000 acre feet of water and that will give us all the urgent water South Australia will need. If Chowilla is built, everybody knows that it will submerge Lake Victoria. The other argument - and I suppose we have to include it as an argument - is that Chowilla is going to have an evaporation loss of 800,000 acre feet a year. This is one of the fundamental engineering facts that makes Chowilla the wrong engineering answer. I have beard people say that an evaporation of this quantity of water will change the climate of the surrounding area. That is a silly argument, but so are the other two. The three non-engineering nonpolitical arguments are all equally unsound. Honourable members have said: ‘Let us build both dams simultaneously.’ That would give South Australia almost no increase in water but the popular cry is to build both dams at once.

Dr Patterson:

– How do you know that there will be almost no increase in water?

Mr KELLY:

– I have listened to the engineers on this point, and this is an exercise that I would commend to the honourable member for Dawson. Does he expect the other States to agree to the building of another $60m-odd dam and not get any more water? It is true that South Australians may be able to say: ‘We have Chowilla. It is right on our boundary. We can go up there and ski, look at it and pat it.’ If not much water is to be gained from it South Australia may be attracted to it but it is hard to see why the other States should put in their hard earned money to build a dam which is going to give them hardly any more water. Why is it that there has been this explosion of sentiment about Chowilla? This has been the position in South Australia, but I am glad to see that it is dying down as the facts are hammered home.

People say that water is running out to the sea. I want the House to realise two fundamental facts. One is that water has to run out to sea to keep the lower Murray fresh. That has to happen anyhow. If we build Chowilla water must be released from Chowilla to keep the lower Murray fresh. The second fact that has been lost sight of far too much in this discussion - I was going to say debate, but I think that dignifies it rather - is that we can only economically use water that we know we are going to get. In some years flood water will be running out of the Murray because we cannot plan for that situation. Unless we can plan we cannot economically use water. The reason is fairly simple. If we are going to use water for irrigation we have to plant, say an orchard. If we plant an orchard when we have water and the water supply does not continue during a drought year, we go broke because the trees die. This is the fundamental reason why yield is so important and why it is not possible to use water we cannot plan for and why sometimes water has to run out to sea, apart from the need to keep the lower Murray fresh.

I was urged to be brief but I want to close by making a considered statement and I do so as one whose only interest in this exercise is the welfare of his State. If as a result of the politics that we have seen indulged in in this particular case and on other occasions the South Australian Government is defeated and a Labor government is returned to office, there is no doubt whatever that the two dams will not be built. There is no doubt that Dartmouth will be built first, because it is the right engineering answer, and that Chowilla will have to wait its time because that is the right engineering answer. I have too much respect for Opposition parties not to think that if they get into Government they will become aware of the responsibilities attaching to their position. I have no doubt that both dams will not be built even if Labor is returned in South Australia. This point should be hammered home to a Parliament such as this. It is not a case of politics; it is a case of engineering and the proper use of limited resources in a State that desperately needs water.

Dr GUN:
Kingston

– The Government and the Opposition seem to be speaking somewhat at cross purposes in this debate. Government supporters seem to be approaching this matter with a view to defending Dartmouth against the attacks of the Opposition, which is accused of being opposed to the Dartmouth storage. This is not so. We have no quarrel with the principal purpose of this Bill, which is to provide for the construction of a storage at Dartmouth. Let us be clear on that. However, we believe that it is important that the door be not closed to construction of a dam at Chowilla. In his second reading speech on the River Murray Waters Bill the Minister for National Development (Mr Swartz) said:

Clause 13 provides for the deferment of construction of the Chowilla Reservoir as agreed by the 4 governments.

The Minister is well aware, as is the Premier of Victoria and everybody else, that deferment of the Chowilla project at this stage, as envisaged in the Bill, will mean cancellation of Chowilla for all time.

Mr Turnbull:

– No.

Dr GUN:

– This is the point which the honourable member for Mallee did not make clear earlier in the debate. We submit that if this Bill is passed it will mean the end of Chowilla for all time. Some blandishments were uttered by honourable members opposite, particularly the honourable member for Angas (Mr Giles), to the effect that the Government would be keeping its options open regarding the construction of Chowilla if this legislation were passed, but this is not so. If this legislation is passed it is curtains for Chowilla. This was virtually admitted by the Minister in his second reading speech when he said:

It was also agreed that … the Menindee Lakes Storage Agreement, which had been regarded as a temporary measure pending completion of Chowilla, should be continued indefinitely.

In other words, the Agreement now goes on forever; it is no longer contingent on completion of the Chowilla proposal. The life of the present arrangement regarding the Menindee Lakes is no longer related in any way to construction of Chowilla. As the River Murray Waters Agreement now stands, construction of the Chowilla dam shall be continued without cessation, other than may be due to unavoidable causes, until the work is completed. That is the Agreement as ratified by the Parliaments of New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia and the Commonwealth in 1963. That is the Agreement which was eulogised by Sir Robert Menzies and, I believe, also by the honourable member for Mallee (Mr Turnbull) in 1963. It is still articulately and eloquently supported by that former Liberal Premier of South Australia, Sir Thomas Playford. This is the substance of the present Agreement and this is how it will remain until this Bill is ratified by each of the 4 Parliaments. The honourable member for Farrer (Mr Fairbairn) said earlier tonight that the 1963 Agreement was no longer in force because this legislation has been ratified by the Parliaments of New South Wales and Victoria, but this is not so. The River Murray Waters Agreement stands as passed in 1963 and ratified by the 4 Parliaments. That is how it stands until it is ratified by each of the 3 State parliaments and the Commonwealth Parliament. Once this happens - that is, assuming that this Bill is passed and is ratified by all 4 Parliaments - the Chowilla proposal will go back into the melting pot.

This Bill will amend clause 24 of the River Murray Waters Agreement so that Chowilla will be deferred until the contracting governments agree mat the work shall proceed. In other words, the approval of all 4 governments would have to be obtained before work on Chowilla may be resumed. What chance is there of all 4 governments agreeing now? How would Sir Henry Bolte react, in the unlikely event of his still being Premier of Victoria after the next State elections? He has already stated that he is prepared to see Dartmouth jettisoned, despite its benefits lo Victoria. If Dartmouth is refused ratification by any of the Parliaments he will spend Victoria’s annual contribution of $4m on something else. This being so what chance is mere of his agreeing to Chowilla? This point was raised by the honourable member for Wakefield (Mr Kelly), who asked why should die Victorians agree to building Chowilla if they are not to get much out of it. I do not know how this aspect squares with the argument advanced by the honourable member for Angas, who said that the options regarding the construction of Chowilla are still open. There seems to be an area of conflict between the honourable member for Angas and the honourable member for Wakefield. I challenge any honourable member opposite to show that this Agreement will mean anything other than the finish of Chowilla.

Mr Turnbull:

– I accept the challenge.

Dr GUN:

– The honourable member for Mallee did not disprove my assertion in any way in his speech.

The proposed works on Lake Victoria are a further clear indication of what the Government intends to do. The River Murray Commission proposes to spend a further $7m on Lake Victoria. If Chowilla were to go ahead later this $7m worth of public works, paid for by public money, would be inundated. Does the Minister seriously expect us to believe that it is the Government’s intention to go ahead with S7m worth of work in the anticipation that subsequently all of it will be inundated? For goodness sake let the Government come out in the open and disclose its real intentions. I repeat that the Labor Party is not opposing construction of the storage at Dartmouth, but the Agreement must be varied so that the Chowilla reservoir is not shelved permanently. What we shall be seeking in the Committee stage will be a further study by the River Murray Commission of the feasibility of a two dam proposal so that Chowilla and Dartmouth may be proceeded with concurrently.

I am concerned that so far we have had insufficient data from the Commission to enable South Australians to be completely happy about Dartmouth. I see that the honourable member for Mallee is now withdrawing from the chamber. I have seen more prudent retreats in my time but seldom more solitary ones.

Mr Turnbull:

– I rise to order. I am not withdrawing. I was moving to speak to another member. I am in the fight and I stay.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Luchetti)Order! There is no substance in the point taken by the honourable member.

Dr GUN:

– I am concerned that there has not been a benefit cost analysis of the Dartmouth proposals. There has been only an analysis of cost. The honourable member for Wakefield raised this point, although in a different context. He said that he was concerned only with engineering. It is not just a matter of engineering. It is a matter of what we are to do with the water made available as a result of any engineering projects that may be carried out. This is a matter of agricultural economics as well as engineering.

Since the first day of the present session I have had on the notice paper a question addressed to the Minister for National Development in these terms:

What is the maximum additional diversion of water which would be made possible to Kew South Wales and Victoria from the River Murray by the construction of the Dartmouth Dam.
To what use are New South Wales and Victoria expected to put the additional water thus diverted.
Has a cost benefit analysis been carried out on the various projects on which New South Wales and Victoria will use the additional water.
What effect on salinity of the river in South Australia is expected from this additional wafer use in New South Wales and Victoria.

So it is not just a matter of engineering. These are vital questions concerned with the construction of the Dartmouth dam. These are questions that are not answered by the purely engineering standpoint that has been taken in the report of the River Murray Commission. I think this is something we are entitled to have answered. I do not think it would be a difficult question to answer; it is a fairly straightforward one. Yet the Minister has failed to answer it, although it has been on the notice paper for some 5 or 6 weeks. We already know the vital use that South Australia is making and will continue to make crf the River Murray waters. It is not just for agricultural purposes but used for industrial and domestic purposes as well. Without the River Murray South Australia would not have developed to its present state. In fact it is most probable that, if we had not had reports of Captain Barker and Captain Sturt in the 1830s about the great waterway that was available close to what is now Adelaide, the area of metropolitan Adelaide would not have been colonised. So this is what the River Murray means to South Australians.

I think it is fair to ask: What use will be made of River Murray waters by New South Wales and Victoria? What will be grown? What are the marketing prospects for whatever is to be grown? What will be the effect of salinity on the river downstream in South Australia when these products are grown? Where will they be sold? Will we have to subsidise the people who are producing these goods upstream in New South Wales and Victoria? The Minister has already stated in his second reading speech that the upstream States have already entered into commitments for the use of water from the Murray system in anticipation of the availability of additional supplies. So we can anticipate that when water from the additional diversion at Dartmouth becomes available to the upstream States the supply will be taken up quickly. In such a circumstance salinity control from the present Dartmouth-Lake Victoria complex may not be adequate for the water when it reaches South Australia. Yet if this agreement passes, South Australia has no safeguard. There will be no provision for a storage downstream from Lake Victoria, no safeguards of future controls over salinity and no safeguards against a further important contingency - drought. In a drought year there is no guarantee as to the volume of water that will be available. The Agreement provides that in a year of restriction the water available shall be shared equally between the 3 States.

A storage at Chowilla may be necessary in that case to prevent South Australia being embarrassed by a shortage of water in a dry year. What the Opposition is askingfor is a study of the feasibility of building the 2 dams. We cannot discount this idea on the basis of cost on the knowledge of the proposals at present. For a start we have only a cost analysis on individual storages of varying capacities; that is, we have cost analyses on varying capacities for the Dartmouth and the Chowilla proposals. As far as I can tell, we do not have a cost benefit analysis. Furthermore we cannot assume that the cost of a 2-dam proposal would necessarily be equal to the sum of the individual estimates for Chowilla and Dartmouth. In other words, if $xm is necessary to build Chowilla and $ym is necessary to build Dartmouth, we should not necessarily assume that $xm plus $ym will be the total outlay for building the 2 dams. It could welt be that a smaller storage could be built at Dartmouth or at Chowilla or both in such an integrated system and this might be the best prospect for a cost-benefit analysis.

It has also been suggested that if we oppose this Bill we will be unduly prolonging the building of the Dartmouth dam. I would like to submit that there would be no undue delay because we already have much of the data that would be required for a computer run on having the 2 dams built at the same time. We already have the stream gaugings that were used at the time of the last River Murray Commission report, which was released last year. We also have the study of salinity from the consultants’ report which was made available at the same time. So such a study is a practical proposition. It is not asking a great deal; it is a very reasonable request. The Opposition strongly feels that Chowilla cannot be discarded at this stage if further water use is to occur in New South Wales and Victoria. I have mentioned the commitments entered into in anticipation of further water becoming available. What happens when this demand has been met after Dartmouth has been built? Who is to say that further demand will not occur and will it be acceded to? In such circumstances we must have a safeguard to the quality and the quantity of water downstream. I therefore ask all honourable members to bear in mind that this Bill closes the door on Chowilla for all time and I urge them to support the amendment.

Mr McLEAY:
Boothby

– Let me say at the beginning that this Bill does not close the door on Chowilla for all time. There may be some time in the future when Chowilla can be considered as a practical possibility and we must not end on the note that Chowilla is finished forever. That is not true. I am pleased to be able to support this legislation absolutely. I might say that the controversy over Chowilla has raged in South Australia for at (east 8 years and it is becoming something of an emotional issue. It has been used by all sorts of vested interests to pursue their own hobby horse. In particular, it is being used, as we have seen tonight, by the Labor members both here and in South Australia as a vehicle to gain government in that State without the slightest concern for the wellbeing of the people who live in South Australia and who leave the negotiations for adequate water supplies in the hands of their political representatives, hoping that they are men of integrity.

I wish to pay a very warm tribute to the personal and political honesty of the Premier of South Australia and the South Australian Government. The Premier could have chosen to play on the emotional appeal of Chowilla just as Labor is doing now and the honourable member for Kingston (Dr Gun) has just done. His Government originally sought this project as strenuously as Labor appears to do now but when the technical comparisons were released in January last year he had the integrity and the political courage to agree to look at the agreement again. What is more, he was able to achieve something out of what seemed like bad news for his State by successfully negotiating an increased water quota for South Australia. I would like to quote him. In January of last year he said:

Our share of 1,500,000 acre feet will be guaranteed under conditions which have obtained in all years so far studied. If a series of droughts eventuate greater than known since 1905, South Australia will share on an equal basis with the other States. This is not only a great win for my Government but one of the most important pieces of news the South Australian public have heard.

I repeat this statement so that there can be a permanent record of his comments in the Federal Hansard.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! There is too much conversation in the left hand corner of the chamber.

Mr McLEAY:

– They are people who are prepared to talk outside the chamber and not listen to what is being said inside, although it is of interest to South Australia. The Leader of the Opposition in South Australia has sought to persuade South Australians that the Chowilla project should proceed whether it is the most economic and beneficial storage that could be built on the Murray River. He claims a legal and moral commitment to the project; yet 3 years ago he signed the agreement to look for alternative sites provided South Australia could get benefits from any alternative to Chowilla not less than those available under the agreement to build Chowilla. The Premier of South Australia, Mr Steele Hall, has done a great deal better.

I wish to refer also to an inaccurate statement made by the honourable member for Hindmarsh (Mr Clyde Cameron) who. unfortunately, is not in the House tonight, but who, I hope, will be listening to the debate. In February of last year, the honourable member wrote in a letter to the Adelaide ‘Advertiser’:

What guarantee have we got that Dartmouth will not cost more than Chowilla? The Snowy Mountains Authority, which is recommending Dartmouth, underestimated the cost of the Snowy scheme by $400m.

I wish to say that this statement simply is not true. The Snowy Mountains Hydroelectric Authority and this Government have taken pride in the fact that the Snowy scheme is being completed within the original estimate which was quoted as £400m, not $400m. I would have hoped that the honourable member for Hindmarsh would alter this statement, or alternatively, brush up his arithmetic. Labor members of Parliament and others have sought to misrepresent the use of national funds for projects which have been to the exclusive benefit of certain States and have suggested that the Snowy Mountains scheme is exclusively for the benefit of New South Wales and Victoria. The truth is that South Australians do not assist in this scheme any more than the citizens of any other part of Australia assist through the provision of funds by the Commonwealth Government. Furthermore, South Australia does receive important benefits from the scheme which are not shared by Queensland, Western Australia and Tasmania, namely, the diversion of water into the Murray River system which has a direct effect on South Australia’s water supply.

In terms of the River Murray Waters Agreement or the Snowy Mountains Hydroelectric Authority Agreement, in addition to replacing water diverted from the Tooma River to the Tumut River, the scheme provided for additional diversions from the Snowy system to the River Murray, and specifies that in times of drought there shall be net diversions to the Murray of not less than 40,000 acre feet per month, up to 280,000 acre feet in any restriction period. The overall result of these provisions is that net diversions to the Murray are expected to average approximately 500,000 acre feet per annum and to approach 700,000 acre feet in dry years. These provisions were an important factor in enabling the South Australian entitlement to waters from the Murray to be increased from 1,254,000 acre feet per annum to 1,500,000 acre feet per annum after the completion of the Dartmouth storage.

The simple fact now is that the technical studies have shown that South Australia cannot be assured of obtaining its quota with Chowilla, but it can with Dartmouth. This knowledge is not any reflection on the 1961 concept, or the engineers and political leaders at that time. Over the period, all the sciences, which include engineering, the study of hydrology and salinity and so on. have widened their knowledge and their experience, and to continue to attempt to discredit the known facts of the 1968 and 1969 ministerial statements - and anyone quoting those facts - is only making it more difficult to accept them, as one day we all must, including honourable members opposite. If Labor happens to win government at the possible early election which is foreshadowed in South Australia, you can be quite sure, Mr Speaker - and I think thai the people of Australia can be sure also - that within a very short time such a Labor government would find some pretext or another which would justify the reversal of its attitude and seeking to do what the present Premier now sees as vital to the State.

We had 2 early warnings that there may be problems with Chowilla. The first warning was when the original estimate escalated from $28m to $43m. The second warning was when the contract price rose to more than 50% of the revised estimate. The only statements publicised at that time were: ‘We must have Chowilla’, but to me it would have seemed more responsible if we had said or if people in responsible positions had said: ‘Let us wait and see; perhaps we should be able to do better at this price’. I think that it is important to keep the issues as narrowly defined as possible so that South Australians will not risk being fobbed off by voluminous technical details. I therefore list a few of the important aspects of this Bill.

In the first instance, I deal briefly wilh the ownership of the water. The whole Murray system and waters are controlled by the River Murray Commission of which South Australia is a member. When and if Chowilla is constructed, it will not become the property of our State - that is, the State of South Australia - any more than any of the other dams are the property of any State within which they are erected. A lot has been said about State rights. I would make the comment that all 3 States have surrendered mutually some rights to the Commission. Clause 30 sets down certain procedures which a State must follow if it wishes to build its own dam. In practice, few States would wish or could afford to go it alone.

The question of Dartmouth was dealt with very satisfactorily, I think, by the former Minister for National Development, the honourable member for Farrer (Mr Fairbairn). In fact, it is quite unnecessary, 1 suppose, relatively speaking, for any of us to follow him. It has been argued that the Snowy River Commission’s estimate for constructing Dartmouth could be as mistaken as the original Chowilla estimate. I have heard 3 speakers on the Labor sid. say this tonight. The position is that the Commission undertook similar work on the proposed Talbingo Dam, which is almost identical to Dartmouth, and the contract price was a shade less than the estimate.

Criticism has been directed to the subject of yield. I think that we should understand what ‘yield’ means. Yield is a combination of storage, inflow and evaporation. The technical investigations showed that, over the last 50 years, Chowilla would not have filled for 2 periods of 5 years and one period of 10 years and that the evaporation would have ranged from 800,000 acre feel to more than 1 million acre feet in 1 year. At Dartmouth, the evaporation averages 15,000 acre feet per year. As was said earlier, the yield from Dartmouth is 5 times the yield from Chowilla. Many people in South Australia talk in an emotional way about Lake Victoria. Every time 1 fly from Adelaide to Sydney and then to Canberra, I fly over Lake Victoria. It has been said that in times of urgent need water will be 6 weeks away’ without Chowilla. This is not the position.

There is always a controlled flow through Lake Victoria which holds 400,000 acre feet and which could deliver very much more if required. South Australia sought assurances of 1,254,000 acre feet in a dry year in the 1961 arrangement. This can be achieved with Dartmouth but not with Chowilla. In any case, 400,000 acre feet of it is stored flowing - this is significant - at Lake Victoria and talk of water being weeks, days or hours away from South Australia just does not apply. Lake Victoria itself, if Chowilla is ever built, will be submerged. I would think that there would be then some very interesting legal problems involving this question of State rights. Although the dam will be in South Australia the storage will be in Victoria.

The only other point I wish to mention is the Hume storage. The present entitlement of water in a period of restriction is New South Wales 5 parts, Victoria 5 parts and South Australia 3 parts. When the Chowilla dam or the Dartmouth dam is constructed we in South Australia are to receive one-third along with the other States but the investigations have shown that Chowilla would not be capable of supplying us with the increased water we are to expect under the new formula. The whole purpose of the investigation was to find a dam site which, for a similar amount of money, could supply us with our requirements in dry years. I assert that in spite of the suggestions put forward by all sorts of people in all sorts of places nobody has blundered, either at the political or the technical level. The scientists in 1968 had more advanced technological aids than were available when we considered these figures in 1961. South Australia will acquire from the River Murray the assured water supplies that we sought more than 8 years ago. In my view actually it is a fortuitous circumstance for South Australia that the original project was delayed and the projected deficiency discovered before the Chowilla dam was constructed. No doubt other storages will be built on the River Murray in the future and the Chowilla dam will be one of them. But there must eventually be a limit to the water availability and now would seem to me to be the time to commence serious investigations into other future sources of supply. I am pleased to be able to support this Bill, Mr Speaker. I urge the House to support it and to negate the amendment.

Motion (by Mr Giles) put:

That the question be now put.

The House divided. (Mr Speaker - Hon. Sir William Aston)

AYES: 60

NOES: 53

Majority . . 7

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Question put -

That the words proposed to be omitted (Dr Patterson’s amendment) stand part of the question.

The House divided. (Mr Speaker - Hon. Sir William Aston)

AYES: 60

NOES: 53

Majority . . . . 7

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Original question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee

The Bill.

Mr SWARTZ:
Minister for National Development · Darling Downs · LP

– I refer to clause 4 which reads:

The sixth further amending Agreement, a copy of which is set out in section 7 of this Act, is hereby ratified and approved.

I move:

Omit ‘7’, insert ‘6’.

The purpose of this amendment is to correct an erroneous cross reference in clause 4 of the Bill. Clause 4 refers to the amending agreement, a copy of which is set out in section 7 of the Act. The amending agreement is in fact set out in section 6 of the Act and the amendment will merely correct the error.

Amendment agreed to.

Dr PATTERSON:
Dawson

-I move:

Omit ‘is hereby ratified and Approved’, insert shall not be approved until an immediate computer evaluation of the construction of storages of various capacities at both Dartmouth and Chowilla has been completed’.

Mr Calder:

– Let us have a few facts.

Mr GRASSBY:

– I hope that the honourable member who said that says it again, because the Minister told him at the second reading stage that detailed economic studies of the benefits from this storage have not been processed. The honourable member should have called for facts in the Party room. I do not know why he is coming in at the Committee stage and telling me that he wants facts. He should have told his Minister. The Government comes in here with a measure - I might say, backed up with inadequate and confusing data - against a background of complete confusion amongst members of the Government. They have been speaking with two voices on this.

The other point that 1 wish to draw attention to in relation to this proposal is that the Minister for National Development made a misleading statement when he said that the Menindee Lakes storage would only temporarily be in hock to South Australia as a result of the Bill that we have before us tonight. When we look at it in detail we find that the report of the River Murray Commission says that the Menindee Lakes Storage Agreement should be extended in perpetuity. The Minister said twice in his second reading speech that in fact it is to be only a temporary thing. It was going to be indefinite, certainly, but it was temporary. This was the indication. When we come to have a look at this matter we find that the series of storages amount in fact to I million acre feet. The only reason why there is not 2 million acre feet in them, as the honourable member for Darling will know, is that the New South Wales Government did not do the right thing and has not restored them in the right and proper way. In fact, the storage is half of what it could well be. So we are talking about 2 million acre feet. What are they saying? They say that a storage with a potential of 2 million acre feet has to be thrown into this Agreement. To make up for what?

We have been told that Dartmouth has a greater and better yield than Chowilla. I am not debating it, but I point out that if this is so, why do we need a storage in perpetuity with a capacity of 2 million acre feet in addition to Dartmouth? Why do we need it?

Mr Giles:

– The honourable member should know because he is from New South Wales.

Mr GRASSBY:

– I could tell the honourable member on behalf of New South Wales that behind a smokescreen of words - a deliberate smokescreen - which the Minister for National Development started to lay down in his second reading speech, the Government in effect is going to take the only major storage in the Darling basin in New South Wales and South Australia in perpetuity. Yet, honourable members come here and tell us that they are going to build a better dam with a better yield and there is no need to worry about Chowilla at all because Dartmouth will perform much better. These facts do not add up and this is the reason for the amendment.

Mr Pettitt:

– Take note of it.

Mr GRASSBY:

– Yes, I should think so. If I speak with some heat 1 am justified in doing so. I represent communities which are on the brink of disaster because of the greatest mess in water conservation in the nation’s history. Yet I have been gagged at this hour of the night in order to satisfy some whim or other of the Government. I think that is a disgrace to the nation. It is a disgrace to the national Government in this consideration of vital projects.

Unlike some honourable members opposite I see no cause for amusement in this. We are talking of something that was done in a wrong way and which could cost S6m - wasted money. We could be up for another $7m - wasted money - because of the inability of the Government to make up its mind. So there is no reason for smiling; there is no room for levity in this. We should be ashamed of the fact that we members of this national Parliament have inadequate data for the debate and an inadequate presentation of the case from all sides of the House. This does us little credit. I say with great seriousness that the livelihood and very existence of people are at stake. Some cognisance should be taken of that. This is not just a political matter; this is a matter of national development for many years ahead.

My assessment is that if our amendment is not carried and the Bill is passed despite all of our efforts, this will spell possibly the construction of the last major storage on the Murray in this generation. This is if the Government lasts, because this is clearly the intention of the Bill. My South Australian colleagues do not say: ‘Oh, we should not have Dartmouth’. All they are concerned with on behalf of their State is to see that Chowilla is not dumped forever. There is nothing wrong with that as an attitude and for one I stand with them on it. Those members have been most reasonable. They have told me that they have no intention of delaying in any way another urgently required storage on the Murray. They have nothing against Dartmouth. What they say is: *If there is to be Dartmouth and nothing else, it is not adequate’. I say that it is not. It will not satisfy South Australia’s ‘ requirements; it will not take Menindee out of hock; and it will not take the straightjacket off the Murray districts.

Honourable members should not forget that there are 2,000 farmers and 20,000 people who are now depending on allocations of water which assume that Chowilla dam has been completed now. That is a disgrace to the Parliament. If the weather changes and the season changes they will face disaster. These are serious matters. A whole complex of people and industries is involved. The Minister for National Development has a responsibility at this stage to rise in his place - and I challenge him to do it - and explain how he can reconcile what he said in his second reading speech with what in fact we are now asked to vote on because they do not add up. The need for a proper assessment of water conservation projects was never greater. The only thing that has been said on this side of the chamber tonight is that there should be proper economic, proper agronomic and proper engineering assessments. This is ali that has been said. They have not said anything else. This, I might say, was described by a supporter of the Government as sentimental slop. What stage of debate have we reached when a man rises on this side and pleads for a proper appreciation of a project which will cost - what? Who knows? - $S0m at least and in the long run $100m if the two storages are built and a plea-

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! The honourable member’s time has expired.

Mr GILES:
Angas

– 1 will not keep the Committee one moment. I just want to reply to the honourable member for Riverina (Mr Grassby), who suggested that his farmers are in trouble due to the fact that there is an assessment in river flow that takes into account, so he says, that Chowilla is built. Either he is right or he is wrong on this. If he is right in his contention surely it means quite clearly that he, in spite of the illogicality of his reason, realises that when Dartmouth is completed New South Wales will be better off. It is true that New South Wales will be better off, but it will not be so much better off as South Australia. I am very glad to see that the honourable member for Riverina agrees with that line of reasoning.

Chowilla will be somewhat less than will occur if the Dartmouth Dam is built. We on this side of the chamber say that there should be studies into the whole question of River Murray storage generally and that a proper study should be made of the proposal to build both dams simultaneously. At the very least we believe that the proposal to build Chowilla should not be dumped completely. We believe that the River Murray Waters Bill precludes completely any hope of the Chowilla Dam being built because it gives the right of veto to any one State. If anyone outside Victoria claims that he can trust Bolte, he is absolutely foolish. Bolte can be conned by the Americans in relation to off-shore drilling for oil but apparently the Premier of South Australia has not been able to put up a good enough argument to counteract his persuasion of. this Government and the manner in which it has approached this matter.

The right of veto should nol be given to any one State. Taking South Australia as a case in point, the right of veto can rest in the hands of one person. Two measures have been carried by a majority of the South Australian Parliament and the Premier has gone outside and said on the steps of the Parliament building: ‘Irrespective of what the Parliament has done I will not permit them’. That is why we on this side of the chamber are concerned. AH that we of the Opposition want is something written into the Bill which will provide that, when the people who are not thinking straight today in relation to this matter believe that the Chowilla Dam should be built, it will be built.

Mr SWARTZ:
Minister for National Development · Darling Downs · LP

– The amendment moved by the honourable member for Dawson (Dr Patterson) is not acceptable for a number of reasons. The main reason is that it is based on incorrect premises. The honourable member based his case on the fact that the information which had been provided was not adequate and that in fact insufficient information was made available publicly to indicate the extent of the investigations which had been undertaken. The second reason is that this proposed amendment, if passed, would mean that the measure would be delayed. As 1 pointed out in my second reading speech to the House, this is now a matter of urgency and it should be clarified by the Parliament as quickly as possible.

Let me come back to the first point. The honourable member for Dawson referred to the fact - at least he claimed it to be the fact - that information had not been made available publicly. My predecessor as Minister for National Development, the honourable member for Farrer (Mr Fairbairn), made a statement on 31st January 1969. I will merely quote from 1 or 2 paragraphs of that statement. He said:

The River Murray Commission today released the 3 reports on which it is basing its latest assessment of a site for the proposed new major storage on the Murray. They are a report by the Commission’s Technical Committee, a special interim report by the Commission’s salinity consultants, and a study by the Snowy Mountains Authority of the Dartmouth Dam site in Victoria.

He went on to say:

In September 1968 the Commission published a statement on its progress in considering the site of the next major storage on the Murray.

He also added:

The latest reports released today give some indication of the intensive effort that has gone into this important study, and the quality of data available to the Commission as a basis for its deliberations.

He also said:

It seemed desirable, in the public interest, to make the reports freely available in order that the merits of the respective dam sites under consideration might be better understood.

These reports were published, were made available publicly and were available to the honourable member if he desired to study them.

In referring to this specific situation, the computer programme itself enabled a great many more studies to be made in the available time. About 260 individual simulations of the operation of the whole River Murray system over the historical period 1905 to 1959 for a wide range of conditions were carried out. This is probably about 5 times as many as were carried out over the whole period from 1902 to 1967. In relation to the reference to the variables which have been mentioned by the honourable member for Dawson, a table was set out in one of the reports and it referred to the variables used in the 1967-69 computer studies. It referred to the studies made in relation to Chowilla, Dartmouth, Gibbo, Murray Gates, Jingellic and Buffalo. A minor study was made in relation to Menindee. The report said that if all the possible combinations of the evaluations of variables listed had been examined, over 3 million operational studies would have been required. In fact some 260 selected studies were completed to the end of February 1969. That clearly indicates, firstly, the penetrating study that had been undertaken in this computer programme which dealt with the situation and also the fact that these reports were published and a public statement was made by my predecessor indicating that they were available publicly at the time.

The honourable member for Riverina (Mr Grassby) referred to the question of the Menindee storage and said that I referred in my second reading speech to the fact that this was to be only a temporary measure. If he had studied my second reading speech he would have seen that the exact wording was:

The other major change resulting from the Dartmouth project is the agreement to continue the Menindee Lakes Storage Agreement indefinitely.

Perhaps he read the next paragraph in which I said that it was earlier visualised as a temporary measure, but my statement that the agreement for the Menindee Lakes storage would continue indefinitely was positive. That is exactly what is being done in the Agreement. I conclude by reiterating what I said at the outset: This particular amendment is not acceptable to the Government.

Dr GUN:
Kingston

– Before I address my few remarks to the Committee I should like to say that I cannot understand why the Minister for National Development (Mr Swartz) did not exercise his right of reply to the second reading debate. One can only conclude from his failure to do so that he had no answer to the submissions put forward by the Opposition. But to come to the substance of what I want to say: With respect 1 think that the Minister has misconstrued the meaning of the Opposition’s amendment. The amendment reads:

Omit ‘is hereby ratified and approved’, insert shall not be approved until an immediate computer evaluation of the construction of storages of various capacities at both Dartmouth and Chowilla has been completed’.

The meaning of that - the Minister may not agree with this interpretation - is that a computer study be done on the effect of both dams being built. I have had a look at the reports the Minister has just mentioned, namely, the reports of the River Murray Commission relating to the future development of the water resources of the River Murray made in January 1969. Those are the 3 reports to which he referred. There are indeed different studies on the varying capacities of the two dams - Chowilla and Dartmouth - but there is not anywhere any study of yields if the two dams were constructed simultaneously; in other words, of what would be the yields if we had both Chowilla and Dartmouth -

Motion (by Mr Snedden) put:

That the question be now put.

The Committee divided. (The Chairman - Mr P. E. Lucock)

AYES: 58

NOES: 52

Majority . . . . 6

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Question put:

That the words proposed to be omitted (Dr Patterson’s amendment) stand part of the clause.

The Committee divided. (The Chairman- Mr P. E. Lucock)

AYES: 58

NOES: 52

Majority . . 6

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Mr GRASSBY:
Riverina

- Mr Speaker-

Motion (by Mr Snedden) put:

That the question now be put.

The Committee divided. (The Chairman- Mr P. E. Lucock)

AYES: 58

NOES: 52

Majority . . . . 6

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Thursday, 9 April 1970

Question put:

That the Bill, as amended, be agreed to.

The Committee divided. (The Chairman - Mr P. E. Lucock)

AYES: 58

NOES: 52

Majority . . 6

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Bill reported with an amendment.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! Is leave granted?

Dr Patterson:

– No.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Leave is not granted.

Mr Snedden:

– Pursuant to contingent notice headed: ‘Contingent to any report being received from a committee or any report being adopted’, I move:

Majority . . . . 7

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Question put:

That the Standing Orders be suspended (Mr Snedden’s motion).

The House divided. (Mr Speaker - Hon. Sir William Aston)

AYES: 59

NOES: 52

Majority . . . . 7

AYES

NOES

– The honourable member will withdraw his remark unreservedly.

Mr Hayden:

– I withdraw it at your direction.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! I name the honourable member for Oxley.

Motion (by Mr Snedden) proposed:

That the honourable member for Oxley be suspended from the service of the House.

-Order! The honourable member for Dawson will resume his seat.

Dr Patterson:

– I will not resume my seat. He is the one who has caused the trouble.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for Dawson will resume his seat. (Opposition members having risen in their places)-

Opposition members - Throw us all out.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I regret having to do this, but 1 shall suspend the sitting qf the House until the ringing of the bells on account of grave disorder in this House.

Sitting suspended from 12.40 a.m. to 2.15 a.m.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I regret to inform honourable members that the business of the Parliament cannot proceed until such time as the honourable member for Wills is outside the chamber. It is my duty as the Speaker of this House to see that the decisions of the House in connection with this Parliament are carried through. The House has suspended the honourable member for Wills from the service of this House.

Opposition members - The Government has suspended him.

Mr SPEAKER:

That the Leader of the Opposition be heard.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! I am sorry. I cannot accept the motion.

Mr Barnard:

– The motion that the Leader of the Opposition be heard has been proposed and seconded.

Mr SPEAKER:

– The motion is out of order.

Mr Daly:

– I move:

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! I have not given a ruling. Will the honourable member for Wills leave the chamber?

Opposition members - There is a motion.

Mr SPEAKER:

– We have business before the House. While there is business before the House no other motion can be moved. There was business before the House, and the sitting was suspended. Is the honourable member for Wills prepared to leave the chamber? Order! The sitting is suspended until 10.30 a.m. this day.

Sitting suspended at 2.23 a.m. (Thursday)

page 886

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS UPON NOTICE

The following answers to questions upon notice were circulated:

Papua and New Guinea: Possession of Firearms (Question No. 393)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Minister for External Territories upon notice:

What restrictions apply to the possession of firearms in the Territory of Papua and New Guinea.
How many (a) expatriates and (b) indigenes in (i) the Army, (ii) the police and (iii) other occupations are issued wilh firearms.
In what grades and classifications are Administration employees (a) issued with or (b) permitted to carry pistols.
What restrictions on pistol practice (a) applied before and (b) have applied since a young indigene was wounded at Pomio in East New Britain on 24 September 1969.
What disabilities does the young indigene still sutler; what compensation has been paid to him, and who paid it.

Mr Barnes:
Minister for External Territories · MCPHERSON, QUEENSLAND · CP

– The answer to the honour able member’s question is as follows:

Under the Firearms Regulation Ordinance 1963-1965 firearms in the possession of members of the public must be registered. Registration may be refused upon grounds of age, safety, convictions in relation to firearms offences, or upon the ground that the owner has no substantial reason for requiring the firearm or that there are other substantial reasons, e.g., the number of firearms in the owner’s locality, for the refusal. A person must not be in possession of a firearm unless it is registered in his name or unless it is registered in his employer’s name and there is in force a permit allowing him to carry it. The Ordinance imposes a number of restrictions upon the possession of lirearms. A person who has a firearm in his possession is required to take all reasonable precautions to ensure its safe-keeping. It is an offence to be found drunk in physical possession of a loaded firearm. A person must not, without reasonable excuse, carry a firearm exposed to the public view in a public place within the boundaries of a town. A special licence or permit is required by the Ordinance for the possession of a pistol or a highpowered firearm. The Ordinance does not require that a firearm that is the property of the Crown or the Administration and is carried by a member of the Defence Forces, of the Public Service or of the Police Force should be registered or licensed.
1. (i) The Army in the Territory of Papua and New Guinea holds sufficient weapons for issue to all members of the Army, both expatriate and indigenous. Under normal circumstances, members of the Army working permanently on base tasks, i.e., at Murray Barracks, Port Moresby would not have firearms on permanent issue. Firearms are secured in a central armoury and issued as required for activities such as guard duty, annual range practices and training. Members of units engaged in field work would normally have weapons on permanent issue. The issue of ammunition to Army members is controlled.
2. The 197 expatriate and 25 indigenous commissioned officers of the Regular Constabulary Branch of the Police Force are issued with pistols. Firearms are not issued to other ranks on a personal basis except in the case of detachments on posts on the West Irian border for the duration of their postings. However, .303 service rifles held by detachments of the Police Force on the basis of one for each member on the strength of the Regular Constabulary and the Reserve Constabulary plus 10%. There are now about 3,338 indigenous members of non-commissioned ranks in the Regular Constabulary and there are about 144 expatriate and 80 indigenous members of the Reserve Constabulary. In addition, a total of 61 shotguns are held by police stations in the field for temporary issue to police officers at such stations.
3. 253 pistols and 313 shotguns are held by Administration Departments available for temporary issue to field staff in appropriate cases. Provision is made in the Firearms Regulation Ordinance for the issue of permits allowing employees to carry registered firearms. The practice is to attach such permits to the certificates of registration for each firearm. 21,486 firearms are registered They are not registered by race.
4. As indicated in (2) above, a pistol is issued to each commissioned officer of the Regular Constabulary Branch of the Police Force. Pistols are issued to Administration officers during posting or patrols in areas where personal danger may be anticipated. The issue of Departmental pistols to such officers is at the discretion of the senior departmental officer at each location, having regard to his assessment of the employees concerned and their requirements and is not determined by the grade or classification of the officer. Administration officers may be licensed under the Firearms Regulation Ordinance to posses personal pistols. Application for such licences are dealt with on their merits but consideration is given to any need that the officer may have for the use of the pistol for official purposes.
5. The Firearms Regulations Ordinance 1963- 1965 prohibits the discharging of firearms in or over a public place within the boundaries of a town, or over any occupied land (except with the land owner’s consent). The Firearms Regulation Ordinance does not at present provide for pistol clubs although the Firearms Regulation Ordinance 1969 will, when brought into force, provide for licensing of such clubs upon compliance with prescribed conditions. Meanwhile officials of each pistol club in the Territory have adopted a constitution recommended by the Police and have accepted police supervision and advice as to their ranges, the type of pistols to be used, safety measures, etc. Members of such clubs have been issued with pistol licences containing conditions requiring that the pistol be used only at a pistol club and that the licence will not be renewed unless the licensee produces evidence of having attended at least 75 percent of club matches. Other conditions are imposed in respect of some pistol licences, e.g., the pistol is to be used for official purposes only. Official instructions of long standing have been issued to officers both of the Regular Constabulary Branch and the Field Constabulary Branch (i.e. officers of the Division of District Administration) in relation to official pistol practice on small ranges. Since the incident at Pomio. regulations under the Firearms Regulation Ordinance have been prepared and submitted to the Administrator’s Executive Council. The draft regulations are now being revised to provide further requirements sought by the Administrator’s Executive Council, including controls on target practice.
6. Specialist opinion is that although the bullet still remains at the base of the lung there is no present disability and that it is unlikely that the bullet will cause future disability. Representation is in the hands of the Public Solicitor in connection with any claims for compensation. It is under stood that the Public Solicitor has sought an opinion from Sydney counsel.

East-West Micro-wave Link: Kalgoorlie Television Station (Question No. 223)

Mr Collard:
KALGOORLIE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

asked the Postmaster-

General, upon notice:

Were tenders called for the contract to install (a) the east-west microwave link and (b) the national television station at Kalgoorlie.
If so. how many tenders were received, and from whom were they received.
What was the amount of tender in each case.
Which tender was accepted and what were the main reasons for acceptance.
Had the successful tenderer carried out other work of a like nature in Australia; if so, what was the work and where wasit carried out.

Mr Hulme:
LP

– The answer to the honourable members question is as follows:

Tenders were invited for the supply and installation of a television and telephony system for the East-West route. Tenders were not invited for the installation of the national television station at Kalgoorlie. This work was undertaken by departmental staff.
Fourteen tenders were received for complete systems. Nine offered radio systems, four offered coaxial cable systems, one offered a submarine cable system. The names of tenderers are regarded as confidential and are not published. Tenders were received from manufacturers in Australia, United Kingdom, Germany, Italy, Canada, Japan and Holland.
This information is treated as confidential between the tenderer and the Department and is not for publication. Tenderers submitted prices for the supply and installation of their own equipment.
The tender of G.E.C. (Australia) Pty Ltd was accepted for the supply and installation of a complete radio relay system, including the radio equipment, towers, shelters and power plant. The tender was accepted because it was the lowest suitable tender received.
No. The company have had considerable experience in the supply and installation of radio relay equipment in other parts of the world but not in Australia.

Television (Question No. 224)

Mr Collard:

asked the Postmaster-

General, upon notice.

Has any approximate date been determined by which a national television service will be extended to (a) Mingenew. (b) Morawa and (c) Mullewa.
If not, what stage has been reached in planning for these extensions.

Mr Hulme:
LP

– The answer to the honourmember’s question is as follows:

and (2) Mingenew is among 38 areas in which national stations are to be established throughout the Commonwealth in the Seventh Stage of television development which I announced on 15th May 1969. When making this announcement I indicated that this stage of development would be implemented over a four year period to 1972-73. At present the technical planning of the stations is being undertaken as expeditiously as possible but I am not yet able to provide details of the completion dates of the various stations concerned. However, I will make a statement on the matter when the necessary information is available to me. As I have previously indicated, the question of television in relation to Mullewa could not be examined until after the commencement of the Geraldton national station. Now that this station is operating it is the intention of the Australian Broadcasting Control Board to further investigate the situation. The Board will report to me on the matter in due course. Because of geographical features the possibilities associated with the provision of service to Morawa are not as clear cut as are those for Mingenew and Mullewa. Whilst I cannot give any assurance regarding the provision of service to Morawa I have referred the claims of the area for consideration to the Australian Broadcasting Control Board.

Post Office: Management - Staff Relations (Question No. 385)

Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

asked the PostmasterGeneral, upon notice:

Has bis attention been drawn to the press of 1st March 1970 in which he was reported as saying that, in his view, the Director-General and many other senior officers of the Post Office spend an inordinate amount of time in discussions with unions in attempts to resolve differences and to maintain good management-staff relations.
If so, in what way is time spent in discussions with unions immoderate, excessive, intemperate or disorderly.
Does he propose to reduce or control future discussions on ways and means of resolving differences and attempting to maintain good management-staff relations.

Mr Hulme:
LP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:

Yes.
The Honourable Member is making a play on words to suite his own purposes. Although the Oxford Dictionary does define ‘inordinate’ as immoderate, excessive, intemperate or disorderly’, Webster’s describes it in addition as ‘exceeding in amount, quantity, force, intensity, or scope the ordinary, reasonable, or prescribed limits’. Over the last twelve months lengthy meetings, involving the Director-General and other senior officers of my Department at Headquarters alone, have been held with Unions on the average of one about every 3.6 working days. I believe it would be obvious therefore that the word ‘inordinate’ in my statement was used in the sense of being excessive having regard to the many other essential demands which are made on their time. However, only a completely biased observer could interpret this comment as an unwillingness to confer with Unions wilh a view to resolving differences and maintaining good management-staff relations.
No. The Post Office is always available for discussion on Union matters.

Telephones (Question No. 528)

Dr Klugman:

asked the PostmasterGeneral, upon notice:

In areas where the destruction of public telephones is common, would his Department consider the possibility of installing public telephones inside private properties, the installation being free in exchange for the provision of some protection for the telephone.

Mr Hulme:
LP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:

It is the practice of the Post Office to provide public telephones at sites where they will be freely accessible to members of the community at all times and for this reason they are usually located at Post Offices and on public thoroughfares. It is unlikely that many householders would agree to the establishment of public telephones within their properties because of the resultant inconvenience which would be caused to them by persons wanting to use the facilities. Indeed, even with public telephones located on streets, complaints are often received from nearby residents that they are disturbed by people using the facilities.

Television (Question No. 241)

Mr Collard:

asked the PostmasterGeneral, upon notice:

What was the actual fault which delayed the commencement of transmission from the Kalgoorlie television station.
What caused the fault and who was responsible.
What was the total cost of correcting the fault and who bore the cost.

Mr Hulme:
LP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:

The delays in commencing the television service at Kalgoorlie arose from malfunctioning of both the television transmitting equipment at the microwave radio terminal at Kalgoorlie and the frequency translating equipment installed at Peter Hill. The faults existing in sections of the equipments after installation caused interference patterns in the picture, objectionable noise in the sound, and a reduction in the radiated signal power.
These faults were caused by a combination of intermittent contact failures and incorrect adjustment of some variable elements of the equipment circuits combined with the effects of the high temperatures experienced in Kalgoorlie at the time. The responsibility for the faulty equipment rests with the contractor.
The Department’s direct additional costs were between $4,500 and $5,000. The question of recovering costs under the provisions of the contract is being pursued by the Department. Additional costs were also incurred by the contractor who arranged for material and technical assistance to be provided from overseas at his own expense to assist in correcting the deficiencies.

Post Office: Dismissal of Employee (Question No. 300)

Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

asked the Postmaster-

General, upon notice.

Is it a fact that Mr Mike Jones was dismissed without notice from his employment as a trainee mail sorter at the Redfern Mail Exchange for the reason that he had failed to give a correct statement of his police record at the time of his application for employment.
Has Mr Jones been convicted of a criminal offence.
Is it a fact that his only police offences are all related to his anti-Vietnam and anticonscription activities.

Mr Hulme:
LP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:

Yes. In his application for employment Mr Jones certified that he had not been found guilty or convicted of a criminal, policy, traffic or other offence and that he understood that if any answer to the questions on the application form for employment were found to be untrue he was liable to dismissal. His services were terminated as from the cessation of his shift on 3rd February 1970.
Yes. In a later application for reemployment dated 9th February, 1970, Mr Jones listed ten offences of which he had been found guilty by a Court of Law in Australia. These offences included convictions for assault, resisting arrest, indecent language, malicious damage, possession of an irritant liquid and trespass to premises.
All of the offences listed by Mr Jones on 9th February, 1970, relate to his anti-Vietnam and anti-conscription activities.

Television (Question No. 225)

Mr Collard:

asked the Postmaster-

General, upon notice.

Has any decision been made regarding the extension of a national television service to (a) Norseman, (b) Esperance, (c) Leonora and (d) Mount Magnet.
If so, what is the intention.
If no decision has been made what stage have investigations reached in each area.

Mr Hulme:
LP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: (1), (2) and (3) Norseman and Esperance are among 38 areas in which national stations are to be established throughout the Commonwealth in the Seventh Stage of television development which

I announced on 15 May 1969. When making this announcement I indicated that this stage of development would be implemented over a four year period to 1972/73. At present the technical planning of the stations is being undertaken as expeditiously as possible but 1 am not yet able to provide details of the completion dates of the various stations concerned. However, I will make a statement on the matter when the necessary information is available to me. In regard to Leonora and Mount Magnet, these are among a large number of remote areas in respect of which it has not yet been possible to evolve plans for the provision of television service. The Honourable Member will appreciate the difficulties having regard to the locations of the two places he has mentioned. Leonora is some 130 miles from Kalgoorlie and Mount Magnet is some 200 miles from Geraldton. Unfortunately, there are complex problems both technical and as to costs in respect of the provision of television to the areas to which I have referred, including the centres mentioned by the Honourable Member. I can only note the Honourable Member’s interest in the provision of television in Leonora and Mount Magnet but I am not able to hold out any prospects in the matter at present.

Papua and New Guinea: Rabaul Bus Services (Question No. 394)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Minister for External Territories, upon notice:

Were applications called in January 1969 for five certificates of registration to provide bus services in the Rabaul area.
Were applications received from two expatriate companies and from Mr T. Shanahan on behalf of himself and ten indigenous owners of Volkswagen minibuses.
Did the Transport Control Board in April 1969 grant the five licences to one of the expatriate companies.
What are the names and positions of the persons who constitute the Board.
Why was the application by an expatriate company preferred to the application by the indigenes.
What other applications for bus licences have been received from indigenes in the last 10 years and which of them have been (a) granted and (b) rejected.

Mr Barnes:
CP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:

to (3) Yes.
At the time of hearing, composition of the Transport Control Board was:

Chairman: Secretary for Law (W. W. Watkins)

Deputy Chairman:Secretary, Department of the Administrator (S. J. Pearsall - Acting)

Member appointed by Administrator: B. Fairfax Ross.

The expatriate application was preferred because the types of buses the applicant proposed using were considered more suitable for the work involved than those proposed to be used by the indigenous applicants. Buses to be used by the indigenous applicants were not considered to be adequate for the task.
Three applications for bus licences have been received from indigenes in Papua and New Guinea in the last 10 years. None was granted.

Papua and New Guinea Act: Administrator’s Instructions (Question No. 157)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Minister for External Territories, upon notice:

What instructions have been given by the Governor-General to the Administrator of the Territory of Papua and New Guinea under section 15 of the Papua and New Guinea Act.

Mr Barnes:
CP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:

It has not been found necessary for any instructions to be given pursuant to this section of the Act.

Papua and New Guinea Houseof Assembly: Members Visits Overseas (Question No. 159)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Minister for External Territories, upon notice:

Which Members of the House of Assembly for the Territory of Papua and New Guinea have made official visits overseas.
For what period and purposes were those visits made?

Mr Barnes:
CP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:

Papua and New Guinea: Lease of Business and Industrial Sites (Question No. 172)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Minister for Ex ternal Territories, upon notice:

How many business and industrial sites have been leased or sold in (a) Port Moresby, (b) Lae, (c) Rabaul, (d) Madang and (e) Kavieng (i) in the last 10 years and (ii) in the last year.
How many of the lessees or purchasers in each town were indigenes.

Mr Barnes:
CP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:

Papua and New Guinea: Movements of Expatriates and Indigenes (Question No. 437)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Minister for Ex ternal Territories, upon notice:

What permits, bonds and other restrictions are imposed on the movements of (a) expatriates and (b) indigenes into and out of (i) Papua and (ii) the Trust Territory of New Guinea.
Has there been any change in the circumstances under which inhabitants of each overseas territory, including the Trust Territory of New Guinea, can migrate to another territory since his answer to me on 1st October 1964 (Hansard, page 1803).

Mr Barnes:
CP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:

(a) Expatriates - Under the Papua and New Guinea Migration Ordinance 1963-1969 all immigrants (the term includes all persons not born in the Territory, whether entering for short visits or for longer term stay) other than members of the Defence Forces of Australia, certain diplomatic and consular officials and members of the crew of certain vessels during the stay of their vessels in Territory ports, are required to be in possession of entry permits. Before an entry permit is granted, a short term visitor (e.g. a businessman or tourist) must hold a ticket to a destination beyond the Territory (or a return ticket) or lodge a landing bond. A person entering for long term or permanent stay must, as a general rule, be eligible to enter Australia in similar circumstances and must lodge a landing bond and have either assured employment or sufficient funds with which to maintain himself whilst in the Territory. Limited numbers of certain key professional and technical non-European workers required for essential Territory enterprises are permitted to enter the Territory for a period normally not exceeding 2 years. In all cases normal immigration requirements of health and character must be met. There are no restrictions under the Migration Ordinance on the exit of immigrants from the Territory except in relation to the taking of children out of the Territory if they are the subject of certain court proceedings.
1. Indigenes - Indigenes and other persons born in the Territory are not required by law to possess permits to enter the Territory. However, since carrying companies are subject to heavy penalties for carrying persons who, by not holding entry permits, become on entry to the Territory prohibited immigrants, in practice all people entering the Territory are issued with entry permits to facilitate their travel. The Migration Ordinance at present requires that an indigene obtain, unless exempted, a permit to leave the Territory and that a bond be lodged by the applicant or his sponsor. An amendment of the Migration Ordinance recently assented to by the Governor-General will enable indigenes to leave the Territory without having firstly to obtain exit permits - unless they are persons, or members of a class of persons, declared under the Ordinance to be protected persons, in which case a special exit permit will be required and a bond will have to be lodged. Provision also exists, under this amendment, for the issue of documentation which will permit the holder to enter the Territory without having to obtain an entry permit. This legislation has not yet been brought into operation pending drafting of appropriate regulations. These provisions are common to Papua and the Trust Territory of New Guinea.
Since my answer of 1st October 1964, Nauru has become an independent Republic. Migration from any of Australia’s external territories to Nauru is, therefore, a matter for consideration by the Nauru Government. Conversely, any applications by Nauruans for migration to Australian external territories would be considered in the same way as any other applications. Norfolk Island has a new Immigration Ordinance which permits entry for periods of up to 30 days without having firstly to apply for an entry permit provided a return or onward ticket is held. This may be extended to 60 days but any longer stay requires an entry permit.

Papua and New Guinea: Police Helicopter Patrols (Question No. 189)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Minister for External Territories, upon notice:

When did police helicopters commence and how frequently do they carry out patrols over the Gazelle Peninsula.
On what occasions has a police helicopter landed at meetings in the peninsula.

Mr Barnes:
CP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:

Chartered helicopters were used by the police in the Gazelle Peninsula between 3rd September and 12th September, 1969 and between 8th December, 1969 and 17th January, 1970. The helicopters were shared with other Departments. During the periods mentioned the police used them nearly every day.
Records of landings by police helicopters were not maintained but as far as I have been able to ascertain no landings were made at meetings.

Papua and New Guinea: Workers’ Compensation (Question No. 297)

Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

asked the Minister for External Territories, upon notice -

Is it a fact that there are circumstances under which no workers’ compensation is payable to the widow of a New Guinean worker killed during or in the course of his employment.
If so, what are the circumstances, and can any circumstances arise to deprive the widow or dependants of a European worker from being paid workers’ compensation.

Mr Barnes:
CP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:

Yes. Under the Workers’ Compensation Ordinance 1958-1969, workers’ compensation is not paid to the widow of a New Guinean worker killed in -the course of his employment unless the widow is either wholly or in part dependent upon his earnings before his death, or unless a local court certifies that she was a dependant by native custom.
The widow or dependants of a European worker would not be paid workers’ compensation unless they were wholly or partially dependent on his earnings before his death.

Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport (Question No. 284)

Mr Lionel Bowen:
KINGSFORD-SMITH, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

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

What amounts have been expended on Mascot Airport since 1953 and for what purposes.
How long has the Department of Civil Aviation been considering alternative sites to the Mascot Airport and what sites are now under consideration.
When did the Department of Civil Aviation recommend the Towra Point area as an alternative site for Mascot and has this alternative now been abandoned. If so, when.
What are the estimated flight movements to and from Mascot Airport in the year 1975.

Mr Swartz:
LP

– The Minister for Civil Aviation has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question:

An amount of $52,733,836 was expended by the Commonwealth between 1.7.53 and 30.6.69, comprising -

A number of areas are being investigated by the Interdepartmental Committee set up by the Government to examine and report on the necessity for and the suggested location of any additional airport which may be required to supplement Sydney (Kingsford Smith) Airport when traffic there reaches saturation point. The Committee commenced its investigations in 1969. The main areas under consideration are to the north, south and west of Sydney at distances varying from about15 to 60 miles.
In 1945, when investigations were being made into the proposed development of an international airport to serve Sydney, the Towra Point area was considered but the Department recommended the further development of Mascot. Later the Department, in co-operation with State Authorities, gave consideration to the development of facilities in the Towra Point area which could be used in conjunction with Mascot. Preliminary investigations only were carried out on the proposal and in 1968 the Government directed that no further planning should proceed. This was again confirmed by the Prime Minister in March. 1969.
By 1975, there could be up to 160,000 movements for the year. However, this is very much dependent upon the timing and degree to which the airlines employ the Airbus on certain of the domestic routes converging on Sydney. It will also be influenced by the extent to which general aviation continues to use Sydney (KingsfordSmith) Airport.

Malaysia-Singapore Air Defence (Question No. 69)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice:

What numbers and types of aircraft has each of the five powers available or on order as its contribution to the Malaysia-Singapore integrated air defence system.

Mr Malcolm Fraser:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:

Under current planningaircraft that can be called on in the Malaysia-Singapore integrated air defence system after the British withdrawal will be:

Australia - Two Mirage Squadrons, which will be located at Butterworth. with a permanent detachment of eight aircraft at Tengah.

Malaysia - One Sabre Squadron based at Butterworth.

Singapore - One Hunter Squadron located at Tengah.

The aircraft complement of each squadron will vary from time to time as a result of wastage and other factors, and in addition. British and New Zealand aircraft are expected to take opportunities to exercise through the region.

Cotton: Financial Assistance to Farmers (Question No. 240)

Mr Collard:

asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice:

Is there anything which prevents the Commonwealth making a financial grant to the Government of Western Australia for the specific purpose of assisting farmers engaged in the production of cotton on the Ord River.
If not, and as the phasing out of the cotton bounty has had a serious effect upon the industry at the Ord, has the Government given or will it now give favourable consideration to making such a grant
If not, why not.

Mr Anthony:
Minister for Primary Industry · RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · CP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:

The Commonwealth has a very substantial financial commitment to the Ord River scheme by way of grants for Stages 1 and 2, Loans for irrigation works and expenditure on the Kimberley Research Station. In addition cotton growers in the area have received, and are continuing to receive, their share of Commonwealth bounty payments under the terms of the Raw Cotton Bounty Act 1963-69. In aggregate it is considered that Commonwealth financial support to the Ord River already provided or to be provided progressively over the next few years is the maximum that could be reasonably justified. As previously advised to the Western Australia Premier by the Prime Minister, the Commonwealth Government holds the view that the responsibility for crop failures or other economic setbacks associated with the production of crops is the responsibility of the State Government. In fact, the Premier recognised this responsibility in discussions that took place with Commonwealth Ministers in August 1966, on financial undertakings in respect of Stage 2 of the Ord River scheme.
and (3) In these circumstances the Commonwealth is unable to provide additional financial assistance on the production of cotton at the Ord River, other than through the support afforded under the provisions of the Raw Cotton Bounty legislation which is scheduled to expire at the end of the 1971 Australian cotton production season, that is, 29th February 1972.

Vietnam: Australian Casualties (Question No. 332)

Mr Daly:

asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice:

What are the total casualties to date in all categories of Australian Military Forces in Vietnam.
How many casualties in each category were (a) national service trainees and (b) regular army personnel.

Mr Malcolm Fraser:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:

Total casualties in all categories of Australian Forces in Vietnam from 31st July 1962 to 13th March 1970 is as follows:

Vietnam: Australian Military Forces (Question No. 333)

Mr Daly:

asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice:

What is the total number of Australian Military Forces at present in Vietnam.
How many are (a) national service trainees and (b) regular soldiers.
What is the percentage of national service trainees engaged.

Mr Malcolm Fraser:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:

and (2) The total number of Australian military forces serving in Vietnam as at 31st January 1970 was:

Based on the figures given above, National Servicemen comprised 40.7% of the total strength of the Australian military forces serving in Vietnam.

Defence Committee (Question No. 353)

Mr Barnard:

asked the Minister for

Defence, upon notice:

Who are the members of the Defence Committee.
Do the present functions of the Committee differ from those listed in the 1968 Commonwealth Directory, page 64.

Mr Malcolm Fraser:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:

Secretary, Department of Defence (Chairman)

Chairman, Chiefs of Staff Committee

Chief of the General Staff

Chief of Naval Staff

Chief of the Air Staff

Secretary to the Treasury

Secretary, Department of External Affairs

Secretary, Prime Minister’s Department

Secretary, Department of the Cabinet Office.

Defence: Chiefs of Staff Committee (Question No. 354)

Mr Barnard:

asked the Minister for De fence, upon notice:

Who are the members of the Chiefs of Staff Committee.
Do the present functions of the Committee differ from those listed in the 1968 Commonwealth Directory, page 64.

Mr Malcolm Fraser:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:

Chairman Chiefs of Staff Committee

Chief of the General Staff

Chief of the Naval Staff

Chief of the Air Staff.

Yes; the amended functions, which are shown in the1970 Commonwealth Directory which has just been issued, are as follows:

The Chiefs of Staff Committee is to bc responsible to the Minister for Defence for:

the preparation of military appreciations and plans,
the exercise of executive power and authority for the control of joint operations through designated subordinate commanders;
the exercise of executive functions for the control and administration of special Forces of a British Commonwealth nature, the responsibility for which is assigned to the Australian Government, subject to such control conforming to the principles and procedure of the established machinery of Government and administration;
recommending the allocation of resources to the designated commander(s) of Joint Services forces in the field when appointed;
the exercise of executive functions for the control of joint Service (Military) establishments.
the co-ordination of joint Service exercises;
the development of joint warfare doctrine;
the development of Joint Operational requirements.

Meetings of Defence Committees (Question No. 355)

Mr Barnard:

asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice:

How many times did the Defence Committee meet in (a) 1967-68 and (b) 1968-69.
How many times did the Chiefs of Staff Committee meet in (a) 1967-68 and (b) 1968-69.

Mr Malcolm Fraser:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:

1967-23

1968- 29

1969- 13

1967-48

1968- 32

1969- 32

Defence Committees: Special Advisers (Question No. 356)

Mr Barnard:

asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice:

What special advisers were co-opted for meetings of the Defence Committee in (a) 1967-68 and (b) 1968-69.
What special advisers were co-opted for meetings of the Chiefs of Staff Committee in (a) 1967-68 and (b) 1968-69.

Mr Malcolm Fraser:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:

and (2) Specialist advice for both the Defence Committee and the Chiefs of Staff Committee is provided by specialist staffs from the Defence Group of Departments (Defence, Navy, Army, Air and Supply), and by senior advisers from other Commonwealth Departments and Authorities depending on the subject before the Committee. It would not be appropriate to give details. Additionally high level specialist advice is available to the Defence Committee and the Defence Department through outside membership of such bodies as the Defence Business Board, the Defence (Industrial) Committee and the Defence Research and Development Policy Committee.

Defence Administration Committee (Question No. 357)

Mr Barnard:

asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice:

Who are the members of the Defence Administration Committee.
Do the present functions of the Committee differ from those listed in the 1968 Commonwealth Directory, pages 64-65.

Mr Malcolm Fraser:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:

Secretary, Department of Defence (Chairman)

Chairman, Chiefs of Staff Committee

Chief of the General Staff

Secretary, Department of the Army

Chief of Naval Staff

Secretary, Department of Navy

Chief of the Air Staff

Secretary, Department of Air

Secretary, Department of Supply

First Assistant Secretary,

Department of the Treasury.

Yes; the amended functions are as follows -
1. Review the progress of the Defence Programme;
2. Consider reports of the Defence (Industrial) Committee remitted by the Chairman;
3. Consider priority listing of works projects and programmes;
4. Consider variations in bases, provisioning and scales of rations, clothing, etc.;
5. Consider variations in scales and standards of accommodation;
6. Overall Defence Vote control.

Joint Services Electronic Data Processing Committee (Question No. 358)

Mr Barnard:

asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice:

Who are the members of the Joint Services EDP Committee.
What are the functions of the Committee.

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:

(2)

page 895

FUNCTIONS OF THE JOINT SERVICES EDP COMMITTEE

Defence (Industrial) Committee (Question No. 359)

Mr Barnard:

asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice:

Who are the members of the Defence (Industrial) Committee.
What are the functions of the Committee.

Mr Malcolm Fraser:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:

(1)

Chairman -

Sir Ian McLennan, K.B.E. ; Managing Director, Broken Hill Proprietary.

Vice-chairmen -

Sir Charles McGrath, O.B.E.; Chairman, Repco Ltd.

N. F. Stevens - Robertson, Darling and Wolfenden, Chartered Accountants.

Members -

Landau, C.B.E. - Secretary, Department of the Navy.

Rear Admiral V. D. H. Graham, C.B.E.Fourth Naval Member.

White, C.B.E.- Secretary, Department of the Army.

Major-General T. F. Cape, C.B.E, D.S.O.- Master-General of the Ordnance.

F. J. Green - Secretary, Department of Air.

Air Vice-Marshal C. G. Cleary, C.B.E.Air Member for Supply and Equipment.

A. S. Cooley - Secretary, Department of Supply.

Daniel - First Assistant Secretary, Department of the Treasury.
H. Eltringham - First Assistant Secretary, Department of Defence.

Secretary -

B. McDevitt - Department of Defence.

(2)

To correlate the material requirements of the Services and the production programmes involved in satisfying them.

To consider questions of industrial war potential, make recommendations as necessary for the retention of existing capacity and creation of new capacity in peace as part of war potential, consider means by which the private sector can be encouraged to participate more extensively in research and development and production for Australian and overseas defence needs and generally co-ordinate the planning of industrial capability to meet requirements in an emergency.

To advise on feasibility, costs and other consequences, and advantages and disadvantages of producing in Australia items that might otherwise be procured overseas.

To consider means by which the maximum advantage can be secured from the Defence Cataloguing System.

To examine avenues for equipment slandarisation in the Services.

To consider the defence importance of items listed for Tariff Board hearings.

To consider the need for stockpiling of strategic materials required for defence purposes.

To advise on any matters referred to it by the Minister, the Departments in the Defence complex, or the Defence Committee.

To oversight the Industrial Mobilisation Course Scheme.

To report annually to the Minister for Defence on its activities.

Defence: Joint Standardisation Committee (Question No. 360)

Mr Barnard:

asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice:

Who are the members of the Joint Standardisation Committee.
What are the functions of the Committee.

Mr Malcolm Fraser:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:

(1)-

J. Marshall, Esq. (Chairman) - Defence
M. Neeson, Esq. - Navy

Colonel W. A. Brydie - Army

Croup Captain E. V. Miliett - Air

A. J. Clarke, Esq. - Supply

I. F. Lincolne, Esq. - Standards Association of Australia

W. M. Leonard, D.F.C. - Defence Business Board

To consider, and recommend, the standardisation, on a joint basis, and to the maximum extent consistent with operational and administrative efficiency, of Service stores and equipment, in order to secure economy and flexibility in production and in the supply and maintenance services of the Armed Forces. Priority of examination of stores or ranges of stores will be given to items locally produced in Australia.

To keep itself informed of standardisation development matters in the United Kingdom, the United States of America and Canada and be prepared to make recommendations regarding selected developments which may have an application to Australian conditions.

To report to the Defence (Industrial) Committee and to submit progress reports at intervals of twelve months.

Defence: Joint Cataloguing Committee (Question No. 361)

Mr Barnard:

asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice:

Who are the members of the Joint Cataloguing Committee.
What are the functions of the Committee.

Mr Malcolm Fraser:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:

(1)-

H. Eltringham, Esq. (Chairman) - Department of Defence

T. McEntee, Esq.- Department of the Navy Brigadier E. C. Lord, O.B.E. - Department of the Army

Air Commodore M. L. Macinnis, C.B.E. - Department of Air

L. A. Fricke, Esq.- Department of Supply

N. N. Robertson, Esq., C.B.E.- Defence Business Board

N. G. Wilson. Esq., C.M.G. - Defence Business Board

Air Commodore L. J. K. Holten (Executive Member - Department of Defence

To formulate policy on joint cataloguing within the Defence Group of Departments.

Within approved policy, make decisions on questions relating to the work of the Defence Cataloguing Authority.

Ensure that cataloguing developments overseas are kept under notice and consider their application to joint cataloguing in Australia.

Consider problems common to cataloguing and standardisation; the Standardisation Committee being consulted as necessary.

Stimulate the interest of other Government Departments and Industry in the advantages to be gained from participating in joint cataloguing.

Report to the Defence (Industrial) Committee on the progress of joint cataloguing.

Defence: Joint Planning Committee (Question No. 362)

Mr Barnard:

asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice:

Who are the members of the Joint Planning Committee.
What are the functions of the Committee.

Mr Malcolm Fraser:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:

The members of the Joint Planning Committee are:

Chairman -

Rear-Admiral W. J. Dovers, C.B.E, D.S.C.- Director, Joint Staff.

Members -

L. G. Poyser, Esq, M.B.E.- First Assistant Secretary, Defence Planning.

Captain G. J. Willis, R.A.N.- DirectorGeneral, Operations and Plans.

Brigadier R. L. Hughes, C.B.E.. D.S.O.- Director, Military Operations and Plans.

Air-Commodore D. D. Hurditch - Director General, Plans and Policy.

G. F. Cawsey, Esq. - Head, Policy and Equipment Requirement Branch, Defence Science Division.

M. J. Cook, Esq. - Acting Assistant Secretary, Defence Liaison Branch, Department of External Affairs.

The functions of the Committee are to advise the Defence Committee and/or Chiefs of Staff Committee on:
1. Operational aspects of defence planning;
2. Appreciations and plans for combined operations and co-ordination of inter-service training:
3. Strategic appreciations.

Defence: National Intelligence Committee (Question No. 366)

Mr Barnard:

asked the Minister for

Defence, upon notice:

Who are the members of the National Intelligence Committee.
Do the present functions of the Committee differ from those listed for the Joint Intelligence Committee in the 1968 Commonwealth Directory, page 68.

Mr Malcolm Fraser:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: (l)

Mr R. W. Furlonger, Director, Joint Intelligence Organisation, Chairman.

Mr A. J. Eastman, C.B.E, First Assistant Secretary, Department of External Affairs, Deputy Chairman.

Mr A. W. McMichael, Deputy Director (Civilian), Joint Intelligence Organisation.

Brigadier O. R. Isaksson, M.C, Deputy Director (Military) Joint Intelligence Organisation.

Mr N. F. Parkinson, Head Office of Current Intelligence, Joint Intelligence Organisation.

To prepare assessments that are required -
1. to assist in the formulation of policy and plans at the national level;
2. to advise on measures considered necessary to increase effectiveness and preparedness in the intelligence field.

Defence: Business Board (Question No. 367)

Mr Barnard:

asked the Minister for

Defence, upon notice:

Who are the members of the Business Board?
Do its present functions differ from those listed in the 1968 Commonwealth Directory, page 69?

Mr Malcolm Fraser:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: (l)

Chairman -

Sir Ian McLennan, K.B.E. (also Chairman, Defence (Industrial) Committee) - Managing Director, Broken Hill Pty

Members -

C. Boehme - Chief Manager, Associated Steamships Pty Ltd

Professor D. Cochrane - Dean of the Faculty of Economics and Politics,Monash University

C. Davis - Managing Director, Mayne Nickless Ltd
B. Evans, C.B.E (Business Adviser, Navy) - Managing Director, Makower. McBeath & Co. Pty Ltd
M. Leonard, D.F.C.- Chairman and Chief ExecutiveOfficer, Ampol Petroleum Ltd
N. Robertson, C.B.E. (Business Adviser, Army) - Chairman of Directors, McRobertson (Aust.) Ltd
G. Wilson, C.M.G. (Business Adviser, Air) - Managing Director, Fibremakers Ltd

Secretary -

R. Moor - Department of Defence.
1. Yes. The revised functions are as follows:
1. To furnish advice on business matters of common interest to the three Services or important subjects on which the collective opinion of the Board is desired from the business aspect with a view to promoting efficiency and economy in the execution of the Defence Programme.
2. To serve on the Defence (Industrial) Committee at the invitation of its Chairman when matters are before it to which members might make a special contribution.
3. To advise the Defence Department in respect of particular problems, either as Chairman or Members of working parties which may be wholly members of the Defence Business Board or include civilian or Service personnel from the Defence complex.

Joint Services Staff (Question No. 368)

Mr Barnard:

asked the Minister for

Defence, upon notice:

Who are the members of the Australian Joint Services Staff in (a) the United Kingdom, (b) the United States, (c) New Zealand, (d) Malaysia and Singapore.

Mr Malcolm Fraser:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:

The members of the Australian Joint Service Staffs are as follows:

United Kingdom

Head A.J.S.S. London - Air Vice Marshal F. Headlam, C.B., C.B.E.

Assistant Head A.J.S.S. London - Colonel I. J. Wilton

Inter Service Technical Officer - Air Commodore G. D. Marshall, O.B.E., A.F.C.

United States

Head A.J.S.S. Washington - Air Vice Marshal D. L. G. Douglas. O.B.E, D.K.C.

Staff Officer to Head - Commander J. A.

Staff Officer (Communications) - Squadron Leader R. M. Backhouse

New Zealand

Defence Representative Wellington - Captain J. A. Gledhill, D.S.C.

Malaysia

Australian Services Adviser - Group Captain

C. Thorp

Assistant Services Adviser - LieutenantColonelR. J. Gardner, O.B.E.

Singapore

Australian Services Adviser - Captain J. L. W. Merson

Wednesday, 8 April 1970 (continuation)

Mr SPEAKER resumed the chair at 10.30 a.m. (Thursday).

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The House will come to order. I would again draw the attention of the House to the presence of the honourable member for Wills and I would again request the honourable member for Wills to withdraw from the chamber.

Mr Bryant:

– Mr Speaker, I shall obey you. I greatly regret that I felt it necessary to defy you last night as the only way to prevent the Government gagging the Bill through all stages then in breach of arrangement with the Opposition. I apologise personally and directly to you, Sir, for the fact that my conduct should have placed you in an invidious position.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Thank you.

Honourable members - Hear, hear. (Mr Bryant thereupon withdrew from the chamber.)

Mr SPEAKER:

– The question is: That the question be now put.I point out for the information of the House that the honourable member for Wills had proposed a motion of dissent from Mr Speaker’s ruling.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Mr SPEAKER:

– The question now is: That the Speaker’s ruling be dissented from.

The practice is to circulate amendments when instructed by the member. No instruction was given by Dr Patterson to circulate his further amendments.

The House divided. (Mr Speaker - Hon. Sir William Aston)

AYES: 51

NOES: 62

Majority .. ..11

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Original question relating to the adoption of the report of the Committee resolved in the affirmative.

Report adopted.

Third Reading

Motion (by Mr Snedden) proposed:

That the bill be now read a third time.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The debate on the third reading is a very narrow debate.

The honourable member shall not introduce any new matter in relation to it and he shall confine himself to the contents of the Bill.

– lt ill behoves a member of the Government to interject at this stage after a spectacle of dictatorship the like of which I have never beheld in another chamber in which we both served. He should be ashamed of himself.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I suggest to the honourable member for Riverina that he is now beginning to make a second reading speech on the motion for the third reading of the Bill. The honourable member purports to be dealing with the language of the Bill. I think he is going a little outside of the compass of it at the present time.

Mr GRASSBY:

– I accept your guidance, Mr Speaker. I was under some provocation, of course. The crux of our stand on the third reading is that the information before us on which we are asked to make a decision relates not just to one dam. I want to make this quite clear, because I am dedicated to the building of Dartmouth as a matter of urgency but not to the closing of all doors on all other dams, storages and improvements. The impression conveyed to this House has been that those doors will be closed. This is not good enough.

Even at this very late stage I appeal to the Minister for National Development to try to clarify for us the various matters and queries that have been raised. After all, what are we called upon to do? We are not called upon at this stage to vote just on Dartmouth; we are called upon to vote on Dartmouth and nothing. The Government has denied that this is the intention of the Bill but when I address myself to this venerable dictionary - a 1936 edition and therefore slightly outdated - 1 find that 2 meanings of perpetuity are ‘inalienable’ and forever’. Surely this is the crux of the matter that is before us. My South Australian colleagues have been very consistent in their attitude. They have supported me. They have supported the people in the Murray Valley who are concerned to see that Dartmouth goes ahead. They have said: ‘Please go ahead with Dartmouth. By all means build it as a matter of urgency/ Thousands of people are calling for the building of Dartmouth. They want to see it built. My colleagues in this place have said these things and I pay a tribute to them for their statesmanlike acceptance of the fact that something more than the Chowilla project should be proceeded with, but what they have objected to on behalf of their constituents is that the Government’s proposal will close the door on anything for South Australia. The door will be closed absolutely and South Australia will be told: You have had it’.

– I know how difficult it has been in the last few hours to get an understanding about anything. I view of the intrusion of sensuous impressions - according to the dictionary - I do not want anyone to be overheated on this matter. I ask the Minister for National Development to consider in a serious and responsible way the points that I have made on behalf of the people concerned. I also ask the Minister to be clear and definite in relation to the important matters that are before us and not to betray the best interests of South Australia, the Riverina and the nation at this time.

Mr GILES (Angas) [11.201-1 will not keep the House very many minutes. So that the House will be clear about my references, I will be referring principally to clause 24 of the Dartmouth Agreement, which was touched on in the debate yesterday. Last night, during this debate the honourable member for Riverina (Mr Grassby) made the point quite clearly - and I trust that he will agree with this - that the farming community in the irrigation areas in his electorate were at present limited, figuratively, by the assumption, as he put it, that Chowilla Dam had been built. He felt that the water for his farmers was limited by this fact.

I will not go over the debate of last night. But it is quite apparent that if he is right he is referring to the current yield figures of the River Murray system. A new assessment of the circumstances or, if I might put it another way, the Dartmouth configurations, show that if Dartmouth is built the yield of the Murray system, as the honourable member knows, will be be improved to a very great extent indeed. According to this improved set of figures all States will get an increased quantity of water. Therefore I would say that the honourable member’s complaint that his settlers on the River Murray will be in trouble in future is wrong. If Dartmouth is voted for at this point of time the position of his growers on the River Murray, and to a greater extent my growers on the River Murray, will be improved very considerably indeed. He would know his own figures. I will repeat mine. Prior to the 1967 drought South Australia received an average of 337,000 acre feet of usable water a year. During the drought, because of heat factors, we received 500,000 acre feet. The diversion of usable water to South Australia, when this agreement is ratified will be 900,000 acre feet. That is the picture in my State. We will receive nearly twice as much water as we drew during the drought year and nearly 3 times as much as we commonly used in a normal year.

The position in the honourable member’s State will be very little different. He should know his figures although he has not cited them to the House. But the water supply to his area, particularly for irrigation will be improved if his area draws directly from the Murray system. I imagine that those on behalf of whom he is complaining are affected by the Murray system, because I know that a lot of his electorate is not concerned in this way. So far he is not talking in the interests of those of his settlers who depend to one degree or another on water from the Murray system. It is quite plain as far as I can see.

He also said that South Australia had been slapped in the face and had no future. Precisely the opposite was said by honourable members on this side of the House all night last night. Any competent authority who sat as an adjudicator on the debate last night would have taken the side of those people who understood what they were talking about. It is quite simple. There is no doubt about it. If any competent authority had adjudicated on the debate last night, the decision would have been in favour of the logical approach of the honourable member for Farrer (Mr Fairbairn). I hand it to the honourable member for Dawson (Dr Patterson). I thought he made quite a good job of a very difficult situation. He is a trained man and realises that he was talking illogically. He probed as best he could wherever he could find a weakness, and I give him credit for it. I thought it was a very good effort, but let us not run away from the fact that the Dartmouth Dam will give a vastly increased yield of water and all 3 States will benefit.

If this Bill does not go through, in my State - I cannot talk for the other States - there could easily be restrictions on water to industry, to householders and to irrigation areas and we will not be able to build up any further acreage of plantings. This is the clear situation. I hope, indeed, that the honourable member for Riverina is acting in the interests of the growers to whom he referred because, as far as I can follow his form of logic, he does not appear to be doing so.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I think that the Chair has been reasonably lenient with the honourable member who is a newcomer to this House but, as I have said to the honourable member for Riverina, at the third reading stage honourable members may debate only matters which are contained within the Bill. The honourable member would be out of order in proceeding as he is.

Mr HURFORD:

– I defer to your ruling, Mr Speaker. However I suggest that outlining the details of these amendments, as I did in my speech at the second reading stage, is a very necessary part of my exposition of why we have reached the stage of opposing the third reading of the Bill. If our amendments had been successful at the Committee stage we would not be opposing the third reading this morning. I pointed out during the second reading debate that clause 10(a) of the schedule to the Bill proposed inlet and outlet works for Lake Victoria. We are told these works would cost the taxpayer as much as $7m. However, if Chowilla were built at a later stage this $7m would be completely wasted inasmuch as Chowilla Dam at its present envisaged size would flood the whole of the Lake Victoria inlet and outlet works. This would completely inundate the area and, along with the $5.2m already spent on Chowilla, another $7m would be wasted. We on this side of the House were not prepared to put up with this and as I outlined at that state we were proposing to remove this provision from the Bill. Similarly clause 13(a) of the Agreement contained in the Eight Schedule to the Bill requires that Chowilla shall not proceed unless the 4 contracting Governments, New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia and the Commonwealth, agree that it should proceed.

I pointed out during the second reading debate that there was no possibility of those 4 Governments agreeing to Chowilla proceeding once the $7m had been spent on the inlet and outlet works to Lake Victoria. But these were not our only concerns. We were also concerned, when our amendment which sought to set up the water conservation and construction authority was defeated to see that this Bill included a clause which would defer the ratification of the Agreement until studies had been carried out and computer evaluations bad been made of the various permutations and combinations possible in the proposition to build Chowilla and Darmouth at the same time. As I understand it, the only evaluations and cost and yield analyses that have been carried out at the present time have proceeded on the assumption that Chowilla and Dartmouth will be at the sizes originally envisaged. We on this side of the House feel very strongly that other sizes are possible and that other permutations and combinations are possible. The building of Dartmouth would not be deferred for very long if computer evaluations were made to ascertain whether it would be feasible, and advantageous to my own State of South Australia, for Chowilla to be built in conjunction with Dartmouth. Once we were unable to move these amendments we were left in the position in which we are now.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Lucock) - Order! I have already reminded the honourable member for Adelaide that he cannot go outside the scope of the Bill. He is now dealing with something that was intended to be placed in the Bill but which was not included in it. In doing so, he is out of order. I suggest he observe the ruling I gave earlier on this subject.

Mr HURFORD:

– In this situation we are left with no alternative but to oppose the building of Dartmouth. It is not because we do not believe Dartmouth is a worthwhile project for Australia. This is not speaking just from a partisan South Australian point of view. But we do believe in planned development and that Chowilla should not be abandoned at this stage of water conservation in our country. I do hope that if we are successful in opposing the third reading the Government will again look at this situation and do the necessary computer studies on the basis of Chowilla and Dartmouth being built concurrently.

Mr TURNBULL:

– 1 will finish my sentence and I will be quite happy. I am saying that these tactics will bring about a delay in the construction of this most important Dartmouth Dam. That is all I want to say about that. As far as general issues are concerned, I believe there are no grounds whatever for the Opposition voting against the third reading of the Bill.

Mr TURNBULL:

– [Quorum formed.] Mr Deputy Speaker, before the interruption, I was just concluding the few remarks that [ wished to make by saying that I cannot understand why the Opposition intends to vote against the third reading of this Bill. Anybody who has been in this House for awhile knows its procedures and can get an indication of what is likely to happen here as far as voting goes. My point is that a number of votes have been taken in this House and during the Committee stage on the subject that is before us in this Bill. In each case, the Government has made it clear that it is its intention to proceed with the building of Dartmouth Dam, not in conjunction with Chowilla, and not to build Chowilla in preference to Dartmouth. The Government intends that Dartmouth should be built. This is what we are supporting.

I cannot refer to what I said in another speech. But I did ask: ‘Why not continue to advocate later that Chowilla be built? Then you might get it too’. At the present time, the Federal Government is supplying most of the money for the building of this dam. It would have supplied most of the money for the building of Chowilla, hut the cost of that dam rose so high as to make the project at this stage unacceptable.

Now, the Dartmouth Dam is to be built. Let us go ahead with that project. Let us have the Opposition supporting the building of Dartmouth for water conservation purposes. Let the Opposition not oppose the third reading of this Bill. Let it show very definitely that it is prepared to support a Bill that will give the whole country more water through the Murray system and which certainly will give South Australia more water than Chowilla ever could have supplied. This will be water of a better quality. The Dartmouth Dam is of vital importance to South Australia and to the rest of the States that are dependent on water through the Murray system. Let us have this motion -

Dr J F CAIRNS:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

– Mr Deputy Speaker, I take a point of order. I do not wish to interfere with the rights of the honourable member for Mallee, but this is a second reading speech if ever 1 have heard one. There are members on this side of the House who wish to say certain things. Our opportunities to do so have been restricted. I think that the Standing Orders ought to be applied.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Lucock)Order! I point out to the honourable member for Mallee again, as I pointed out previously, that, in a speech on the third reading of a Bill, an honourable member must not introduce new matter which has not been debated already. The comments made by the honourable member were more in relation to the second reading stage of the Bill than in relation to the third reading stage of the Bill.

Mr TURNBULL:

– Well, I was just concluding when the honourable member for Lalor rose. Evidently, I was not pleasing him and he did not want me to go further. This is very noticeable on so many occasions in this House. Finally, I ask: Why does not the Labor Party get behind this project? The Dartmouth Dam is in the best interests of not only South Australia, Victoria and New South Wales. It is in the best interests of the Australian economy.

Mr Whitlam:

– In the same way as any new proposal?

Mr SWARTZ:

– Yes. It is part of the overall Murray River development. [Quorum formed] The Leader of the Opposition also made a number of references to the figure of $7m as being the cost of certain works on Lake Victoria. I do not know where the figure actually came from because the studies are only under way at the moment as to any additional inlet and outlet works that may be required. When these studies are complete the report will be submitted.

Dr Patterson:

– It is an estimate.

Mr SWARTZ:
LP

– There is a reference in the technical report to the figure concerned. That is only an estimate of what the cost may be. The point is that the studies are being undertaken at the present time to see, firstly, whether .the additional works are required, and secondly, if they are required exactly what the cost will be. When that report is received from the investigating group it will be submitted to the River Murray Commission and in turn referred to the 4 governments for ratification if additional expenditure is required. If this work is required it will naturally be there for quite some years and amortised over a period of years until further consideration would be given to Chowilla. I think it is well in the interests of South Australia to ensure that if that work is required it is proceeded with. I am sure this is the view that will be taken by the Commission and by the governments concerned. It is definitely in the interests of South Australia to ensure that the Lake Victoria storage is maintained at the required level, from the point of view of both supply of water and control of salinity. This is related to future consideration of Chowilla but of course we would not anticipate that that would be for quite some years and any work that is undertaken at this point of time in Lake Victoria would be of definite immediate assistance to the State of South Australia.

The Leader of the Opposition proposed that there should be a comprehensive scheme covering both Chowilla and Dartmouth. The basis of the Agreement is a result of the studies of the technical committee set up by the River Murray Commission and advice given to the 4 governments. The advice after a series of studies was that Dartmouth should proceed and Chowilla should be deferred, but in relation to this computer studies were made of combinations of storage at Dartmouth and Chowilla but they were obviously so much less attractive than a single storage facility at Dartmouth that they were not pursued beyond the elementary stage. But I can assure the House that the information that was available to the technical committee at that time indicated very clearly that there would be great advantage in proceeding with Dartmouth as a single project and deferring Chowilla for consideration in the future. As has already been mentioned, the building of Chowilla after Dartmouth would add 250,000 acre feet to the available water. A storage of 2 million more acre feel at Dartmouth combined with a 3 million acre feet storage at Chowilla would provide an additional yield not more than 15% greater than would be provided by a 3 million acre feet storage at Dartmouth alone. The 2 storages would cost just under $100m or about 70% above the cost of Dartmouth. This of course was one of the considerations of the Commission when making ils recommendation to the 4 governments.

The honourable member for Dawson also asked again whether information could be made available to him in relation to the computer studies which had been undertaken. I indicated just a moment ago that the studies in relation to the combined comprehensive storages at Dartmouth and Chowilla were carried to an elementary stage but intensive studies were undertaken of the individual storages. I did refer to this previously in the House so I will not cover that ground again except to say that the computer sheets covering the programme could be made available to the honourable member at any time he wishes to study them. They are a little too large to produce in this House and they certainly could not be incorporated in Hansard because of their size but I undertake that if the honourable member for Dawson wishes to study the computer sheets which show the individual studies at Dartmouth and Chowilla and a number of other projects, they will be available for his perusal.

Reference was also made by the honourable member for Riverina (Mr Grassby) to some wording I used in relation to the Menindee Lakes Storage Agreement when I referred to the continuity of this scheme indefinitely. The wording ‘in perpetuity’ has been used in other documents and certainly by the Commission. In effect, what this means really is that the wording of clause 4 of the Menindee Lakes Storage Agreement, which previously referred to a time limit, states:

This Agreement shall be deemed to have commenced on the first day of January one thousand nine hundred and sixty three and without prejudice to the later operation . . . shall remain in force for a period of seven years from that date.

The Agreement was subsequently amended to extend it a little further. That has now been deleted by the new Agreement. In other words, it is for an indefinite period. The purpose of the clause in the Bill which is before the House is to introduce the Agreement to that effect. It means that it is for an indefinite time limit and it can be described, as the Commission did, as being in perpetuity. The time limit which was included in the Agreement previously is merely deleted and it is now open ended.

The last point that I want to make, and which I think is quite important, is that there has been some thought that if Chowilla and Dartmouth were constructed at the same time, as proposed by the Leader of the Opposition and 1 or 2 honourable members from South Australia, this would increase the volume of water available to South Australia. I suppose this is due to the conception that, Chowilla dam being in South Australian territory, the storage capacity would be available for that State’s use entirely. In accordance with the usual practice of the River Murray Commission, the actual gate operations at the storage would be carried out by South Australian staff but the operation would be in accordance with the criteria laid down by the

River Murray Commission and the amount of water released would be set out in the River Murray Waters Agreement. In other words, this is only one part of the overall River Murray system and whatever water is made available to South Australia from that system - no matter whether it be from a Chowilla system, a Dartmouth system or any other storage - would be provided by agreement between the 4 governments.

There is every possibility that even if the 2 storages were provided it would not mean another gallon of water to South Australia. The total dispersal has to be taken into consideration, and the total volume of water is agreed upon between the 4 governments. The River Murray is Australia’s most important river system and it must be used to provide the maximum benefit for the greatest number of people. The proposal to build Dartmouth as the next major storage is based, as I have already explained, on a thorough examination, the results of which have been made quite clear in the technical report which is a public document and which is available. It provides an additional yield to South Australia from Dartmouth that the upstream States have agreed to, on the basis of an entitlement of ii million acre feet per year compared with 1,254,000 acre feet which would have been provided from Chowilla. This has already been stated in the House and I think it is a very sound reason why the Dartmouth project is of greater value to South Australia than the Chowilla project would be or than a combination of the 2 would be. The Commonwealth Government and the Governments of New South Wales, Victoria and South Australia firmly believe that this proposal is in the best interests of all the parties concerned and, as we have indicated today, because of the increased volume of water that will be made available to South Australia by the amendment to the Agreement it will be in the interests of that State to have this amendment confirmed and ratified by this Parliament.

Question put:

That the Bill be now read a third time.

The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker - Mr Lucock)

AYES: 62

NOES: 51

Majority . . . . 11

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

– The honourable member for Mallee should know me better than to suggest that I have supported the critics of irrigation. I would expect to have the honourable member’s support on these matters because it is only by way of efforts like this to question a situation, when there have been shadows, doubts, secrecy and inadequacies, that we can get something better.

Let me make this position quite clear. I think that the honourable member for Mallee should stand in his place and say: I support the sound development of this nation. 1 call for all the reports and studies that need to be seen if we are to make proper determinations’. I do not want to proceed in secrecy. The honourable member should be saying this with me. If he does not, I am surprised and ashamed of him. Last night when we called for a cool, calm and proper economic analysis of the projects our appeal was categorised by Government supporters as sentimental slop. What stage have we reached when members of the national Parliament, in response to a call for proper examinations of data, describe it as sentimental slop? Surely to goodness they need to review their own position. By not proceeding in a sound way to a consideration of matters such as this, honourable members opposite are lending support to the critics of non-development; they are lending support to the people whom I would describe as little Australians because they are not interested in the wider development of the nation. They are quite content to concentrate themselves in suburbs and be bounded by the lamp post at the end of the street.

Mr GRASSBY:

– I point out that we are engaged in this debate because there was an unwholly mess made by the honourable member’s administration. He is contradicted by members of his own party on this matter. I hope he faces up to them because they are wrong and he is right or vice versa. If he wishes to debate that matter, with your indulgence Mr Deputy Speaker, we will be delighted to oblige him.

Mr GRASSBY:

– The honourable member is meeting me here now. He can follow me in the debate. I invite him to do so. I invite him also to say whether he is dedicated to a particular policy of inadequate analysis to which the Minister for National Development confessed in relation to the matters before us. He said that the matters had not been determined. He said he and his associates had not even made up their minds whether they could make use of the resources of the Murray for a further power station. He said that they had not made up their minds whether to spend $7m on Lake Victoria. He said they had not made up their minds whether they would proceed with anything further. They had not told us of course the real reasons why we spent $6m in umpteen years, left people suspended and then came along to 4 Governments and said: ‘Look, we all make mistakes. It is all very sad, but forgive us. We will start again.’ The Government is starting again. This is no way to run a country and it is no way to run a project, and to try to cover up the situation at the present time is just not good enough. It has to be brought out into the open.

These critics of irrigation are simply trying to limit what we feel should be the balanced development of the nation. They are not dedicated to this at all. They have talked themselves into believing that the whole of our nation in the future should be a suburban collection. Strength will be given to that belief if we do not do the one sensible thing and ensure that every project that is brought to the national Parliament is properly evaluated, publicly discussed and publicly probed, and then we have all the data, including the inputs, before us.

I do not know whether honourable members are aware that there is no magic in a cost benefit analysis. All that happens is that a whole series of arbitrary inputs are fed in and an answer is obtained. Let us be quite clear. There is no holy writ running through this. There is no reason at all why we should not as a nation and as a Parliament have all the relevant data, study it carefully, calmly and objectively, and say we believe this is valid or this is invalid according to the information we are able to get ourselves or according to our own knowledge. I am saying that the need for increased irrigation in this nation is linked with its ultimate destiny and development. If it is limited we will become a limited nation. But for a project to proceed properly and for it to be accepted by the great bulk of our people, who live in the cities and for whom we have a responsibility, we have to show that everything that has been planned and done is properly based. I make a plea that it be done in that way in the future and that what has happened on this occasion will never happen again.

Mr Foster:

– He did not.

Mr TURNBULL:

– Of course he did. The honourable member can read Hansard. The honourable member for Riverina made a personal attack on me.

Mr TURNBULL:

– No, I do not. I shall always resist in this House these personal attacks.

Question put:

That the words proposed to be omitted (Dr Patterson’s amendments) stand part of the question.

What I cannot understand is why there is this hold up. Honourable members on both sides of the House say water is urgently needed. Water - conservation is one of the high priorities with this Government which realises what a dry continent this is. The Government wants more water for the continent and we are all for this objective, so why can we not get on and build the Dartmouth Dam Now. Every amendment I have heard put forward and debated has been what is known as a delaying tactic. The Bill will go through in the course of a day or two at the longest but delaying the work-

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Lucock) Order! I suggest the honourable member for Mallee is now developing a theme more in keeping with a second reading speech than a speech at the third reading stage, when the Bill is dealt with as it is before the House. New matters not previously discussed cannot be dealt with.

Mr WHITLAM:
Leader of the Opposition · Werriwa

– Mr Deputy Speaker, the Opposition did not vote against the motion for the second reading of the River Murray Waters Bill. The Opposition will vote against the motion for the third reading of that Bill. The reason why we will take a different attitude on the third reading from that which we took on the second reading is that the opportunity to amend the Bill and, in particular, the Schedule to it has been lost now. To the motion for the second reading of the Bill, we moved an amendment to consider the Chowilla and Dartmouth proposals in the context of a comprehensive conservation of the waters in the whole of the Murray-Darling system, incorporating the expertise of the Snowy Mountains Hydro-electric Authority. This was in order to have this greatest water resource that we possess looked at on a comprehensive basis, to get the Commonwealth’s experts incorporated in this study and to replace the ancient River Murray Waters Agreement which dates from the days when there was as much water as there is now and it was still pure water.

Our amendment was defeated. But the agreement could not be amended on the motion for the second reading. It could be amended only in Committee. Therefore, we intended to amend the Agreement in Committee. If it had been amended as we proposed then, we would not be voting against the third reading in the same way as we did not vote against the second reading of the Bill. One of the amendments to be moved in Committee was to be a proposal to assess the respective merits in a technical sense of Chowilla and Dartmouth and to report on them - not only Chowilla and Dartmouth as at present proposed, but also any alternative proposals for them or, better still, integrated proposals between them - to the Parliament. The Committee voted against that amendment which we sought to the Agreement.

This Committee stage was gagged. It was not possible to move the other amendments that we had in mind, that we had proposed and which, 2 hours before, the honourable member for Adelaide (Mr Hurford) had outlined. In particular, the honourable member had told all honourable members, 2 hours before the Committee stage was gagged, that we proposed to move to omit clauses 10(a) and 13(a) of the ‘Sixth Further Amending Agreement*. It is because clauses 10 (a) and 13 (a) are still in that Agreement and there is now no opportunity to amend the Agreement or to vote upon the proposed amendment to the Agreement to delete them that the Opposition is voting against the third reading of this Bill.

The amendments that we wanted could not have been moved before the second reading of the Bill. Accordingly, we did not vote against the second reading of the Bill. The amendments could have been moved before the third reading. We were not allowed to move them. Those objectionable features still being there in the Agreement, the only recourse that we have to put our argument is to vote against the third reading.

Clauses 10(a) and 13(a) of the ‘Sixth Further Amending Agreement’ make it impossible to resume Chowilla in any ordinary sense. I know that, in practical financial terms, as the law stands at the moment it is impossible to go ahead with Chowilla unless the Parliaments allocate funds to do so. South Australians in particular know that, for 20 years, the law was that the Commonwealth should accept most of the responsibility to build a standard gauge railway between Port Pirie and Adelaide. That was the law. But the law was a dead letter because no financial allocation was made to carry out that work. So, what has been the situation for the last 4 years or 5 years is that, while the law was that Chowilla should proceed, none of the Parliaments allocated funds to enable it to proceed. Therefore, it has been allowed to remain a dead letter. Approximately SSm has been spent on it which now apparently is to be wasted.

What is being done now through clauses 10(a) and 13(a) is not merely to suspend Chowilla but is to put Chowilla in the same position as any other conservation proposal in the valley of the Murray. Chowilla dam now would not be resumed. It could not be put into operation unless all the governments involved agreed to do so. Chowilla dam now is not just a dead letter; it has been virtually expunged. If the project is to go ahead now one would have to adopt the same procedure as one would have to adopt for any other proposal in the Murray Valley. It would all have to be initiated afresh. The formula has been used that the Chowilla dam has been suspended. In fact the Chowilla dam now has been expunged. If this Agreement goes through, as it will if both Houses of the Commonwealth Parliament and the 2 Houses in South Australia pass the validating Bills, then the Chowilla project never can be revived unless the same procedure is undertaken as has to be undertaken for any new dam or reservoir in the valley of the Murray River.

We of the Opposition wanted to preserve the situation where the Chowilla dam could be resumed, preferably as part of an integrated scheme of conservation over the whole of the Murray and Darling system, our largest water system, using the Snowy Mountains Hydro-electric Authority teams and ensuring that the water now should be pure, which the present archaic Agreement leaves completely in the air.

There is an additional objectionable feature in these 2 clauses and it is this: If the Dartmouth Dam Agreement goes through in supersession to the Chowilla Dam Agreement then the inlet and outlet waters of Lake Victoria, which are part of the Dartmouth scheme, will be inundated if the Chowilla project, as at present and hitherto proposed, goes ahead. We are faced with the situation that all the expenditure, $7m, required to make new inlet and outlet waters for Lake Victoria in order to cope with the additional water from Dartmouth dam will be negatived. Those works will be inundated if Chowilla dam is then resumed. The net result is that the Chowilla project never can be resumed if clauses 10 (a) and 13 (a) are passed.

The first reason why the Chowilla dam cannot be resumed is that it will be in no better position than any other new proposal for the River Murray Valley. The whole process of getting the 3 State governments and the Commonwealth Government to agree to build the Chowilla dam would have to be gone through afresh. The second reason is that if the Chowilla dam were to go ahead after the Dartmouth dam scheme as at present proposed is completed, then all the expenditure of $7m on additional inlet and outlet works for Lake Victoria will have been useless. All those new works would be completely inundated by the waters piled up behind Chowilla dam.

There is, of course, a general feeling as to why the Agreement should not go through as it is. Not very long ago - just at the end of 1963 - all of us, every member of both Houses in this Parliament, and every member of both Houses in the 3 State parliaments, not only unanimously but vociferously supported the Chowilla dam proposal. In his policy speech in 1963 Sir Robert Menzies proudly announced:

We have, in such cases as the Chowilla Dam and Blowering Dam, and flood mitigation works on the northern Rivers of New South Wales, shown a readiness to support thoroughly-examined and prepared State proposals.

No more than 4 years afterwards, this thoroughly-examined and prepared’ State proposal, the Chowilla dam, was found to be over-designed. It was suspended. This is the first time in this House that there has again been a debate upon this matter. Members were given no expert advice, no documentation, when the Chowilla dam project was introducd in 1963. - Members are naturally cautious about expunging the Chowilla project and substituting another proposal when, similarly, they have been given no expert advice and no documentation. If we erred once we might have erred a second time.

Sir, we on this side of the chamber are not prepared to say that in these circumstances the Chowilla project should be expunged. We have done all we can during the second reading debate and in the 1 amendment we were allowed to move during the Committee stage to discuss the relative merits of these 2 projects and of others involving an integrated comprehensive development of the whole valley for the preservation of pure water and the reticulation of that water not only for agricultural and pastoral activities but for industry and urban setttlement. We have done all we can.

There was 2 hours notice in this House of the remaining amendments we wished to move. Those amendments were not moved. It is only during this third reading stage that we can put our arguments in favour of those amendments. Because those arguments have not been answered and rebutted we will vote against the motion for the third reading. We will not now, with a similar lack of consideration to that which was apparently given in 1963 to the initial Chowilla scheme, peremptorily expunge that scheme. Clauses 10(a) and 13(a) make it quite plain that the Chowilla project is of no more effect than any other proposal. Like any other proposal, it would now have to be created afresh. Furthermore, if it were resumed $7m would have gone down the drain with the inundation of additional works at Lake Victoria for which provision is made in these 2 clauses.

Sir, we will not approve, here or elsewhere, this Agreement with clauses 10 (a) and 13 (a) in their present form. Honourable members were given notice 14 hours ago of our intention to oppose those 2 clauses in this chamber; 12 hours ago we were denied the opportunity to put our arguments. Those arguments are still valid. They have not been answered. We will vote against the third reading of this Bill because the Agreement, as it still is, is objectionable to us.

Mr SWARTZ:
Minister for National Development · Darling Downs · LP

The first point I would like to make is that during this third reading debate it has been said, quite incorrectly, that during the second reading debate a number of points were raised which I have not answered. The explanation for this, as is known to the House, is that the debate was closed before I. had the opportunity to answer these points. 1 think the reference that was made was made with the knowledge. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr Whitlam) repeated several times that Crowilla is to be expunged. He qualified it a litttle at the beginning but in his later remarks there was no qualification at all. Clause 13 which refers to clause 24 of the Agreement reads:

by adding at the end of the clause the words ‘However, completion of the construction of the Chowilla Reservoir shall be deferred until dic Contracting Governments agree that the work shall proceed . . .

As the Commonwealth representative on the River Murray Commission I would like to make a categorical denial of the affirmation by the Leader of the Opposition that Chowilla has been expunged. The position is as set out in the amendment to the Agreement - that it has been deferred. As the Leader of the Opposition rightly qualified at the beginning of his remarks, this matter would have to go through the normal procedures to be revived and considered by the 4 governments.

page 915

DARTMOUTH RESERVOIR AGREEMENT BILL 1970

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 17 March (vide page 488), on motion by Mr Lynch:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Dr PATTERSON:
Dawson

– This is a cognate Bill with the River Murray Waters Bill. All of the discussion with respect to the River Murray Waters Bill and Dartmouth is relevant. It is not my intention to debate this Bill, which relates to the financial provisions. We have no argument with the financial provisions - with the arrangement between the Commonwealth and the States with respect to finance. Our argument, as has been stated, is that insufficient information is available to the Parliament to enable the Opposition to support this Bill. Accordingly 1 move:

That all words after That’ be omitted with a view to inserting the following words in place thereof: the House is of opinion that the Agreement should not be approved until an immediate computer evaluation of the construction of storages of various capacities at both Dartmouth and Chowilla has been completed’.

The Minister for National Development (Mr Swartz) made it clear at the conclusion of his speech on the third reading of the River Murray Waters Bill that these computer studies have been made and that he will make them available to me so that assumptions on which the conclusions contained in the technical report were based may be analysed by the Opposition. I thank the Minister for that offer but until we have an opportunity to consider the assumptions and the conclusions that have been deduced from those assumptions it is our intention to oppose the Bill. This is why I have moved the amendment.

Dr Gun:

– I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak.

Mr SWARTZ:
Minister for National Development · Darling Downs · LP

– As the honourable member for Dawson (Dr Patterson) has said, this matter has already been covered in the debate on the River Murray Waters Bill and, like the honourable member, I do not intend to take up much of the time of the House in debating the Bill except to say that as far as information is concerned, I did refer to the 3 reports of the technical committee and to other reports of the River Murray Commission that were public documents and which referred specifically to the 2 projects. They give a lot of useful information which I am sure would cover most of the points raised by the honourable member for Dawson. As regards proposals for an additional computer study, as I indicated earlier a study of a comprehensive scheme was undertaken up to an elementary stage. It indicated very clearly and conclusively the advantages of Dartmouth over Chowilla. It did not go beyond that stage. However, individual very comprehensive computer studies were made of individual projects, including both Dartmouth and Chowilla. As I have already said, the computer papers can be made available to the honourable member for Dawson for study whenever he requires them. In view of all these facts the Government cannot accept the amendment.

Mr GRASSBY:
Riverina

– In speaking to this Bill, which after all is concerned with the actual finance for Dartmouth Dam, I would like to draw attention to the fact that the Bill comes before the House at a time when interests which are not sympathetic to the development of the nation, particularly the rural sector, are gaining a great deal of support. It has been claimed in many places that the outlay of public funds on water conservation and irrigation is not warranted at this stage in the nation’s development. People who should know better have said that the most sensible thing for Australia to do at this stage would be to withdraw to the suburbs and not proceed with the development projects which are so necessary if this continent is to be occupied effectively. This is a policy of retreat to urban areas - to the suburbs - rather than a policy of pioneering what is still largely an empty and undeveloped continent.

Only the other day in support of the view that nothing further should be done in national development except on the rim of the saucer an academic made the point that the record of State and Commonwealth irresponsibility in outlaying public funds for uneconomic irrigation ventures is a long and sorry one. This is simply an echo of many similar statements. It is not true, of course, that this nation has spent very largely on irrigation development. It is not true that this nation, by comparison with other nations in arid zones, has done very much of an impressive nature to exploit the natural water resources of the inland which must be exploited if we are to progress. An unchallenged statement such as the one to which I have referred can do untold harm to future development. One paragraph of the statement attacking irrigation reads:

But few of the projects to come may be more wasteful than the Dartmouth reservoir designed to augment the supply of water to the Murray River.

According to this critic and many like him, irrigation water is wasteful. According to him, all of the communities that have been built up by irrigation have been built up in an unnecessary way because it is claimed that there is some sort of inbuilt subsidy in constructing a dam which, of course, in the normal course of events, is a multi-purpose dam. The crux of our concern about this Bill is that it is not backed by adequate technical data that the House can examine. There is no reason in the world to accept the criticism of irrigation development in Australia in the past and in the main because the value of the schemes speaks for them. In fact, one-quarter of all the agricultural output of the nation originates in irrigation. One-half of the food that is taken in by the city members who are present here today originates in irrigation. Yet the vital role of irrigation development in feeding this nation has not been fully recognised.

It is important in the interests of national development, in the interests of proper listing of priorities, that all the projects which are carried out are properly evaluated. In the last 24 hours we have had evidence of an extraordinary lack of appreciation of the factors that must be taken into account when we are planning irrigation development. One honourable member on the Government side said that the only matter that should be taken into account when an irrigation structure is being planned is the engineering aspects - the engineering considerations. This is absurd. In fact, in applying ourselves to the planning of a major conservation work, it is necessary to take into account not only the engineering facets but also the agronomic, the economic, the geographic and the social aspects. In other words, there has to be an assessment made by integrated disciplines.

– The honourable member always comes off second best.

The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker - Mr P. E. Lucock)

AYES: 62

NOES: 51

Majority .. ..11

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Original question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Message from Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.

Third Reading

Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.

Bill (on motion by Mr Swartz) read a third time.

page 918

SPECIAL ADJOURNMENT

Motion (by Mr Snedden) agreed to:

That the House, at its rising, adjourn until 2.30 p.m. this day.

House adjourned at 12.51 p.m. (Thursday).

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 8 April 1970, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1970/19700408_reps_27_hor66/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant

House of Representatives 8 April 1970

PETITIONS

Kangaroos

Kangaroos

QUESTION

PARLIAMENT HOUSE

Mr SPEAKER:

QUESTION

CONFERENCE ONINDO-CHINA

Mr WHITLAM:WERRIWA, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr McMAHON:Minister for External Affairs · LOWE, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

QUESTION

CIVIL AVIATION

Mr REID:HOLT, VICTORIA

Mr SWARTZ:Minister for National Development · DARLING DOWNS, QUEENSLAND · LP

QUESTION

FILM CENSORSHIP

Dr GUN:KINGSTON, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Mr CHIPP:Minister for Customs and Excise · HOTHAM, VICTORIA · LP

QUESTION

SOCIAL SERVICES

Mr DRURY:RYAN, QUEENSLAND

Mr WENTWORTH:Minister for Social Services · MACKELLAR, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

QUESTION

TARIFF BOARD

Dr J F CAIRNS:LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

Mr McEWEN:Deputy Prime Minister · MURRAY, VICTORIA · CP

QUESTION

COLOUR TELEVISION

Mr ROBINSON:COWPER, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr HULME:Postmaster-General · PETRIE, QUEENSLAND · LP

QUESTION

DRUGS

Mr BARNARD:BASS, TASMANIA

Mr PEACOCK:Minister Assisting the Prime Minister · KOOYONG, VICTORIA · LP

QUESTION

PRIMARY PRODUCTION

Mr WHITTORN:BALACLAVA, VICTORIA

Mr McEWEN:CP

Mr Hayden:

Mr SPEAKER:

Mr McEWEN:

Mr Whittorn:

Mr McEWEN:

QUESTION

BROADCASTING AND TELEVISION

Mr KEATING:BLAXLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr GORTON:Prime Minister · HIGGINS, VICTORIA · LP

QUESTION

JAPAN

Mr GARLAND:CURTIN, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Mr McMAHON:LP

Mr Whitlam:

Mr McMAHON:

QUESTION

OIL

Mr GRIFFITHS:SHORTLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr CHIPP:LP

QUESTION

RURAL INDUSTRIES

Mr GRASSBY:RIVERINA, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr GORTON:LP

QUESTION

FRENCH NUCLEAR TESTS

Mr BRYANT:WILLS, VICTORIA

Mr McMAHON:LP

QUESTION

HEALTH

Dr KLUGMAN:PROSPECT, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr SPEAKER:

Dr KLUGMAN:

Mr SPEAKER:

Dr KLUGMAN:

Mr SPEAKER:

Dr KLUGMAN:

Mr SPEAKER:

Mr Hayden:

Mr SPEAKER:

Mr Hayden:

Mr SPEAKER:

House of Representatives
8 April 1970

Mr WHITLAM:
WERRIWA, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr McMAHON:
Minister for External Affairs · LOWE, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

Mr REID:
HOLT, VICTORIA

Mr SWARTZ:
Minister for National Development · DARLING DOWNS, QUEENSLAND · LP

Dr GUN:
KINGSTON, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Mr CHIPP:
Minister for Customs and Excise · HOTHAM, VICTORIA · LP

Mr DRURY:
RYAN, QUEENSLAND

Mr WENTWORTH:
Minister for Social Services · MACKELLAR, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

Dr J F CAIRNS:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

Mr McEWEN:
Deputy Prime Minister · MURRAY, VICTORIA · CP

Mr ROBINSON:
COWPER, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr HULME:
Postmaster-General · PETRIE, QUEENSLAND · LP

Mr BARNARD:
BASS, TASMANIA

Mr PEACOCK:
Minister Assisting the Prime Minister · KOOYONG, VICTORIA · LP

Mr WHITTORN:
BALACLAVA, VICTORIA

Mr McEWEN:
CP

Mr KEATING:
BLAXLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr GORTON:
Prime Minister · HIGGINS, VICTORIA · LP

Mr GARLAND:
CURTIN, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Mr McMAHON:
LP

Mr GRIFFITHS:
SHORTLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr CHIPP:
LP

Mr GRASSBY:
RIVERINA, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr GORTON:
LP

Mr BRYANT:
WILLS, VICTORIA

Mr McMAHON:
LP

Dr KLUGMAN:
PROSPECT, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr SNEDDEN:
Minister for Labour and National Service · BRUCE, VICTORIA · LP

Mr LUCHETTI:
MACQUARIE, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr GORTON:
LP

Mr TURNBULL:
MALLEE, VICTORIA

Mr HULME:
LP

Mr FOSTER:
STURT, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Mr Kevin Cairns:
LILLEY, QUEENSLAND · LP

Mr SNEDDEN:
LP

Mr WENTWORTH:
Minister for Social Services · Mackellar · LP

Mr HAYDEN:
Oxley

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Drury:
RYAN, QUEENSLAND

Mr UREN:
Reid

Dr FORBES:
Minister for Health · Barker · LP

Mr LYNCH:
Minister for Immigration · Flinders · LP

Mr STEWART:
Lang

Mr BRYANT:
Wills

Mr CHIPP:
Minister for Customs and Excise · Hotham · LP

Mr CHIPP:
Minister for Cus toms and Excise · Hotham · LP

Mr SWARTZ:
Minister for National Development · Darling Downs · LP

Dr PATTERSON:
Dawson