House of Representatives
18 August 1971

27th Parliament · 2nd Session



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

page 189

PETITIONS

Contraceptives

Dr KLUGMAN:
PROSPECT, NEW SOUTH WALES

-I present the following petition:

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The bumble petition of citizens of the Commonwealth of Australia respectfully showeth:

That the Sales Tax on all forms of Contraceptive Devices is 274 per cent. (Sales Tax Exemptions and Classifications Act 1935-1967). Also that there is Customs Duty of up to 47i per cent on some Contraceptives Devices.

An that this is an unfair imposition on the human rights of all people who wish to prevent unwanted pregnancies. And furthermore that this imposition discriminates particularly against people on low incomes.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Sales Tax on all forms of Contraceptive Devices be removed, so as to bring these items into line with other necessities such as food, upon which there is no Sales Tax. Also that Customs Duties be removed, and that all Contraceptive Devices be placed on the National Health Scheme Pharmaceutical Benefits List. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

Contraceptives

Mr CALWELL:
MELBOURNE, VICTORIA

– I present the following petition:

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of citizens nf the Commonwealth of Australia respectfully showeth:

That the Sales Tax on all forms of Contraceptive Devices is 27i per cent (Sales Tax Exemptions and Classifications Act 1935-1967). Also that there is Customs Duty of up to 471 per cent on some Contraceptive Devices.

And that this is an unfair imposition on the human rights of all people who wish to prevent unwanted pregnancies. And furthermore that this imposition discriminates particularly against people on low incomes.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Sales Tax on all forms of Contraceptive Devices be removed, so as to bring these items into line with other necessities such as food, upon which there is no Sales Tax. Also that Customs Duties be removed, and that all Contraceptive Devices be placed on the National Health Scheme Pharmaceutical Benefits List. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.

Petition received.

Chemical Agents of Warfare

Mr REYNOLDS:
BARTON, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I present the following petition:

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of certain electors of the Commonwealth of Australia respectfully showeth:

  1. That the United Nations General Assembly Resolution 2603 XXIV A (December 1969) declares that the Geneva Protocol of 1925, which Australia has ratified, prohibits the use in international armed conflict of any chemical agents of warfare - chemical substances whether gaseous, liquid or solid - employed for their direct toxic effects on man, animals or plants;
  2. That the World Health Organisation Report (January 1970) confirms the above definition of chemical agents of warfare;
  3. That the Australian Government does not accept this definition, but holds thai the Geneva Protocol does not prevent the use in war of-certain toxic chemical substances in the form of herbicides, defoliants and riot-control’ agents.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray -

  1. That the Parliament lake note of the consensus of international political, scientific and humanitarian opinion; and
  2. That Honourable Members urge upon (he Government the desirability of revising its interpretation of the Geneva Protocol, and declaring that it regards all chemical substances employed for their toxic effects on man, animals or plants as being included in the prohibitions laid down by that Protocol.

And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

Chemical Agents of Warfare

Mr LUCHETTI:
MACQUARIE, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I present the following petition:

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of certain electors of the Commonwealth of Australia respectfully showeth -

  1. that the United Nations General Assembly Resolution 2603 XXIV A (December 1969) declares that the Geneva Protocol of 1925, which Australia has ratified, prohibits the use in international armed conflict of any chemical agents of warfare - chemical substances whether gaseous, liquid or solid - employed for their direct toxic effects on man, animals or plants;
  2. that the World Health Organisation Report (January 1970) confirms the above definition of chemical agents of warfare;
  3. that the Australian Government does not accept this definition, but holds thai the Geneva Protocol does nol prevent the use in war of certain toxic chemical substances in the form of herbicides, defoliants and ‘riotcontrol’ agents. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray -
  4. that the Parliament take note of the concensus of international political, scientific and humanitarian opinion; and
  5. that Honourable Members urge upon the Government the desirability of revising its interpretation of the Geneva Protocol, and declaring that it regards all chemical substances employed for their toxic effects on man, animals or plants as being included in the prohibitions laid down by that Protocol.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received.

Education

Mr ENDERBY:

– I present the following petition:

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of residents of the Division of the Australian Capital Territory respectfully showeth -

That there is a likelihood that education in the Australian Capital Territory will in the foreseeable future be made independent of the New South Wales education system:

That the decentralisation of education systems throughout Australia is educationally and administratively desirable, and is now being studied by several State Government Departments:

That the Australian Capital Territory is a homogeneous and coherent unit especially favourable for such studies.

Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that a Committee of Enquiry, on which are represented the Department of Education and Science, institutions of tertiary education, practising educators, and the Canberra community, be instituted to enquire into the form that an Australian Capital Territory Education Authority should take, the educational principles and philosophy that should underly it, and its mode of operation and administration.

And your Petitioners, as in duly bound, will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

Education

Mr BARNARD:
BASS, TASMANIA

– I present the following petition:

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of citizens of the Commonwealth respectfully sheweth - Whereas -

the Commonwealth Parliament has acted to remove some inadequacies in the Australian Education system.

a major inadequacy at present in Australian education is the lack of equal education opportunity for all.

200,000 students from Universities, Colleges of Advanced Education and other Tertiary Institutions, and their parents suffer severe penalty from inadequacies in the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936-1968.

Australia cannot afford to hinder the education of these 200,000 Australians.

Your petitioners request that your honourable House make legal provision for -

The allowance of personal education expenses as a deduction from income for tax purposes.

Removal of the present age limit in respect of the deduction for education expenses and the maintenance allowance for students.

Increase in . the amount of deduction allowable for tertiary education expenses.

Exemption of non-bonded scholarships, for part-time students from income tax.

Increase in the maintenance allowance for students.

And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

Education

Mr CREAN:
MELBOURNE PORTS, VICTORIA

– I present the following petition:

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of citizens of the Commonwealth respectfully sheweth - Whereas -

the Commonwealth Parliament has acted to remove some inadequacies in the Australian Education system.

a major inadequacy at present in Australian education is the lack of equal education opportunity for all.

200,000 students from Universities, Colleges of Advanced Education and other Tertiary Institutions, and their parents suffer severe penalty from inadequacies in the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936-1968.

Australia cannot afford to hinder the education of these 200,000 Australians.

Your petitioners request that your honourable House make legal provision for -

The allowance of personal education expenses as a deduction from income for tax purposes.

Removal of the present age limit in respect of the deduction for education expenses and the maintenance allowance for students.

Increase in the amount of deduction allowable for tertiary education expenses.

Increase in the maintenance allowance for students.

Exemption of non-bonded scholarships, for part-time students from income tax.

And your petitioners, as in duly bound, will ever pray.

Petition received.

Education

Mr WEBB:
STIRLING, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I present the following petition:

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The Humble Petition of citizens of the Commonwealth respectfully sheweth - Whereas -

the Commonwealth Parliament has acted to remove some inadequacies in the Australian Education system.

a major inadequacy at present in Australian education is the lack of equal education opportunity for all.

200,000 students from Universities. Colleges of Advanced Education and other Tertiary Institutions, and their parents suffer severe penalty from inadequacies in the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936-1968.

Australia cannot afford to hinder the education of these 200,000 Australians.

Your petitioners request that your honourable House make legal provision for -

The allowance of personal education expenses as a deduction from income for tax purposes.

Removal of the present age limit in respect of the deduction for education expenses and the maintenance allowance for students.

Increase in the amount of deduction allowable for tertiary education expenses.

Increase in the maintenance allowance for students.

Exemption of non-bonded scholarships, for part-time students from income tax.

And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.

Petition received.

Education

Mr KEATING:
BLAXLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I present the following petition:

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The Humble Petition of citizens of the Commonwealth respectfully sheweth -

Whereas -

the Commonwealth Parliament has acted to remove some inadequacies in the Australian Education system.

a major inadequacy at present in Australian education is the lack of equal education opportunity for all.

200,000 students from Universities, Colleges of Advanced Education and other Tertiary Institutions, and their parents suffer severe penalty from inadequacies in the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936-1968.

Australia cannot afford to hinder the education of these 200,000 Australians.

Your petitioners request that your honourable House make legal provision for -

The allowance of personal education expenses as a deduction from income for tax purposes.

Removal of the present age limit in respect of the deduction for education expenses and the maintenance allowance for students.

Increase in the amount of deduction allowable for tertiary education expenses.

Increase in the maintenance allowance for students.

Exemption of non-bonded scholarships, for part-time students from income tax.

And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.

Petition received.

National Health Scheme

Mr HAMER:
ISAACS, VICTORIA

– I present the following petition:

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of residents of Victoria, respectfully showeth:

That there is a place in the National Health Scheme for qualified psychologists and that being so provision should be made for benefitstobe payable on services rendered by them,especially as patients are deferred to them by local qualified medical practitioners.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Commonwealth Government will take immediate steps to include qualified psychologists in the National Health Scheme.

And your petitioners, as in duly bound, will ever pray.

Petition received.

Education

Dr CASS:
MARIBYRNONG, VICTORIA

– I present the following petition:

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully sheweth:

That the Australian Education Council’s report onthe needs of State education services has established serious deficiencies in education.

That these can be summarised as lack of classroom accommodation, desperate teacher shortage, oversized classes and adequate teaching aids.

That the additional sum of one thousand million dollars is required oyer the next five years by the States for these needs.

That without massive additional Federal finance the State school system will disintegrate.

That the provisions of the Handicapped Children’s Assistance Act 1970 should be amended to include all the country’s physically and mentally handicapped children.

Your petitioners most humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled will take immediate steps to

Ensure that emergency finance from the Commonwealth will be given to the Slates for their public education services which provide schooling for seventy-eight per cent of Australia’s children And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.

Petition received.

Social Services

Mr SCHOLES:
CORIO, VICTORIA

-1-! present the following petition:

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Victoria respectfully showeth.

That due to the higher living cost, persons on Social Service Pensions are finding it extremely difficult to live in even the most frugal way.

We therefore call upon the Commonwealth Government to increase the base pension rate to 30 per cent of the Average Weekly Male Earnings for all States, as ascertained by the Commonwealth Statistician, plus supplementary assistance and allowances in accordance with ACTU policy and adopted as the policy of the Australian Commonwealth Pensioners’ Federation, and by doing so give a reasonably moderate pension.

Your petitioners most humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled will take immediate steps to bring about the wishes expressed in our petition: so that our citizens receiving the Social Service Pensions may live their lives in dignity:

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

Mcmahon ministry

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– I ask the Prime Minister: Did the political correspondent of the ‘Sunday Australian’ assert on 15th August that the Prime Minister was familiar with the contents of Mr Reid’s book, that he had spoken with Mr Reid about it on several occasions and that he had told associates that he thought the book would finally destroy his adversary and prepare the Party and the public for the sacking to come? Would he agree that such conduct on his part, if correctly reported, represented a threat to Cabinet solidarity and unity graver by far than the articles by the former Minister for Defence? Why, therefore, has he not taken steps to deny these charges? Will he do so now?

Mr McMAHON:
Prime Minister · LOWE, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– Obviously, this scurrilous personal campaign is to continue today. The first thing that I can say about it is no, I did not read the article to which the honourable gentleman refers. But it is not necessary for me to have read it to be able to say clearly and categorically that I never knew of any part of the contents of that book prior to its publication. I did net know of the substance of the book or any part of the substance of the book whatsoever.

page 192

QUESTION

PENTAGON PAPERS

Mr MacKELLAR:
WARRINGAH, NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is addressed to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. I refer him to the publication of the so-called Pentagon papers in America earlier this year. Was a . request from the South Vietnamese Government the sole reason for the commitment of Australian troops to Vietnam in 1965? If not, what other considerations influenced the Government’s decision? Does the publication of the Pentagon papers cast any doubt on the propriety of this commitment?

Mr N H Bowen:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– The so-called Pentagon papers are of course a selective set of papers taken from the records of the Pentagon. They comprise 47 volumes. I emphasise that they are a selective record. They do not contain the papers of the State Department; they do not contain the papers of the White House; they of course do not contain the papers of the Australian Government. They are a highly selective record, however much the Opposition may not like that fact In addition to that the so-called Pentagon papers were published, in a series of articles compiled by a group of writers, by a newspaper which has not been known to be very favourable in its attitude to the policies, particularly Vietnam, of the United States Administration. That is what the members of the Opposition have been talking about - a selection upon a selection.

Getting to the substance of the question, honourable members will recall the situation as it was at the end of 1964 and the beginning of 1965. There is no need to go into detail but just to recall how critical was the position in Vietnam and to a lesser extent in Laos and Cambodia. Indonesian confrontation was at its height under Sukarno, Indonesia being a country with which we have a common border. Moreover it was a time of insurgency in Malaysia and Thailand. As the Prime Minister has reminded me, he himself will be making a statement tonight at 8 o’clock in which he will be developing this matter.

In the light of these circumstances in late 1964 and early 1965 the Foreign Affairs and Defence Committee of the Australian Cabinet met frequently. It had advice from the Defence Committee and from the Chiefs of Staff Committee, and on the basis of all that advice and all the information which it had it considered the national interests of Australia at that time. Of course it acted in close consultation with our allies, of which the United States of America was then and still is the most important. It would have been ridiculous not to have done this. Eventually the decision was made that Australia would he willing to send combat troops to South Vietnam. Perhaps honourable members have read the statement made by the Prime Minister some time ago in which he detailed the oral requests that had been made by the Government of South Vietnam for military assistance. It had always been known and accepted that if Australia sent troops to Vietnam it would do so only at the invitation or with the consent of the Government concerned. This is the substance of article IV of the South East Asia Collective Defence Treaty.

After the decision was made that Australia was willing to send troops, naturally it was advisable to have the request for military assistance in writing. So the written request was 3 pre-condition rather than simply the sole reason. The written request was received, lt was not the sole reason. There were other reasons arising from a very careful assessment of the national interests of Australia. Honourable members will know of the improvement in stability not only in Vietnam but also in Indonesia, and indeed in the whole of South East Asia, since those critical days. There is no need for me to stress that improvement. Honourable members are aware of it. and I think Australia has made its contribution to it.

page 193

QUESTION

ASSOCIATED PULP AND PAPER MILLS LTD

Mr DAVIES:
BRADDON, TASMANIA

– Is the Minister for Trade and Industry aware that 150 men are being retrenched at the Associated Pulp and Paper Ltd mill at Burnie in Tasmania and that ils subsidiary at Ballarat in Victoria is reducing its working week from 7 days to 5 days because of lack of orders due to imports from overseas? Will the Minister make urgent inquiries into the rate of imports and the landed costs of writing paper and printing paper, both coated and uncoated, from overseas countries to see whether action by the Government to protect the local industry is warranted? In conclusion, will the Minister initiate a campaign through all Government departments and instrumentalities to buy Australian made products, as was done 10 years ago, in an attempt to assist the paper industry in this country?

Mr ANTHONY:
Deputy Prime Minister · RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · CP

– I am not aware that men have been put off at the various mills to which the honourable member referred. However, I will certainly look into the matter to determine what is involved and the reasons for such dismissals. The last part of the honourable member’s question related to the buying of Australian products. He asked whether I would give assistance to a campaign. I will certaintly give whatever assistance I can. When I returned from a recent trip to various countries I stated that if Australia was to maintain its high standard of living and its high rate of development it would have to become more dependent than ever on rapid industrial expansion. Industrial development in this country will depend upon our manufacturers being able to produce high quality products efficiently and meet the best of competition around the world. I would certainly like to be able to promote the Australian products which command the respect and the demand of Australian consumers despite competition from anywhere else in the world.

page 193

QUESTION

TEXTILES

Mr STREET:
CORANGAMITE, VICTORIA

– My question also is directed to the Minister for Trade and Industry. Has the Minister’s attention been drawn to reports that the Office of Secondary Industry has made recommendations to the Government that conflict with those of the Tariff Board in respect to certain sections of the textile industry? Is there any substance in these reports?

Mr ANTHONY:
CP

– The honourable member’s question has been no doubt prompted by some of the speculation in the Press over the last week as to a Tariff Board report which is before the Government at the moment and advice that is possibly being given to the Government by a section of the Department of Trade and Industry, namely, the Office of Secondary Industry. I want to make it quite clear that any advice that is given to me by my Department will remain the property of the Government unless I authorise otherwise. I will neither deny nor confirm whether any advice or information has been given to me. But let me reiterate that the Government has said that it will give economic and efficient industries reasonable protection. We have a Tariff Board, an independent body that gives advice to the Government. However, the ultimate responsibility for whatever decisions arc taken lies with the Government. When the Tariff Board makes a report to the Government that report is analysed. One of the important authorities which analyses such reports is the Office of Secondary Industry. Its job is to foster and assist the development of Australian industries. It has to look at the adequacy or otherwise of the Tariff Board’s reports and the probable effects of such reports on the community at large. The Tariff Board is obliged not only to give an economic judgment but also to take into account non-economic factors. We as politicians have a responsibility to weigh up all the factors involved. I sometimes hear people trying to blemish the Parliament or parliamentarians because political decisions are made. All I can say about that is that they do not know what they are talking about because politics is the management of public affairs. But somehow or other, because a political decision has to be made, they want to associate these things wilh party politics merely because-

Mr Cope:

– You are all right. He cannot sack you.

Mr ANTHONY:

– -The only people who have been trying to sack me since I have been here have been members of the Australian Labor Party and they have not succeeded. Apparently, because political judgments have to be made and because I happen to be in charge of the office of secondary industry, people are trying to smear me with making purely Country Party decisions. That is completely wrong. Any decision that I make will be in the best interests of this nation.

page 194

QUESTION

PENTAGON PAPERS

Mr BARNARD:

– I ask a question supplementary to the one which was directed to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. In view of the Minister’s obvious interest and the interest of other members in this chamber, will he use his good offices with the United States Government to enable the Pentagon papers to be tabled in this Parliament, par ticularly that portion which is relevant to the written request from the South Vietnamese Government.

Mr N H Bowen:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

-I noticed the Leader of the Opposition reading the book Pentagon Papers’ when I was giving my previous answer. Someone had handed him a copy.

Mr Whitlam:

– I was not.

Mr N H Bowen:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– The Leader of the Opposition says that he was not. lt is on the table in front of him. This is the published edition from the ‘New York Times’. This is the selection from a selection. Dealing with the 47 volumes of the Pentagon papers, I can answer briefly only by saying: No. I think in matters of government of this type, we as well as other governments with whom we deal are accustomed to observing trust and confidence and I do not think we should encroach upon that principle.

page 194

QUESTION

MEAT EXPORTS

Mr O’KEEFE:
PATERSON, NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is directed to the Minister for Primary Industry. Operators in auction sales of cattle yesterday are reported to have reduced stock values by 10 per cent to compensate for the 10 per cent surcharge imposed by the United States of America on imports. Are not such beef imports from Australia exempt from this surcharge? Will the Minister agree that this discounting by stock operators is entirely unjustified?

Mr SINCLAIR:
Minister for Primary Industry · NEW ENGLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES · CP

– lt has always been practice in the course of auction sales for those who are trying to buy stock to use whatever device they can to depress markets. Unfortunately, I understand that yesterday in a number of stock auctions around Australia there was a tendency towards a marked reduction in operating levels, allegedly because of the impost by the United States on Australian meats. As my colleague, the Minister for Trade and Industry, made quite clear in this House yesterday Australian beef, veal, mutton and goat meats are admitted into the United States under voluntary quota arrangements and consequently they are exempt from the 10 per cent levy. For that reason, there is no justification for operators taking any discount in the auction price for those products.

As my colleague again said, unfortunately lamb and processed meats, because of the different basis on which they are admitted into the United States market, may well be subject to the levy but again I would doubt whether at this stage there would be any justification for operators in taking that sort of action on the Australian auction floor. As honourable members would know, a very high percentage of Australia’s lamb - some 84 per cent in 1970-71 - is sold on the local Australian market and although the Australian Meat Board is embarking on an extensive promotion campaign in the United States it certainly cannot be said at this stage that any action by the United States would justify any reduction in prices paid at Australian auctions.

page 195

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN ECONOMY

Mr CALWELL:

– I ask the Prime

Minister, as head of the Government-

Mr Duthie:

– Today.

Mr CALWELL:

– He might be there longer than you think. 1 am not interested in Prime Ministers: I am interested in Socialism. I ask: In view of the possible ill effects on the Australian economy, both directly and indirectly, caused by President Nixon’s decision to suspend convertibility of gold into dollars, will the Prime Minister make a statement to the House at an early date so that this momentous decision may be debated and the Australian people informed of its full significance as honourable members are able to understand it?

Mr MCMAHON:
LP

– 1 think it would be desirable to ask the Treasurer and the Minister for Trade and Industry, in cooperation with my Department, to prepare a paper that could be presented to the House, not only relating to the conversion of the dollar into gold but also to give the House an opportunity to understand the effect of the import surcharge and the effects of the decreases in various rates of taxation. I will have a talk to my colleagues immediately after question time and try to have a paper presented to the House as soon as I can.

page 195

QUESTION

WINE EXCISE

Mr GILES:
ANGAS, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I address a question to the Prime Minister, lt refers to wine excise and the inter-departmental committee formed to look objectively at the effect of wine excise. Will the right honourable gentleman give some indication of this committee’s findings? What statistics were used in arriving at those findings? Was the committee reconvened recently, and if so, for what purpose?

Mr McMAHON:
LP

– -It is true that the Government did have an investigation made of the change in prices of certain grapes, largely those grown in the honourable gentleman’s electorate.

Mr Grassby:

– Not only in his electorate.

Mr McMAHON:

– Principally in his electorate. The report of the Government was presented-

Mr Grassby:

– But-

Mr McMAHON:

– Could I put it this way: The honourable member for Angas played a leading part in ensuring that the report was considered-

Mr Grassby:

– But-

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for Riverina is a member of long experience in parliaments, and I would suggest that he use that knowledge to restrain himself throughout question time.

Mr McMAHON:

– The matter was considered by the interdepartmental committee. I well remember reading the report because it did draw attention to structural changes which were occurring and particularly to what was called vertical integration where the manufacturer of wine was also engaged in the production of grapes. Various other reasons were given for the fall in the price of grapes in the areas I have just mentioned. After discussion with the honourable gentleman, and solely as a result of his representations to me, I took steps to ensure that the relevant officials in the Government carried out another investigation. The investigation showed that similar causes to those previously mentioned still existed, and whilst there were some problems associated with the production and sale of grapes, it was felt that this was a matter that probably could be handled more effectively by the State of South Australia than by the Commonwealth itself.

Mr Hurford:

– How?

Mr McMAHON:

– It could easily do what other governments have done, that is form a pool for the purchase of grapes. That was done on at least one other occasion by a South Australian government. I assure the honourable gentleman that I will keep this matter under very close and personal review. If he has any other facts that he would like to put to me, particularly relating to the matters mentioned to me before 1 came into the House today, 1 will ensure that they go to the relevant government officials and that another report is submitted to me as soon as possible. Equally, too, do I say to the honourable member for Riverina that if he has a new-found interest in this it is high time he let me know about it.

page 196

QUESTION

SHIPPING

Mr DUTHIE:

– 1 address a question to the Minister for Trade and Industry. Has the Government made any progress in arranging for shipping outside the conference lines for the shipment overseas of apples and pears, meat to North America and wool to Europe and the United Kingdom? ls the Minister aware that New Zealand growers of apples and pears pay 70c a case less than Tasmanian growers for apples and pears shipped to Europe and the United Kingdom because they are using shipping outside the conference lines?

Mr ANTHONY:
CP

– From what I recall, additional arrangements were made for the balance of the Tasmanian crop. I think I answered a question asked by the honourable member last session on this aspect. I know of no special arrangements that have been made for apples and pears as a result of conference line discussions. Special arrangements were made for the transport of wool from Australia with the conference lines. Such wool was not subject to any freight increases this year. This was a great relief to those in the wool industry. One must give credit to Sir William Gunn for his persistence in trying to hold any freight increases on this commodity. However I am conscious of the difficult situation that the Tasmanian apple industry is facing and the rather grim prospects it has in view of the present arrangements that have been made between the United Kingdom and European countries regarding Britain’s entry into the European Economic Community. I am conscious also of the transitional impact this will have on the Tasmanian industry. I know only too well the need to keep freight rates as low as possible for that industry. I can assure the honourable member that my Department, in conjunction with the Department of Shipping and Transport, will do whatever it can to get concessional rates.

page 196

QUESTION

DISALLOWED QUESTION

(Mr Irwin having addressed a question to the Postmaster-General)

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The honourable gentleman’s question is out of order. If he wishes to ask a question he will have to make it more concise and he must not debate the subject matter.

Mr Irwin:

– This question is much shorter than other questions that have been asked today.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member will resume his seat. I would point out to those honourable members who are interjecting that the question asked by the honourable member for Mitchell was not ruled out of order because it was long; it was disallowed because of its content.

page 196

QUESTION

SOUTH VIETNAM

Mr UREN:
REID, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I address a question to the Minister for Foreign Affairs, ls it a fact that the Australian Government sent troops to Vietnam because of a great deal of pressure from the Government of the United States of America and that similar pressure was placed on all other SEATO and NATO allies but that all other governments, with the exception of the New Zealand Government, refused to send combat troops to Vietnam? Is it not a fact that the Australian Government sent troops to Vietnam because it wanted a type of insurance policy? Does the Minister believe that the sending of troops to support a corrupt government in South Vietnam and the consequent loss of almost 500 young Australians was worth while?

Mr N H Bowen:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– As I thought I had made reasonably clear in my earlier answer, the considerations which impelled the Australian Government to send troops to Vietnam were deep and long considerations of the national interests of Australia, carried out over months, with frequent meetings of the Foreign Affairs and Defence Committee of Cabinet and with the best military advice that could be obtained. Let me make that quite clear. the honourable gentleman likes to use words like ‘pressure’. Naturally, this is an emotive word and he can get what advantage he can from it. But the fact is. of course, that we consulted closely with the United States, which also had an interest in the stability and security of this area - perhaps not quite so direct and close as ours but. nevertheless, a very great interest in the security of the area, as did New Zealand. We consulted with New Zealand. We consulted with our other allies.

What we did, of course, was the result of consultation. If the honourable member likes to call it ‘pressure’ either way, he can equally well say that New Zealand was bringing pressure, or we were bringing pressure, or Korea was bringing pressure, or Vietnam was bringing pressure. However he likes to describe what took place in a consultation, that is his affair, but I am telling him the facts.

I also want to stress that when the announcement was made in the House by Sir Robert Menzies he stated quite fully and clearly what Australia’s position was, how far it had sought to obtain a written request because of the South East Asia Treaty Organisation, how far we were acting in consultation with others and how we were basing it on Australian national interest. There is no need to try to twist these facts by the use of emotive words such as ‘pressure’.

page 197

QUESTION

UNITED STATES IMPORTS

Mr KATTER:
KENNEDY, QUEENSLAND

– My question, which is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade and Industry, concerns a matter of the utmost importance to the economy of this nation and in a special way to the economy of the great electorate of Kennedy which I represent. Can the Minister give the House an indication of how the new United States import surcharge of 10 per cent will affect Australia’s exports of minerals and metals to the United States?

Mr ANTHONY:
CP

– Australia’s total exports to the United States of minerals and metals last year were worth about $110m. The new import surcharge will not apply to those imports which do not normally attract duty. Accordingly, our exports of iron ore, rutile, zircon, ilmenite, bauxite and alumina will continue to be exempt from duty. In other words, approx imately 80 per cent of our exports of minerals and metals to the United States will not be affected. The balance of our exports of minerals and metals to the United States, which are valued at about S23m, are dutiable and will be affected.

Mr Uren:

– 1 raise a point of order, ls this a question without notice or a question on notice? A member of the Minister’s own Party has been set up to ask a Dorothy Dix question.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! There is no substance in the point of order. As I said before, the Chair is not in a position to know the source of questions.

Mr ANTHONY:

– I do not think it would take a very bright Minister to know that this question would come up. lt seems to be very much in the public attention at the moment, and I think that the honourable member for Kennedy is doing a duty by asking me this question. The dutiable items which will be affected, of course, are mainly lead and zinc, ore concentrates and metals. It is, of course, impossible to determine what the indirect effects will be on our sale of ores, concentrates and metals to Japan and other countries. But it is recognised that President Nixon said that these would be only temporary measures until the United States balance of payments situation was resolved, ft is hoped that these matters will be resolved as soon as possible.

I have been advised moreover that the United States Secretary of the Treasury has discretionary powers to eliminate or reduce the import surcharge. Certainly our basic raw materials which go to the United States for further processing - I am thinking of our minerals and metals, and also wool - can be looked at and adjustments can be made to the surcharge. I am prepared to consider an approach to the United States Government seeking relief in the event of adverse trade effects. I am aware of the concern that has been expressed in the newspapers about the possible effects on the development of mineral projects in Australia and on exploration developments, and it is necessary that these things be resolved as quickly as possible. I propose to call the relevant departmental people together so that we can examine the situation quickly and decide what action ought to be taken.

page 198

QUESTION

DEPARTMENT OF SUPPLY

Mr FOSTER:
STURT, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– 1 direct a question to the Minister for Supply. Firstly, why does his Department insist on a security check on members of the community who are not employed by his Department? Secondly, after such security investigations are made why does his Department contemplate action against employees of the Department by way of demotion, involving loss of earnings, because of their social contact with members of the community? Thirdly, why does the Department of Supply discriminate against naturalised citizens? Finally, why does his Department regard such people as being aliens and therefore subject to security investigation?

Mr GARLAND:
Minister for Supply · CURTIN, WESTERN AUSTRALIA · LP

– The honourable member has addressed to me a general question which was, I think, based on a case which he has communicated to me in the last few days and on which I replied to him. As the honourable member will be aware the Department of Supply carries out research into defence equipment and development. Tt does a great deal of weapons research and, in the course of that development and research, needs to conduct a great deal of communication both internally and externally. In the course of that work it is necessary for the Department to look into the background of some of its employees, particularly those concerned with communications which, as the honourable member knows, was the case in point. There is no discrimination against naturalised persons but it is necessary and proper, as I am sure all honourable members will understand, that inquiries be carried out. There was, as the honourable member knows, no demotion in this case. I examined this case and would naturally look into any case which honourable gentlemen brought to my attention.

page 198

QUESTION

RESALE PRICE MAINTENANCE

Mr HUGHES:
BEROWRA, NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the AttorneyGeneral. I ask: What progress has been made with the review of the Trade Practices Act referred to by the Prime Minister in his speech yesterday? In this review will it be clearly borne in mind that the retention of the protracted and cumbersome processes of case by case examination of horizontal price fixing agreements between supposed competitors would be an illogical anomaly now that there is virtually a general prohibition of the practice of resale price maintenance? Will it be borne in mind that these horizonal agreements, which are if anything much more pervasive in their adverse effect on prices than resale price maintenance, ought to be the subject of the same kind of virtually general prohibition?

Mr N H Bowen:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– The honourable and learned member for Berowra will of course be aware of the commencement of this inquiry many months ago. It was partly because resale price maintenance of a vertical kind was found to be capable of being dealt with separately that this committee dealt with it separately, and we introduced legislation on it separately. The committee then proceeded further with its inquiries on other matters. One of the other matters was the horizontal price fixing arrangement to which the honourable member has referred. It is true that when it is simply an examinable agreement and has to be registered it takes a considerable time for it to come before the Tribunal if it is against the public interest. Therefore one of the matters which the committee is considering is whether the more streamlined procedure we have been able to adopt for the verticle type of agreement could be applied to the horizontal type of agreement. However, this involves a total review of horizontal agreements generally. This is only one type of them. The recent frozen peas case in which the Tribunal found that the agreement was against the public interest and upheld the actions of the Commissioner for Trade Practices is an illustration that the old system works effectively. The only difficulty is the amount of time it takes for a horizontal agreement to come forward under the old procedure. This is a matter which the committee will be considering along with other matters such as the secrecy provisions. I will ask the learned gentleman in another place to give to the honourable member any further information as to current progress in this matter.

page 198

QUESTION

RURAL FINANCE INSURANCE CORPORATION

Mr WHITLAM:

– I ask the Prime Minister a question. The right honourable gentleman will be aware of the burden imposed upon primary producers by their inability to obtain long term loans. I ask: Can he say whether it is still the intention of the Government to establish the Rural Finance Insurance Corporation promised by his predecessor in the speech opening his Party’s 1970 Senate campaign? If so why is there no provision in the Budget for this financial year for this purpose?

Mr McMahon:

– The Treasurer will answer that question.

Mr SNEDDEN:
Treasurer · BRUCE, VICTORIA · LP

– This matter is under consideration. It is not a simple matter. It requires discussion with the lending authorities, principally the banks. In addition to those discussions there is interdepartmental consideration. When the appropriate time comes a statement will be made in relation to this matter.

page 199

AUDITOR-GENERAL’S REPORT

Mr SPEAKER:

-I present the following paper:

Audit Act - Finance - Report of the AuditorGeneral for year 1970-71 - accompanied by the Treasurer’s Statement of Receipts and Expenditure.

Ordered that the report be printed.

page 199

CONFERENCE OF PRESIDING OFFICERS AND CLERKS OF PARLIAMENTS

Mr SPEAKER:

-I present the report of the Fourth Conference of Presiding Officers and Clerks of the Parliaments of Australia, Cook Island, Fiji, Nauru, Papua, New Guinea and Western Samoa.

page 199

REPORT OF PARLIAMENTARY MISSION

Mr SPEAKER:

-I present the official report of the Australian Parliamentary Mission to the Council of Europe, Turkey, France, Belgium, Britain and Yugoslavia.

page 199

ADVANCE TO THE TREASURER 1970-71

Statement of Expenditure

Mr SNEDDEN:
Treasurer · Bruce · LP

– I present the following paper:

Statement for the year 1970-71 of Heads of Expenditure and the amounts charged thereto pursuant to section 36a of the Audit Act 1901-1969 (Advance to the Treasurer).

Ordered that the statement be taken into consideration in Committee of the whole House at the next sitting.

page 199

AUSTRALIAN DAIRY PRODUCE BOARD

Mr SINCLAIR:
Minister for Primary Industry · New England · CP

– For the information of honourable members, I present the preliminary report of the Australian Dairy Produce Board for the year ended 30th June 1971. When the final report is available, I shall table it in accordance with statutory requirements.

page 199

WHEAT RESEARCH ACT

Mr SINCLAIR:
Minister for Primary Industry · New England · CP

– Pursuant to section 18 of the Wheat Research Act 1957, I present the thirteenth annual report on activities under the Act for the year ended 31st December 1970.

page 199

AUSTRALIAN MEAT RESEARCH COMMITTEE

Mr SINCLAIR:
Minister for Primary Industry · New England · CP

– For the information of honourable members I present the interim report of the Austraiian Meat Research Committee for the year ended 30th June 1971. When the final report is available it will be presented in accordance with statutory requirements.

page 199

AUSTRALIAN EGG BOARD

Mr SINCLAIR:
Minister for Primary Industry · New England · CP

– Pursuant to section 23 of the Egg Export Control Act 1947- 1966, I present the Twenty-third annual report of the Australian Egg Board on the operation of the Act for the year ended 30th June 1970, together with financial statements and the report of the AuditorGeneral on those statements. An interim report of the Board was presented to the House on 17th September 1970.

page 199

UNITED NATIONS GENERAL ASSEMBLY

Mr N. H. BOWEN (Parramatta- Minister for Foreign Affairs) - For the information of honourable members, I present the report of the Australian delegation to the Twenty-fifth Session of the United Nations General Assembly.

page 199

TERRITORY OF PAPUA

Mr BARNES:
Minister for External Territories · Mcpherson · CP

– For the information of honourable members, I present the annual report on the Territory of Papua for the period 1st July 1969 to 30th June 1970.

page 200

TERRITORY OF NEW GUINEA

Mr BARNES:
Minister for External Territories · McPherson · CP

– For the information of honourable members, I present the report to the General Assembly of the United Nations on the administration of the Territory of New Guinea for the year ended 30th June 1970.

page 200

DEPARTMENT OF SUPPLY

Mr GARLAND:
Minister for Supply · Curtin · LP

– For the information of honourable members, I present a report on the activities and developments of the Department of Supply for the year ended 30th June 1971.

page 200

BILLS RETURNED FROM THE SENATE

The following Bills were returned from the Senate:

Without requests -

Pig Slaughter Levy Bill 1971.

Supply Bill (No. 1) 1971-1972.

Customs Tariff Bill 1971.

Customs Tariff (Validation) Bill 1971.

Income Tax (Withholding Tax Recoupment)

Bill 1971. Income Tax (Bearer Debentures) Bill 1971.

Without amendment -

Northern Territory Railway Extension Bill 1971.

International Development Association (Further Payments) Bill 1971.

Pig Industry Research Bill 1971.

Pig Slaughter Levy Collection Bill 1971.

Loans (Qantas Airways Limited) Bill 1971.

Loan Bill 1971.

Papua and New Guinea Loan (International Bank) Bill 1971.

Ministers of State Bill 1971.

International Tin Agreement Bill 1971.

Export Payments Insurance Corporation Bill

International Wheat Agreement Bill 1971.

States Grants (Pre-School Teachers Colleges) Bill 1971.

States Grants (Technical Training) Bill 1971.

States Grants (Universities) Bill 1971.

States Grants (Housing Assistance) Bill 1971.

Supply Bill (No. 2) 1971-1972.

States Grants (Rural Reconstruction) Bill 1971.

Loan (Farmers’ Debt Adjustment) Bill 1971.

Stevedoring Industry Charge Assessment Bill 1971.

Papua and New Guinea Bill 1971.

Income Tax Assessment (No. 2) Bill 1971.

States Grants Bill 1971.

Trade Practices Bill 1971.

Wool Industry Bill 1971.

States Grants (Science Laboratories) Bill 1971.

Victoria Grant (Shepparton Preserving Company Limited) Bill 1971.

Compensation (Commonwealth Employees) Bill 1971.

United States Naval Communication Station (Civilian Employees) Bill 1971.

Air Accidents (Commonwealth Liability) Bill 1971.

Anglo-Australian Telescope Agreement Bill 1971.

Seamen’s Compensation Bill 1971.

Superannuation Bill 1971.

Defence Forces Retirement Benefits Bill 1971.

page 200

ASSENT TO BILLS

Assent to the following Bills reported:

Northern Territory Railway Extension Bill 1971.

Public Order (Protection of Persons and Property) Bill 1971.

Papua and New Guinea Loan (International Bank) Bill 1971.

Pig Slaughter Levy Bill 1971.

Pig Slaughter Levy Collection Bill 1971.

Pig Industry Research Bill 1971.

Internationa] Tin Agreement Bill 1971.

States Grants (Pre-School Teachers Colleges) Bill 1971.

Export Payments Insurance Corporation Bill 1971.

International Development Association (Further Payment) Bill 1971.

Loans (Qantas Airways Limited) Bill 1971.

Loan Bill 1971.

Slates Grants (Technical Training) Bill 1971.

Customs Tariff Bill 1971.

International Wheat Agreement Bill 1971.

States Grants (Housing Assistance) Bill 1971.

Supply Bill (No. 1) 1971-1972.

Supply Bill (No. 2) 1971-1972.

Ministers of State Bill 1971.

States Grants (Universities) Bill 1971.

Customs Tariff Validation Bill 1971.

Superannuation Bill 1971.

Defence Forces Retirement Benefits Bill 1971.

Compensation (Commonwealth Employees) Bill 1971.

United States Naval Communication Station (Civilian Employees) Bill 1971.

Air Accidents (Commonwealth Liability) Bill 1971.

Anglo-Australian Telescope Agreement Bill 1971.

Seamen’s Compensation Bill 1971.

Wool Industry Bill 1971.

Income Tax Assessment Bill (No. 2) 1971.

Income Tax (Bearer Debentures) Bill 1971.

Income Tax (Withholding Tax Recoupment) Bill 1971.

Trade Practices Bill 1971.

Papua and New Guinea Bill 1971.

Stevedoring Industry Charge Bill 1971.

Stevedoring Industry Charge Assessment Bill

States Grants (Rural Reconstruction) Bill 1971.

Loan (Farmers’ Debt Adjustment) Bill 1971.

Victoria Grant (Shepparton Preserving Company Limited) Bill 1971.

States Grants Bill 1971.

States Grants (Science Laboratories) Bill 1971.

page 201

NEW SOUTH WALES GRANT

1971

Mr SPEAKER:

– I have received the following message from the Senate:

Pursuant to a Resolution passed this day the Senate transmits to the House of Representatives the following Resolution which has been agreed to by the Senate on 16th March 1971 during consideration of the Bill for ‘An Act to grant Financial Assistance to the State of New South Wales for the purpose of Flood Mitigation Works in relation to certain Rivers’, and requests the consideration by the House of the Resolution:

That this Bill be now read a second time, but the Senate whilst welcoming the proposal for the purpose of flood mitigation works in New South Wales, is of the opinion that the assistance offered is inadequate and should form part of a larger scheme to deal with national disasters and that, accordingly, a joint select committee of the Parliament should be appointed to inquire intothe practicability of the establishment of a national disaster organisation’.

Mr Whitlam:

Mr Speaker, may I ask your guidance on this matter? 1 do not think that I am in an exceptional position. 1 think everyone in the chamber is in the same position. We were not aware that this message was coming in this form. I think that at least the House should be given the opportunity to consider it. I also think it should be given the opportunity to debate it and to determine it. My own belief is that this House would support the proposition. I have been caught by surprise.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Let me say that, as far as 1 am concerned, I have done what I am required to do by reporting this matter. The rest is a matter between the Government and the Opposition.

Mr Whitlam:

– I appreciate that. I would like to ask the Leader of the House whether he can assure the House that this message will come up for debate and determination in the House within, say, the next month. I ask this, Sir, because I do not want to displace Government business or the Budget debate.If the honourable gentleman cannot give me that assurance I am disposed to move for the suspension of Standing Orders so that the House can vote upon the matter forthwith.

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

– by leave - This message has come back from the Senate. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr Whitlam) said that he has not seen it before. 1 have not seen it before either, so we are both in the same position. This matter relates to a Bill which was passed through this House and which was passed by the Senate at the end of the last sitting. It relates also to an amendment that was proposed in this House. The honourable member for Dawson (Dr Patterson) probably handled it at the time. I think a similar amendment was proposed in the Senate. The amendment moved in this House was not accepted, nor was the amendment moved in the Senate; but the Senate asked that this message be sent back to the House of Representatives. The matter has already been debated in this House. I repeat that the amendment was rejected by this House when the Bill was going through.

The Bill related to specific assistance for flood mitigation in connection with a number of rivers in New South Wales and received the approval of this House. The amendment, which was in somewhat similar terms to this message, was. as 1 have said, rejected by the House when the relevant Bill was before us. I do not want to prevent debate on any matter if it is felt that it should be brought up for discussion in the House. I merely point out that this matter has already been discussed. If the Leader of the Opposition wishes this matter to be debated at some later point of time I cannot guarantee when we will be able to debate it, but I can give him an assurance that we will move that the House take note of the message. We can note it for consideration, and it can be debated at a later stage. If that is acceptable to the Leader of the Opposition, I am prepared to do it.

Mr WHITLAM:
Leader of the Opposition · Werriwa

– by leave - I assume that the Minister for National Development (Mr Swartz) would be in order in moving that the House take note of the request. The debate on that motion could then be adjourned.

Mr SPEAKER:

– MayI interpose. The Minister could move that the House take note of this message, and thematter could be set down for debate at a later date.

What that date will be is a matter that will have to be decided. I suppose he could even set a fixed date.

Mr WHITLAM:

– I would then be satisfied. The trouble I find about agreeing to the adjournment of a debate on a motion that the House take note of the message is that there are a very great number of matters on the notice paper already on which debate has been adjourned. A great number were withdrawn during the Easter session this year because they had been introduced before the last Budget and obviously we had had an opportunity to debate them, but there are matters on the notice paper in relation to which there has been no indication that there will be any resumption of debate. I would be quite content to have an adjournment of the debate on a motion that we take note of the message if we could be certain that the motion would come on for debate, say, by the end of next month. 1 do not think that this is a matter on which we should overlook the opportunity of a vote.

I do not recollect with great particularity the circumstances relating to this matter, but I accept the Minister’s recollection that this proposition was moved as an amendment to the Bill, that the amendment was defeated and that the Bill was then passed. But there is a new circumstance. In the Senate the Bill was passed, and this request has been specifically sent to us. At least we should consider the request. We should not let it pass unconsidered. Furthermore, I believe there is on both sides of both chambers a lively appreciation of the benefits of the committee system, and the more joint committees there are the more fruitful the committees are likely to be.

The request from the Senate suggests that there should be a joint committee to consider the establishment of a natural disaster fund. This is a matter on which I have been asking questions of successive Treasurers for at least 3 years. I have had one question on the notice paper from the date on which we first sat this year and it is still unanswered. I believe that the general question of natural disasters is one that will be with us always. It affects a great number of electorates. Since it is very difficult for the Treasury to devote consideration to this question - my proposition concerns similar schemes in New Zealand and the United States of America - I think it is one upon which we should have, with advantage, a joint parliamentary committee. If the Minister cannot agree to having a debate and a vote on this matter before the end of next month, I will have to move for the suspension of Standing Orders to deal with it forthwith.

Mr SPEAKER:

– As I pointed out before, it is a question of arrangement. In accordance with the Standing Orders, I have reported this message. The only thing that can be done now is for the House to decide that message be put down for consideration at a future date.

Mr WHITLAM:

– Can we specify the date?

Mr SPEAKER:

– No. Since I suggested that the matter might be adjourned to a specific date, I have taken advice and I have found that I was incorrect. Debate on the matter can be adjourned only to a future date. If the Leader of the House cannot come to some definite agreement with the Opposition on this matter, the alternative is that the Opposition move the suspension of the Standing Orders.

Dr PATTERSON:
Dawson

– by leaveThis is a matter of interpretation of the Standing Orders. I want to ask you. Mr Speaker, or the Leader of the House (Mr Swartz) how this situation has arisen. If the Leader of the Opposition, the Minister who was in charge of the original Bill, or anyone who knew something about the Bill had not been in this chamber when this message was reported, it could have easily gone straight through. Surely, if the Senate requests the House of Representatives to take note of this mesage the Senate does not intend that you, Sir, should read it out and that the Minister administering the relevant portfolio should not be notified - apparently he was not notified - and that the Opposition also should not be notified. I think this raises a point which you, Sir, and the Clerk should look at in the future, because if we are not advised of these messages one can visualise a serious message - I am not saying that this is not a serious message - or a message of some content simply going through without there being any opportunity to comment on it.

Mr SWARTZ (Darling Downs - Minister for National Development) - by leave - 1 said that this matter had only just come to my notice, but obviously it came to my notice before the blue paper, the Daily Programme’, was printed because I had to prepare the blue paper. The blue paper is the method now employed to circulate advice. It is not an official document; the notice paper is the official one. The blue paper, which has been in use over only a relatively short time, was introduced so that messages of this type coming back from the Senate and other matters could be brought to the attention of the House. It lists the order of business for the day in a more presentable form than that in the ordinary notice paper. The blue paper that was circulated today showed that this message from the Senate would be reported. These procedures are followed to try to let honourable members have the information as soon as possible.

On the point that the Leader of the Opposition has raised, I will be prepared to move that the House take note of this message and that the debate on the adjourned motion be made an order of the day for a future date. I am afraid that I cannot give an undertaking at this stage as to the exact time at which a debate on this subject could be held, but I will be discussing this matter with the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. We have yet to finalise a programme for debate on the Budget and on quite a number of Bills that are about to be introduced. Obviously the Budget debate must receive priority.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The Minister will not be in order in moving that the House take note of the paper.

Mr SWARTZ:

– I intended to move that the House take note of the message.

Mr SPEAKER:

-I am sorry. I thought you said that you intended to move that the House take note of the paper. Will the Leader of the Opposition give the Minister leave to move that the House take note of the message? It is the only way in which a debate can ensue.

Mr Whitlam:

– Yes, I will give him leave, and then I will move for a suspension of the Standing Orders.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Perhaps I should say that this is an unusual situation. It is the first time I have handled such a problem. I have given 2 rulings in relation to the fixing of a date. In the first place I ruled in the affirmative. This matter has since been looked up by the Clerk. I was correct the first time when I said that it would be possible to set down a fixed date, lt would then be entirely a matter for the Government. Would the Leader of the Opposition care to ask the Government to do this?

Mr Whitlam:

– I think it would be easier for me if I were to move for the suspension of the Standing Orders to permit me to move that the subject matter of the Senate’s message be debated and put to a vote forthwith.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Do you wish formally to move such a motion?

Mr WHITLAM:
Leader of the Opposition · Werriwa

– Yes. I move:

Mr SPEAKER:

-Is the motion seconded?

Dr Patterson:

– Yes.

Mr WHITLAM:

– I wish to speak to the motion. We have all been caught by surprise on this matter and it is nobody’s fault that none of us has before him in writing the text of the Senate’s message.

Mr Chipp:

– Did the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate not tell you about it?

Mr WHITLAM:

– I suppose he told me about it last May. This matter was dealt with by the Senate after the House had been summarily adjourned. The Leader of the House (Mr Swartz) has pursued the custom of putting on the blue paper - the daily programme - matters which are likely to come before the House each day. In relation to this matter it reads:

Mr Speaker to report message from the Senate relating to the New South Wales Grant (Flood Mitigation) Bill.

That is one of the matters that appears on the blue paper or the daily programme but not on the notice paper. None of us has up till now had the text of the Senate message. I have just had handed to me by you, Sir. the message from the Senate of 13 th May, that is, a week after this Mouse last adjourned, lt reads:

The Senate is of the opinion that the assistance offered under the New South Wales Grant (Flood Mitigation) Bill should form part of a larger scheme to deal with national disasters and that, accordingly, a joint select committee of the Parliament should be appointed to inquire into the practicability of the establishment of a national disaster organisation.

I believe that the only way in which the House can be certain of voting on this proposition is for it to come on for debate today. If the matter were to be put on the notice paper there would be no way in which a private member could revive it. The House would not debate this matter again unless a Minister were to bring it up.

Mr Swartz:

– 1 can give an assurance on that but 1 cannot give an assurance on the time.

Mr WHITLAM:

– I have also said that I want the matter to be put to a vote. The Leader of the House has not given an assurance on that.

Mr Swartz:

– No.

Mr WHITLAM:

– This cannot be said to be a trivial matter. Australia is in many areas subject to quite considerable natural disasters. The ones which were considered in the debate on this Bill were disasters by flood, but there are also disasters by drought, fire and hurricane. On each occasion that such a disaster occurs we express our sympathy at the time and we sometimes make some ad hoc arrangements to alleviate the distress, but we then shelve the matter. There should be some continuing machinery for financial and organisational measures to cope with these periodic natural disasters. I believe that the State of New South Wales has, in association with the Civil Defence Organisation under General Sir Ivan Dougherty, some organisational machinery to do it, but there is no such organisation in any of the other States and there is no such organisation in the hands of the Commonwealth. The Commonwealth also has no standing financial arrangements. The most that the Commonwealth ever does is follow the practice of paying on a $1 for $1 basis when a request is received from a State to meet the costs of providing some relief. I have been pursuing this matter to a certain extent. I have not at such short notice been able to complete my researches, but 1 do have in front of rae an answer that the Treasurer of the day gave as far back as 26th November 1968 concerning this matter. The last answer I received on it was from the immediate past Treasurer - perhaps one should say the Treasurer once removed - on 12th June last year. It appears at page 3686 of Hansard. I asked him:

Can he yet make available the results of the examination of natural disaster relief schemes operated in the United States, Canada and New Zealand?

The honourable member for Wentworth (Mr Bury), as he is alone now, answered:

In view of the wide range of natural disasters that have been experienced in Canada and the United States, the relief schemes operating in those countries involve a number of complex arrangements. This has necessitated rather more information to be acquired and more research to be undertaken than was envisaged when the project was first commenced in response to an earlier question by the honourable member. Partly because of this and partly because of staff shortages, the examination of the relief scheme operating in these 2 countries and New Zealand has not yet been completed. 1 have had since J 6th February this year a question on the notice paper in the following terms:

What progress has been made with the examination of natural disaster relief schemes operating in the United States, Canada and New Zealand.

That question is still unanswered. For at least 3 years I have been pursuing one of the means available to private members to pursue this matter. I am certain that it will not be readily appreciated in the future by electors in any of the electorates represented by members of the Liberal Party of Australia or the Australian Country Party if it can be shown from the Hansard record that their members voted against a proposal such as this one, namely, the setting up of a joint parliamentary committee i .instigate schemes to cope with natural disasters. I refer, namely, to a joint select committee to inquire into the practicability of the establishment of a national disaster organisation.

This is a matter which some members might think should not be determined just by a parliamentary committee. But it is obviously a matter which the Executive is finding quite difficult to tackle. Hansard itself shows that in 3 years the Executive has not been able to do so. It is not unreasonable to think that Parliament might be able to ginger matters up a bit more. In the present circumstances, any joint parliamentary committee would have a majority composed of members of the Liberal and Country Parties. Members of the Australian Labor Party who have proposed this scheme in both chambers would obviously serve on the Committee, but since they are in Opposition they would be in the minority. Therefore, members of the Liberal and Country Parties should not fear that those who launched the idea - the members of the Labor Party - would be able to have it all their own way. They could not have a majority in their own right on this Committee. The Liberal Country Party members would be in the majority.

The scheme has obvious merits. We should have a parliamentary committee. The extent of unanimity that one gets on parliamentary committees whether they are of one House or of both Houses is astonishing. The Senate, if it wishes, can set up such a committee. It is clear that if we do not carry such a motion as this, the Senate is very likely to set up such a committee. Alternatively, the Senate can commit the subject matter of this motion to one of its standing committees. Since, however, financial considerations are involved, it is very proper that members of this House should serve on a joint committee. The Senate is unable to initiate or enlarge any such measure. All it can do is to reduce or reject financial appropriations. Since financial appropriations might easily be the subject of recommendations here, obviously the appropriate, the responsible and the practical body to deal with them is a House committee or a joint committee. Those are the reasons why I have moved for the suspension of Standing Orders to permit me to move for the establishment of a joint select committee to consider the subject matter of the Senate request.

Dr PATTERSON:
Dawson

– I have much pleasure in supporting the motion moved by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Whitlam). I wish to comment first on what the Minister for National Development (Mr Swartz) said about the blue sheet on which is set out the daily programme for the House. I do not dispute his statement that this matter is on the blue sheet. But all that the blue sheet says is:

Mr Speaker to report message from the Senate relating to the New South Wales Grant (Flood Mitigation) Bill.

This decision was taken by the Senate on 13th May. 1 believe that the practice of the House in future when a message of this type comes from the Senate should be that the Minister who is in charge of the message should follow the same procedure as he carries out when presenting ministerial statements. For example, when the Minister for National Development makes a statement to the House, the procedure is that he gives a copy of that statement, at least one hour before it is delivered in the House, to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Barnard) who is responsible for parliamentary business matters on the Opposition side. The Deputy Leader then contacts the member of the Labor Executive responsible for that matter and if necessary, other Labor members who may wish to speak on the subject, so that they may consider it. This practice has always been accepted and it has always been fair.

I would suggest that, in future, what I have proposed might be done because, as I said before, one does not know the contents of a message from the Senate until one hears Mr Speaker or his Deputy announce the contents. It could be, as in this case, one of some importance.

I am not particularly happy about being called upon to debate this matter today. To save the need for this debate, 1 think that the correct procedure, when one reads the resolution of the Senate, would be for honourable members to be given time to consider seriously all the ramifications involved because clearly the Senate is of the opinion that the assistance offered is not adequate. Basically, that means that the financial assistance is not adequate. We also should be given time to consider the Senate’s second recommendation regarding a joint select committee. I believe that the Minister for National Development should have given an assurance that these matters would be debated on a fixed date - perhaps, in one month’s time or even longer - and then we would not be debating it today. I think that this is the correct way to do it This would give the Government and the Opposition time to consider the recommendations. They are important.

I cannot see why the Minister, in order that we should be able to consider this message, should not intervene and say that this matter will be debated on a fixed date in one month or 2 months’ time.

I now turn to the reasons for the motion seeking the suspension of Standing Orders. As the Leader of the Opposition said, Australia has periodic disasters. The motion is concerned specifically with flood mitigation in New South Wales, but there are other disasters which can occur such as fire. Recently, in my own electorate, cyclone Ada was a very serious disaster. Only last Saturday night, a tornado hit a certain small area in Queensland. T believe it was in the electorate of Fisher. Apparently, this tornado was not detected. lt struck as a storm. The area also was under the flight path of all the jets that travel over Gympie from the north to the south. The tornado was 8 miles high and, if any of the big jets had been flying over the area and suddenly were hit by the tornado, there could have been severe repercussions. It could even have been a national tragedy, These things are happening all the time. Natural events such as cyclones and tornadoes come very suddenly whereas the tragedy of floods takes a little bit longer- perhaps hours or days. The tragedy of droughts creeps on us and reaches tragic intensity. Therefore, I believe that the proposals by the Senate should be considered very seriously by this House and then debated and a determination made by way of a vote.

This message has taken everybody - Government members as well as members of the Opposition - completely by surprise. This state of affairs is not very satisfactory. As a matter of fact, the Senate will be perfectly entitled to pass another motion condemning the House of Representatives for its tardiness in considering such an important decision. I believe that the Minister, as far as he can, should permit some latitude with respect to this request and perhaps somehow work out a form of words whereby he can give an assurance to the House that this will be debated and deliberated upon within a certain time. I am quite certain that this would satisfy the Opposition.

Mr swartz (Darling Downs- Minister for National Development) (4.0) - This motion for the suspension of Standing

Orders relates to a message from the Senate. Reference has been made to the fact that although the blue paper circulated for the information of honourable members refers to a message from the Senate, details of the message are not known. But to obtain these details is a simple matter. Honourable members may ask the Clerks of the House for the details either before the House meets or during the sitting of the House. So, in effect, details of the message are available to any honourable member at any time. The object of the blue paper is to give notice that these messages have been received.

The suggestion has been made that the Standing Orders should be amended so that messages from the Senate not of a routine nature may be dealt with separately. The Standing Orders do not contain this provision at the moment. Messages of this type may be dealt with automatically only if the Standing Orders Committee makes an appropriate recommendation and it is approved by the House. If the Opposition has any proposal along these lines it should place it before the Standing Orders Committee, which may then make a recommendation to the House. I suggest that if this change is desired that course should be followed.

I want to draw attention again to the fact that the proposal to appoint a select committee was embodied in a proposed amendment to the New South Wales Grant (Flood Mitigation) Bill 1971 and was dealt with briefly in this House. The proposal for a select committee had no relation to the purpose of the Bill, which dealt solely with flood mitigation in certain rivers in New South Wales. The Bill was used as a vehicle to propose the appointment of a select committee but the proposal was not accepted by the House at that time. The same course was followed in the Senate. The proposal could not be accepted as an actual amendment to the Bill, but it was worded in such a form that it could be debated. The Senate dealt with the proposal but did not accept it as an amendment to the Bill. However, it decided to send a message to the House recommending the establishment of a joint select committee. The Bill was passed in both Houses without amendment, but now we have a message from the Senate seeking a joint select committee.

When this matter was raised in the House on 17th April 1969 the then Prime Minister gave some indication of the practical problems involved in establishing a national disaster fund - I think the term originally used was ‘natural disaster fund’. The Prime Minister also indicated at that time that in the 3 years to June 1968 the Commonwealth had made $71m available for disaster relief and that an estimated $21m had been made available in 1968-69. Following investigations overseas it was considered that the present system–

Mr Foster:

– Can the House be informed of the nature of the message?

Mr SWARTZ:

– It was read.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Drury)Order! I point out to the House that it was read earlier by Mr Speaker. If it is the wish of the House, I will read it again. It reads:

Message No. 175

Mr Speaker,

The Senate transmits to the House of Representatives the following resolution which has been agreed to by the Senate on 16th March 1971 during consideration of the Bill for an Act to grant financial assistance to the State of New South Wales for the purpose of flood mitigation works in relation to certain rivers, and requests the consideration by the House of the resolution:

That this Bill be now read a second time, but the Senate whilst welcoming the proposal for the purpose of flood mitigation works in New South Wales, is of the opinion that the assistance offered is inadequate and should form part of a larger scheme to deal with national disasters and that, accordingly, a joint select committee of the Parliament should be appointed to inquire into the practicability of the establishment of a national disaster organisation.’

Mr Whitlam:

– I rise to order. I notice that the similar motion was debated in this House on 9th March. May I ask on what date the Senate passed the motion which has come to us by way of message?

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– It was 13th May 1971.

Mr SWARTZ:

– I was making the point that the Prime Minister in 1969 said that after investigations overseas it was considered that the system adopted in Australia for the provision of assistance, having regard to the circumstances of each case in each State, was the best system. This is still our view because these are primarily matters for the State governments. In all cases where financial assistance has been necessary the Commonwealth has always come to the aid of the States. However, that is a point for debate. At this stage in the day’s proceedings honourable members should have been listening to a statement on international affairs. Instead we are debating a motion for the suspension of Standing Orders. The Government cannot agree to the motion because to do so would allow the business of the House to be taken out of the hands of the Government. We must proceed with the business as set down on the blue paper. So that we may have a vote taken on this motion, I move:

That the question be now put.

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

AYES: 61

NOES: 53

Majority .. .. 8

Qpestion so resolved in the affirmative.

AYES

NOES

Question put:

That the motion (Mr Whitlam’s) be agreed to.

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

AYES: 54

NOES: 61

Majority . . . . 7

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

page 208

REPORTS OF PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE

Mr KELLY:
Wakefield

– In accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, I present the reports relating to the following proposed works:

  1. Northern Territory Development Roads.
  2. Tactical Trainer Building at HMAS Watson, South Head, Sydney, New South Wales.
  3. Communications Building at Bendigo, Victoria.

Interim reports on the proposed Community College at Darwin and the redevelopment of the Alice Springs Hospital were presented to the Parliament during the autumn sessional period. I now present the Committee’s final reports on those two references.

Ordered that the reports be printed.

page 208

INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS

Ministerial Statement

Mr N H BOWEN:
Minis ter for Foreign Affairs · PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– by leave -

page 208

THE INTERNATIONAL SETTING

Mr Speaker, the Government considers that Parliament should have an opportunity to consider Australia’s foreign policy. I am, therefore, taking this early opportunity to make a statement. Important shifts are occurring in the policies and alignments of the major powers. These will have great significance for the area which is of most immediate political and strategic concern to us - East and South East Asia. We can discern the shape and the broad direction of some of these changes; perhaps we can identify trends. But it will be some time before we can assess fully their implications for the interests and policies of Australia.

One thing is clear. The fixed alignments of the Cold War are giving place to a more fluid and more complex pattern of relationships among the major powers. No longer is the international situation a theatre for challenge and confrontation between two super-powers. Other powers are gaining increased influence upon the international scene. The space for manoeuvre among the larger powers is broadening. There are some signs of an encouraging trend towards negotiation and accommodation. There is now a real prospect that the numerically enormous

People’s Republic of China will join the countries which operate within the United Nations.

The United States of America, which has since the last World War made such massive efforts to preserve stability in the international order, continues to maintain its treaty relationships and its guarantees against nuclear aggression, but is scaling down its external commitments and looking to other nations particularly in the Asian region to assume a greater degree of selfreliance. It is now seeking a new relationship with the People’s Republic of China. The Chinese, for their part, have given little evidence of moving from their basic objectives, but - perhaps partly because of difficulties in their relations with the Soviet Union - they are showing a new interest in broadening their external relationships and in joining the international community. The Soviet Union is negotiating with the United States on Berlin and for the limitation of strategic nuclear weapons; although it is at the same time seeking to extend its influence to new areas including South East Asia and the Indian Ocean, recently highlighted by its Treaty of Peace, Friendship and Cooperation with India.

Japan is becoming an economic and industrial super-power at a speed beyond common expectation, lt is gaining potential for great political influence, as well as an impressive capacity for aiding the developing nations of South-East Asia. The European Economic Community, though its growth in economic strength is proceeding faster than its growth in political cohesion, may also come to play a more influential role in international affairs. It too will have the capacity to take a larger part in assisting Asian nations by more liberal trade policies as well as increased aid programmes. In all this, there is some ground for hope that, in the course of time, the confrontations of yesterday will be replaced by a more stable equilibrium as the diverse and complex relationships among these powers develop.

For Australia and our neighbours, this changing pattern of relationships offers new challenges and new opportunities. It calls for policies that are sensitive, flexible and imaginative. At this time Australia is seeking to broaden its relations with the Soviet Union and to normalise its relations with the People’s Republic of China. We are giving particular attention to the development of our relations with Japan. We continue, of course, to attach the first importance to our relations with the United States. We stand by our existing treaty relationships and alliances.

The stability and safety of our neighbours is of deep concern to us. We are studying the implications for them of this changing international scene. Although regional co-operation is not yet either as comprehensive or as far developed as it might be, most countries of our area belong to one or more regional organisations. The habit and usage of co-operation is slowly growing. It is already well established in the economic field. In the political field, we have seen such imaginative and far-sighted initiatives as the Indonesian call last year for a regional conference on the Cambodian crisis: and the Malaysian concept - difficult of attainment as it may seem at present - of a neutralised SouthEast Asia linked by non-aggression agreements and guaranteed by the major powers. It is our hope that closer cooperation among our neighbours in the economic, social and political fields will not only contribute to their individual progress and welfare but also strengthen their collective voice and influence in international affairs which are of special concern to them.

No doubt we face continuing problems in the Asian and Pacific area. There is the task of establishing effective relations with the People’s Republic of China and of accommodating the People’s Republic within the United Nations while retaining a place for the Republic of China on Taiwan. In Vietnam the military situation has improved and South Vietnamese regular forces are continuing to assume increased responsibility for their self-defence. But the conflict is still unresolved and North Vietnam has its troops not only in South Vietnam but also Cambodia and Laos. Malaysia and Thailand, Burma, and Ceylon have still to contend with insurgency and subversion. India still faces the crippling burden of coping with some 7 million refugees from East Pakistan. Pakistan itself is torn by civil strife.

Our neighbours have made notable progress in promoting stability and economic development, but they continue to face formidable problems in raising the living standards of their peoples and finding markets for their products. In the South Pacific, the independent island nations are seeking new opportunities for political selfexpression. I now propose to say something about the most important of these questions and about Australia’s attitude to them.

page 210

CHINA

I turn first to the question of China and its representation in the United Nations. A review of our China policy was first undertaken by the Department of Foreign Affairs in October 1970. Government consideration of the review began in February 1971. On 11th May the Prime Minister (Mr McMahon) announced that the Government had as its long term objective to normalise our bilateral relations with the People’s Republic of China to which end it had been decided to explore the possibility of establishing a dialogue with the Government of the PRC. The dialogue which has been opened has resulted in contact between our own diplomats and representatives of the PRC in a number of capitals. I do not think it would be profitable to detail the form of this contact, the matters discussed or the outcome of the meetings. In delicate operations such as this, it is imperative that both sides act with discretion, confident that the other will act similarly. The dialogue which has begun will continue and though it would be foolish to hope for a quick result, the Government is hopeful that the long run outcome will be satisfactory.

In a speech on 13th May the Prime Minister referred to the inevitability of mainland China becoming a member of the United Nations and holding the permanent seat in the Security Council that is now held by the Republic of China. He said then, as he and my predecessor have said on a number of occasions since, that we will do nothing to obstruct such entry. Two months later, on 15th July, President Nixon announced that he would visit the People’s Republic of China, and on 2nd August the American Secretary of State, Mr Rogers, made a statement on the question of Chinese representation in the United Nations.

The President’s announcement followed a few days of intensive talks between Dr Kissinger and Premier Chou En-lai. The Government has welcomed the President’s announcement, which was in accord with our previously declared policy of seeking to improve relations with the PRC. We hope that the President’s visit to China will help to initiate a new era in peaceful international relations. At the same time, it would be premature to regard this development in Sino-American relations as anything more than a beginning. The President himself has spoken of the need to avoid excessive expectations of the visit. In his Press conference on 4th August, Mr Nixon said that a movement was being made from an era of confrontation without communication to an era of negotiations with discussion.’ Realistically, one must share this sober assessment of the prospects and wish the President well as he sets out on a long, difficult road.

The Government has also welcomed the statement of Secretary of State Rogers made on 2nd August which was in accord with our declared policy of seeking to seat the PRC in the United Nations, while opposing action to deprive the ROC of representation. For our part, we in Australia wish to see international relations reflect national realities. We hope that measures can be taken in the United Nations that will reflect the realities of the China situation and enhance the standing and reputation of that organisation. The People’s Republic of China and the Republic of China both claim to be the sole government of China. The reality is that the PRC controls the mainland and the ROC controls Taiwan. We have taken the view, therefore, that in present circumstances the People’s Republic of China and the Republic of China should both be represented in the United Nations.

It seems to the Australian Government both inevitable and desirable that the PRC should be represented in the United Nations and should hold the China seat in the Security Council. At the same time, we consider that the Republic of China should remain a member of the United Nations. It has a population larger than that of most members. It was an original signatory of the Charter and has been a loyal member of the United Nations since its foundation. It will be a bad day for the small and middle-sized members of the United Nations if the right of 14 million people to be represented there is arbitrarily removed. The question of recognition and diplomatic relations should be seen in proper perspective. We need to base our policies on an objective view of the facts and a careful assessment of our interests at all stages.

It should not be supposed, for instance, that Australian recognition of Peking would lead immediately and automatically to substantial trading advantages. The Chinese have indicated that they prefer at present to buy wheat from Canada, which recognises them, rather than from Australia, which does not. Ideological considerations, however, are not always decisive nor is their influence permanent. Japan and West Germany, which do not recognise nor have diplomatic relations with the PRC, sell much more to China than do Britain or France. Our reasons for seeking to attain normal relations with the PRC are based on more substantial considerations than those of temporary commercial advantage.

We recognise that the establishment of full and normal relations with the People’s Republic on mutually acceptable terms will be a difficult and perhaps protracted exercise. In the past 12 months several countries have been able to establish diplomatic relations with Peking, but there has been little improvement in Peking’s relations with Asian and Pacific countries in our region. For Australia, of course, the main present obstacle is the fact that we recognise and conduct diplomatic relations with the Republic of China on Taiwan and that the People’s Republic refuses to enter into diplomatic relations with governments which recognise and deal with Taiwan. We do not underestimate the difficulties which this issue places in the way of our objective of full and normal relations with Peking. We shall nevertheless continue to work cautiously but steadily towards that objective.

One encouraging factor, of course, is the agreement by the Chinese leaders to receive President Nixon. This decision reinforces other evidence that China may at last be abandoning the isolation of 4,000 years and moving to take its rightful place in the international community. Except for the few years between 1911 and the late 1930s, when there was somewhat intermittent and uncertain contact, China has never before played its full part in the concert of nations. We recognise that China’s full participation in the internat ional community is likely to be a long, slow and sometimes painful process. Within China the struggle between pragmatism and ideology is still continuing. We have, as I have said, found no evidence of change in China’s basic foreign policy objectives as distinct from the means by which China seeks to pursue them.

A particular obstacle to the improvement of relations between China and its neighbours in Asia and the Pacific lies in the limited knowledge and understanding of the region which the Chinese people appear to have. We are seeking actively to understand the position and the interests of the people of China. We believe there is a corresponding need for a greater effort in China towards understanding the positions, interests, fears and hopes of its neighbours. The Chinese often speak of attempted encirclement, hostile military pacts, or the alleged dangers of the development of a capacity for self defence in other countries. Yet China itself has the largest army in Asia, even excluding the People’s Militia; it is the only Asian nuclear power; and it is consistently promoting revolutionary theory and practice in other countries. The doubts that China voices about other countries are in fact held by most of its neighbours in respect of China itself.

Admittedly, the People’s Republic of China is not the strongest or the most developed power in Asia; but it is certainly the largest and can thus materially affect the future of countries in the Asian-Pacific region. Our hope is that it will come to play a more constructive role in the region than it has done in the past and that its eventual admission to the United Nations will advance prospects for the peaceful settlement of the problems in the Asian-Pacific region.

page 211

THE PROBLEM OF A SETTLEMENT IN INDO-CHINA

The most pressing of these problems continues to be the achievement of a negotiated settlement of the conflict in Vietnam, and in Indo-China as a whole. I regret to have to say that, while there have been some changes of emphasis in the positions of Peking and Hanoi, all the information so far available to us continues to indicate that the prospects for such a settlement remain unpromising.

As far as can be seen at present, the changes I have mentioned are essentially presentational. The People’s Republic of China, for example, from opposing negotiations of any kind and advocating a strategy of protracted war, has now come out in support of the Vietnamese Communists’ 7-point proposals, which were tabled at the Paris talks on 1st July. This is an encouraging step in the right direction, but unfortunately it is a very small one in practical terms. It has been suggested that the 7- point proposals themselves contain some changes from previous Communist negotiating positions. It is true that they refer to the possible release of American prisoners of war, though under certain conditions, some of which are by no means clearly denned. Unfortunately, however, the changes are essentially presentational and represent no change in the substance of Hanoi’s position on the future of Vietnam. The Vietnamese Communists continue to demand not only the unilateral withdrawal of all allied forces from South Vietnam, but the cessation of all allied support for the Republic of Vietnam and the replacement of its Government by a coalition whose composition would be decided by the Communists themselves. So far all efforts by the representatives of the Republic of Vietnam and the United States at the Paris talks to seek clarification of some of the ambiguities in the 7-point proposals have been rebuffed. The Communists likewise refuse to discuss the American and South Vietnamese proposals. The situation thus remains that Hanoi continues to be unwilling to enter into a genuine negotiating process, and Peking, while now prepared to envisage negotiations, does so only on Hanoi’s terms. Indeed, only 3 days after it was announced in Washington and Peking that President Nixon would visit China, Premier Chou En-lai told a group of visiting American scholars: . . the thing which in our view is most called for, whether in the United States or abroad, is the withdrawal by the United States of their troops from Vietnam, and the evacuation of troops of other countries which followed the United States in Indo-China. It can be said that this demand for evacuation is even stronger than the call for restoration of relations between the Chinese and American people.

All the information so far available indicates that suggestions that China wants an early international conference on IndoChina are premature. Indeed, these sugges tions have been explicitly rejected by the Chinese themselves. For instance, in an editorial regarded as an authoritative statement of the Chinese Government’s views, in the People’s Daily’ on 3rd August, scorn was cast on efforts to spread the word that a new Geneva Conference would be convened and stress was again laid upon the requirement of unconditional and immediate withdrawal by the United States of its troops from the whole of Indo-China. It is possible that the People’s Republic might be prepared to participate in an eventual conference called to ratify any solutions previously agreed to by the Vietnamese Communists themselves. But Peking is supporting the conditions in Hanoi’s 7-point proposals, and there is no evidence that China would agree to participate in a new conference on Vietnam or on Indo-China as a whole, except on those conditions.

The Governnent deeply regrets that the prospects for a negotiated settlement thus remain so discouraging. There is really no present alternative to continuing, in appropriate ways, to assist the people of the Republic of Vietnam to develop their own capacity to defend themselves. At the same time, however, the Government will continue to follow with close attention any modifications to the currently unacceptable prior conditions for a settlement demanded by the Communist powers. It will also continue to do whatever it can to work for a just and peaceful settlement of the present conflict in Vietnam, and in Indo-China as a whole. In this respect we believe that the countries of Asia have a particular contribution to make. As the Prime Minister said recently:

We believe that in any future initiatives for a peaceful settlement of the Indo-China question, great emphasis should be placed on participation by Asian countries.

Stability is most likely to flow from greater Asian participation in solutions to Asian problems.

The Government will spare no effort of will or imagination to ensure that Australia plays an appropriate and constructive role in this process.

page 212

AUSTRALIAN RELATIONS WITH JAPAN

I turn now to our relations with Japan. In recent years Japan has assumed an increasingly important role in regional affairs and her bilateral relations with Australia have grown across a wide spectrum of interests to the point where Japan clearly ranks as one of our major foreign policy preoccupations. In the early years after the signing of the first trade agreement with Japan in 1957, AustralianJapanese relations pivoted on the growing trade ties. As our relations with them have broadened it has become desirable to introduce some order and system in our relations across the board.

On the political ‘side we have maintained the closest contact at Embassy and Foreign Ministry level. There is a constant exchange of views on important questions of mutual interest and it has become customary for us to hold annual consultations between senior officials of the 2 Foreign Ministries, changing between Canberra and Tokyo. The latest series, concluded on 27th July, illustrated again how useful this contact has become and how many areas of common interest there are between the 2 countries. With Japan’s growing economic might it is only reasonable to assume that she will pursue a more active political role in our region. There have already been examples of such increased regional political awareness and this Government is convinced of the need for Australia and Japan to develop and maintain the closest possible relations in all fields. Towards this end a number of highly significant initiatives have been taken by the Government in recent months. Firstly there has been the establishment, at ministerial level, of an Australia-Japan Joint Economic Committee and. secondly, a Standing InterDepartmental Committee on Japan has been constituted at a very senior level. The Ministerial Committee is expected to meet annually, alternating between Canberra and Tokyo, to hold consultations on trade and related matters and also on other matters affecting the economic relationship between the 2 countries. A- number of Australian Ministers will participate in the meetings. When the Committee meets in Australia the chairmanship will rest with the Minister for Foreign Affairs. I understand that the Japanese Foreign Minister will chair the meetings held in Tokyo. The decision to establish this Committee emphasises the importance which we attach to close ministerial consultations with Japan and to expansion of our economic and commercial relationships. The Committee will in addition provide a useful framework for exchanges of visits by individual Ministers and officials.

The Government has decided to constitute a Standing Inter-Departmental Committee on Japan, charged with the task of ensuring that all policy recommendations concerning Japan are fully co-ordinated. This is a new departure in Australian governmental practice. No standing committee exists to examine the totality of Australia’s relations with any other foreign country. The new Standing InterDepartmental Committee will be chaired by the Department of Foreign Affairs and will comprise 7 other departments most concerned with relations with Japan. Before I leave this subject, I wish to mention another aspect: The need to increase genuine understanding and knowledge between Australia and Japan and our other Asian neighbours. The Government has already done a good deal to help, particularly in its support for education in Australia. Asian studies, involving language, history and culture, are already established in our tertiary institutions and the Australian reputation for scholarship in this area was marked this year by the Congress of Orientalists held in Canberra last January. But we consider that increasing attention should bc paid to Asian studies in secondary schools. The report of the Advisory Committee on the Teaching of Asian Languages and Cultures in Australia has recently been tabled in Parliament. This report deals with the desirability of placing greater emphasis on Asian languages and studies in secondary school curricula, with a concentration on Japanese, Indonesian/ Malay and Chinese; the need for co-ordination between universities and State education authorities on which Asian language to introduce, and the achievement of some measure of specialisation among universities. These are the kind of practical measures which in time would help to develop in this country a more informed and sympathetic understanding of the language and culture of Japan and of our other Asian friends.

page 213

THE SOUTH PACIFIC

Another area of concern to us is the South Pacific. This is a region in which Australia is by far the largest, the most developed and the wealthiest state. We have, therefore, an obligation to play a role in the affairs of the region commensurate with our capacity and the needs of the independent and emerging states of the area. Perhaps the most significant facts about the South Pacific are its diffusion and diversity. It contains about 4 million people scattered over some 12 million square miles, only 3 per cent of which is land. They have reached different stages of economic and political development. They have received varying amounts of aid from their former metropolitan powers and international agencies. Hitherto, Australia has tended to concentrate on preparing Papua New Guinea for internal selfgovernment and ultimately independence. When Papua New Guinea becomes independent, it will be numerically the largest nation in the region, and one which has received greater economic assistance from Australia than that provided for any other territory by a metropolitan power. .

But, if we are to play our proper role in the region as a whole, we must be prepared to expand our horizons. To this end, and despite the financial stringency under which the Government is operating, we have decided, as part of our forwardlooking policy for the South Pacific, to provide for a substantial increase of about 40 per cent in our aid to the South Pacific area. This is an earnest of our desire to make a positive contribution to the manifest needs of the area. We shall in the coming months be examining in consultation with the island governments the most effective means of developing and further enhancing this relationship. Honourable members will of course be aware of our participation in the South Pacific Conference and the work of the South Pacific Commission. However, the scope of the South Pacific Commission is limited, as the island leaders have themselves come to recognise. They have made it clear that they want a forum in which they can discuss political problems arising out of their newly independent status. For this reason, the Australian Government has welcomed the recent initiative by the island leaders to establish a South Pacific Forum. The inaugural meeting of this Forum was held in Wellington from 5th to 7th August. It was attended by the President of Nauru, the Prime Ministers of Western Samoa, Tonga and Fiji, and the Premier of the Cook Islands. The meeting was hosted by Sir Keith Holyoake and Australia was represented by my colleague, the Minister for External Territories. As indicated in the communique, the meeting concentrated on matters directly affecting the daily lives of the people of the islands, and devoted particular attention to such matters as trade, shipping, tourism and education.

The island leaders have expressed the hope that Australia and New Zealand will participate in a meeting, to be convened shortly, of senior officials of the 5 island governments to survey the production potential and marketing prospects for island commodities and to study and report on the possibility of establishing an economic union for the area. The meeting will also examine existing barriers to interisland trade, and the feasibility of establishing a regional bulk ordering scheme, together with the treatment for island products entering Australia. It was hoped that there would be more frequent trade missions between the islands and Australia and New Zealand. The meeting agreed that Australia should be invited to host the next Forum. The Australian Government has already stated that it will be pleased to do so. The problems of the South Pacific are real and urgent. It would be presumptuous of us to imagine that Australia singlehanded can overcome them. But in consultation and close co-operation with New Zealand we have an opportunity to contribute to the needs of the South Pacific community, at a critical stage of their political and economic development. In this task we shall, of course, be governed by the wishes of the island peoples themselves.

page 214

EAST PAKISTAN

A problem of great magnitude in terms of human suffering has arisen from the massive movement of refugees from East Pakistan into the neighbouring provinces of India. The situation in East Pakistan is an internal problem which can best be solved by the Pakistan Government itself. This is essentially, in the words of the United Nations, a matter of ‘domestic jurisdiction’. The Australian Government deplores a situation in which refugees numbering more than half the population of Australia are moved by fear to flee from their homes to another country. There is nothing to be gained by discussing how these conditions came about. They exist. This should be enough to move the conscience of humanity.

The Australian Government has already contributed relief aid for the refugees to the value of $lm, and the Indian Government has commended this assistance as timely and effective. In addition voluntary agencies have given generously. But the Government’s concern for the plight of the refugees has not ceased with these contributions. Through the Indian Government and the United Nations we have kept a close watch on the continuing emergency needs of the refugees. Consequently we have now decided to offer the Indian Government a contribution of rice worth $500,000 under the Food Aid Convention. This will bring the Government’s total offers of assistance, to date, to$1.5m. India nevertheless faces the crushing burden of coping with the needs of some 7 million homeless people, and although a few have returned to East Pakistan there is still a substantial net inflow into India. As the Prime Minister has said, it is our hope that a solution for this continuing problem can be found on the basis of President Yahya Khan’s undertaking to return civil power to the elected representatives of the people, thereby helping to restore conditions of stability and confidence in which the refugees would be encouraged to return. We note that the President has lately taken certain steps in this direction.

The Australian Government has expressed through personal messages from the Prime Minister to the President of Pakistan our anxieties in this matter. We have noted with concern that Sheik Mujibur Rahman, whose party, the Awami League, captured a clear majority at the recent elections, has been brought to trial for treason. This action by the Government of Pakistan has caused wide international concern and the Prime Minister has expressed to President Yahya Khan his hope that magnanimity and compassion will be exercised. In addition to the problem of the refugees, we cannot ignore the prospect of widespread hunger and possibly famine in East Pakistan before the year has ended. This threatens to be on such a scale that a massive relief effort will be needed. Such an effort is well beyond the capacity of Australia to mount, but at Pakistan’s request the United Nations is now considering action to restore normal distribution facilities in East Pakistan. We hope that the larger and wealthier nations of the world will give this their strong support. Honourable members may rest assured that, at the appropriate time, Australia will play its part as it has done in the past.

Finally, the problems created by the refugee movement and the refugee presence in the border areas have aggravated tensions between India and Pakistan. Proposals by the Secretary-General of the United Nations for international action to relieve these tensions have not been taken up. Thus far, both sides have observed restraint and it is our hope that counsels of moderation will continue to prevail. The Australian Government has been and remains in close touch with the Governments of India and Pakistan and with other interested governments. We shall continue to watch the situation closely and carefully.

page 215

CONCLUSION

The problems facing us are many and complex. This means there will be opportunities for constructive policy initiatives. As the Prime Minister said recently:

We recognise that we cannot order the world to our own specifications. Others bigger than we have much more capacity to do so. Our influence can best be exercised in concert with our friends great and small.

We shall continue to use that influence as we have done in the past, basing our actions always upon a careful and realistic appraisal of the interests of Australia and of the international community of today. I present the following paper:

International Affairs - Ministerial Statement, 18th August 1971.

Motion (by Mr Swartz) proposed:

That the House take note of the paper.

Debate (on motion by Mr Whitlam) adjourned.

page 215

JERVIS BAY NUCLEAR POWER STATION PROJECT

Ministerial Statement

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

– by leave - On 28th August last year, I spoke to the House on the state of the proposal to construct Australia’s first nuclear power station at Jervis Bay. Since that time the Government has decided to defer a decision on this power station for 12 months. It will re-examine the matter in the light of circumstances then existing. It would, I believe, be appropriate to outline to the House the events which led up to this decision. The Atomic Energy Commission has for many years been engaged in close studies of nuclear power developments. It advised that the time was approaching when nuclear power would be competitive with other means of power generation in some areas of Australia. The Government then decided to discuss the matter with the States. This decision was taken late in 1968. As a result of the discussions, the Government concluded that the Commonwealth should give the lead by building a nuclear power station which would not only produce power but also serve for demonstration and training. The practical experience obtained directly in Australia on the station would be of great benefit to Australian industry and the electricity authorities in their future nuclear power activities. Moreover, it was clear that the project would be a valuable means of developing, in a practical context, standards and criteria for reactor siting, construction and operation and all the complex licensing and other regulatory controls which experience overseas has shown to be necessary.

It was against this background that agreement was reached with New South Wales to collaborate in the construction of a 500 megawatt nuclear power station at Jervis Bay. We were not, and are not, seeking to compete with the States in the generation of electricity nor to intrude upon their role in this matter. Power demand in Australia is increasing rapidly - doubling about every 8 years. This growth means that quite large units will be required in New South Wales and Victoria in the 1980s. It is in the large unit sizes that nuclear power is likely to become competitive first with fossil-fuelled power stations.

Tender specifications were prepared by the Atomic Energy Commission in conjunction with the Electricity Commission of New South Wales, and assisted by the consultants, Bechtel Pacific Corporation, and were issued to interested suppliers on 28th February 1970. Fourteen tenders were received in June 1970 from 7 com panies in 4 countries. These tenders were examined intensively in San Francisco and in Sydney, following which I announced in August last year a short list of 4 tenderers. The offers of the short-listed tenderers were subjected to a most thorough examination by the Atomic Energy Commission, the Electricity Commission of New South Wales and Bechtel Pacific Corporation. From the tendered information estimates were made of the cost of a complete power station. The cost figures based on the tenders received were higher than had been expected. This result, viewed in the light of the necessity to limit expenditures, made the Government feel it should not proceed with the project immediately.

I would like to refer briefly to reports speculating upon a very wide range of prospective costs of the station. As no tender has been accepted I do not propose to go into this matter except to point out that for different types of stations a wide variety of factors must be taken into account. For example there is the question whether or not the tendered price includes the cost of the first charge of nuclear fuel, which is an item running into many millions of dollars and the cost of which varies substantially for different types of reactors. The total cost of a nuclear power station must include the client’s own costs, which are again a multi-million dollar item. To these must be added, as a cost to the purchaser, interest during the 5-year construction period and finally the costs of escalation of wages and materials not only in Australia but in the supplying country. These last two items involve heavy additions. I mention these matters to make it clear that the nature of cost and price figures published without a detailed explanation of what they cover and of the accounting ‘ground rules’ can be quite misleading.

The Government entered into this project with the intention that it would be carried to completion and that a tenderer would be selected. It is unfortunate that economic circumstances have forced us to take the decision which I have announced, but honourable members will understand that it is an inevitable rule of contracting that no tender may necessarily be accepted, and tenderers take this risk. Australia is by no means the first country to have called tenders for a nuclear power station, only to decide to defer entering into a contract. We nevertheless understand the disappointment some tenderers may feel and assure them of our appreciation of the time and effort they spent. I would add that the detailed technical, safety and economic evaluation of the tenders has been particularly thorough. The Atomic Energy Commission and the Bechtel Pacific Corporation have given very satisfactory service in this respect, ably assisted by the Electricity Commission of New South Wales. The expert staff engaged on these important tasks can take satisfaction from the knowledge that their efforts illustrate Australia’s competence to undertake this complex task.

Finally, the House will be aware that we necessarily incurred certain expenditure in this exercise. First, there were consulting fees of nearly $500,000 which were inevitable once we were committed to proceed with the seeking of tenders and their evaluation. This is certainly no real loss because of the valuable experience gained by officers of the Atomic Energy Commission and the electricity generating authorities. Secondly, we spent about $1,250,000 on site preparation, an access road and electricity and water services. Had we not done so and had the project proceeded as was then expected, there would have been costly delays in its construction. Expenditure on site preparation and services will of course not be lost if in due course a nuclear power station is built at Jervis Bay. A full range of environmental studies have been carried out and will continue. A large number of State and Commonwealth bodies, as well as the Commission, have been involved in the studies, including those on meteorology, marine investigations and flora and fauna surveys. These studies are providing valuable information and the results will be important not only in the Jervis Bay context, but also in providing information directly relevant to the siting of nuclear power stations at other places in Australia in the future.

Work will continue also at Jervis Bay in restoration of the environment surrounding the road and the cutting prepared for the power station. Replanting and restocking with native plants and shrubs is taking place. Steps are being taken to prevent erosion of the site excavation and any wash-off of soil into the bay during heavy rains. I know that the honourable member for Lang (Mr Stewart) had the opportunity of viewing this work only recently. We are conscious of the potential importance of nuclear power not only to industrial development of Australia, but also to easing the growing problem of pollution of the atmosphere. In this connection the Atomic Energy Commission will continue its studies of nuclear power technology and relate this to the Jervis Bay project. As I have stated, the Government will keep developments under review and will continue to give careful consideration to the introduction of nuclear power in Austrafia. I present the following paper:

Jervis Bay Nuclear Power Station ProjectMinisterial Statement, 18th August 1971.

Motion (by Mr Garland) proposed.

That the House take note of the paper.

Mr STEWART:
Lang

– I move the following amendment:

That all words after That’ be omitted with a view to inserting the following words in place thereof: ‘a select committee of this House be appointed to inquire into and report on the uses of nuclear power in relation to:

the projected power needs of the Commonwealth;

the comparative advantage derived from generating power in this way as against all other sources now being employed;

the effects of the establishment of a nuclear power station upon the environment;

administrative procedures and regulations adopted elsewhere to lessen any undesirable effects of the operation of such a station to ensure the utmost protection of members of the public and the national interest;

the desirability of establishing a nuclear power station at this time pending the outcome of further technological developments taking place elsewhere; and

any related matter.’

During a debate last year on the estimates for the Department of National Development the Opposition moved a similar motion to the one I have just moved. At the end of the debate on that motion the Minister for National Development (Mr Swartz) replied to the comments that had been made. At page 2271 of the Hansard report of 1 5th October 1970 the Minister is reported as having said:

In adverting to the commencement of the debate on the estimates of my Department a week or so ago, I must refer to the old saying about the dead hand of Labor. We have seen, by the amendment moved by the honourable member for Lang, another example of this resistance to progress. I was surprised at the honourable member’s approach because 1 know he has a deep interest in this particular subject and his proposal to refer this matter al this stage to a select committee of the Parliament for consideration could have been done with only one thought in mind, namely* to defer the matter, knowing the time it takes for these matters to be considered, for another 2 to 3 years.

In the statement that he made this afternoon the Minister informed the House that the decision to build a nuclear power station at Jervis Bay was taken late in 1968. However, by as late as the Estimates debate in 1970 no decision had been taken as to whether the project would be continued. The Opposition highlighted this fact in the debate on 15th October 1970. The amendment moved by the Opposition last year was a genuine attempt by the Opposition to clear up some of the doubts that existed in the minds of not only honourable members on this side of the House but also noted scientists outside the Parliament - men with reputations in the field of atomic science, physics and other related matters. The Opposition moved an amendment in the debate on the Estimates in order to give the Government an opportunity to examine thoroughly the economics of the introduction of nuclear power in Australia, particularly as it had been estimated by Sir Philip Baxter, the Chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission, that by the year 2000 something like $5,000m would have been spent on nuclear power stations throughout Australia. Similar estimates have been made. They are noted in Hansard and have been printed in papers. Despite this fact there are grave doubts about the economics of having nuclear power stations in Australia at the present time. In the statement that he made today the Minister suggested that the deferment was on economic grounds. Tn a statement on 1st June 1971 he said:

The tenders received involved higher prices than had been anticipated and therefore a further analysis is being made of the economic aspects of the project

In a statement on 9th June 1971 he said:

The fina] figure was higher than that expected in 1969. This result viewed in the light of the current financial circumstances of Australia, made the Government feel it should not proceed with the project immediately.

I cannot believe the reason which has been given by the Minister on 3 occasions. If a decision had been taken to proceed with the construction of the Jervis Bay nuclear power station earlier this year and the estimated expenditure had been included in this year’s Budget, I have been reliably informed that the amount required by the Atomic Energy Commission would have been in the vicinity of $6m. So there is no reason at all for the Minister to blame the current economic circumstances. He and his advisers should have informed the House of exactly why the construction of a power station at Jervis Bay has been deferred. I have asked a number of questions of the Minister on this matter but I have not been able to get a satisfactory reply to them. He hedges a lot of his statements around so that he has a shilling each way. One cannot get anything definite from him. Today the Minister said: lt advised-

He was referring to the Atomic Energy Commission - that the time was approaching when nuclear power would be competitive with other means of power generation in some areas of Australia.

The Minister referred then to the doubling every 8 years of the power demand in Australia and said:

This growth means that quite large units will he required in New South Wales and Victoria in the 1980s, lt is in the large unit sizes that nuclear power is likely to first become competitive with fossil-fuelled power stations.

The Minister did mention his speech of 28th August last year. In that speech he said that a station of about 500 megawatts was envisaged because the cost of electricity from a nuclear power station decreases sharply as the size increases. On that occasion he went on to say:

For the economical size of 500 to 600 megawatts. New South Wales has the only network meeting these conditions.

His statement today talks about quite large stations being competitive with fossilfuelled power stations. In August 1970 the economical size was supposed to be 500 to 600 megawatts. In question No. 2840, a copy of the answer to which I received about 24th June and which appears in yesterday’s Hansard, I asked the Minister about the generating cost of electricity in Australia using natural uranium and enriched uranium and about supplying a comparative statement showing these costs in relation to electricity generated by conventional plants in Australia. In the final sentence of his answer to that question the Minister said:

I would add, however, that under current conditions in Australia I do not believe that nuclear power stations are competitive with conventional ones.

It is quite obvious that the Parliament is not being told the truth of this matter. I have a host of Press cuttings about the proposed power station at Jervis Bay. If the leaks from the Cabinet are as numerous as the honourable member for Wentworth (Mr Bury) has suggested they are then it would appear that there have been leaks about the deferment of the proposed nuclear power station at Jervis Bay because the estimated price of the successful tender - the one that was recommended to the Cabinet - has been given and the name of the tenderer has been given. The make of the atomic power reactor that was to be selected has also appeared in the newspapers. The atomic reactor that has been suggested as having been selected is the British SGHWR type reactor, 2 of which are operating in the world at the moment, one of 100 megawatts and the other of 250 megawatts. There is a considerable number of pressurised water reactors and boiling water reactors operating throughout the world. There are 119 units of the PWR reactor and 69 BWR power units operating in the world. But only 2 SGHWR power reactors are operating throughout the world. I understand from the official sources of the papers, directly from Cabinet, that the SGHWR reactor is the one that has been recommended by the Minister for National Development (Mr Swartz) and the Australian Atomic Energy Commission.

The Opposition is far from satisfied that the information surrounding this project has been given truthfully to this Parliament and it is for this reason that I have moved the amendment on behalf of the Opposition. In closing, I remind honourable members that a very similar amendment was moved during the debate on the Estimates last year. The decision was taken in 1968 and the matter was deferred in June 1971. So, it can be said that the Government has been deciding this matter for 2i years. It still does not know the answers. It is not convinced now that the reactor which has been recommended is economic or comparable with fossil fuel stations. But the Government was convinced a couple of years ago that it was economic. The Government is not certain whether the project will proceed and it has used the fictitious excuse that the current economic climate has caused the deferment of the construction of the proposed power reactor at Jervis Bay.

I and the Opposition want a select committee of this Parliament to be appointed in order that the questions that have been posed in the amendment that 1 have moved may be examined thoroughly and in order that all the experts from outside the Parliament and outside the Australian Atomic Energy Commission will have an opportunity of voicing officially their opposition to the proposal and of putting information before the members of the select committee. The appointment of a select committee would enable members of the Australian Atomic Energy Commission to give the information that this Parliament should have at its disposal before making a decision. The decision has been deferred supposedly for 12 months only but 1 think that that 12 months might become a lot longer. So, in that 12 months of deferment, let us appoint a select committee, let it begin operating and let us get all the information possible so that before the taxpayers of Australia are committed to an expenditure of $5,000m by the year 2,000 not only the Government but also all members of this Parliament will know the true story of nuclear power generation in Australia.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Drury:
RYAN, QUEENSLAND

– ls the amendment seconded?

Mr Jacobi:

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

Mr WHITTORN:
Balaclava

– I should have thought that all honourable members of this House would have agreed with the decision of the Government which has been announced by the Minister for National Development (Mr Swartz) to suspend or defer the construction of a nuclear power station at Jervis Bay. I thought at least the Opposition would have agreed to this suspension because, as the honourable member for Lang (Mr Stewart) said, he introduced an amendment proposing similar action during the Estimates debate last year. Incidentally, that amendment was defeated. Now, a similar amendment has been brought before the House.

I have just seen the amendment. In the first part, it states that the select committee which the honourable member wants to have established should look at the projected power needs of the Commonwealth. Here again we see the Opposition with its centralist policies endeavouring to take over the activities of the State governments. I should have thought that the State governments had a lot more information than any select committee could ever assess in 12 months or 2 years. The States have had the technical capacity to run their power stations for many years. I can just imagine what Sir Henry Bolte, the Premier of Victoria, would say if a select committee went down there questioning senior members of the State Electricity Commission of Victoria. I can understand what Mr Askin, the Premier of New South Wales, would say if a Commonwealth select committee was to take his electricity authorities apart and ask questions about the known needs for power in future years. They have the answers. They can supply the information to the Government and, no doubt, to the honourable member for Lang if he writes them a letter. That is all he has to do. There would be no need to set up a select committee - possibly a costly committee - which would run around the country worrying these very busy people and trying to obtain answers to its questions.

The second part of the amendment refers to the comparative advantage or otherwise of thermal power stations or hydro-electric power stations against nuclear power stations. I think that this information is well known because the honourable member for Lang, as have other honourable members, has had a look at the newspaper cuttings on this subject and the newspaper assessments, no doubt taken from people from Lucas Heights and elsewhere, indicate that the power station, had it been set up at Jervis Bay would have cost the taxpayer, not in capital costs but in subsidies at least $6m a year to compete with the coal operated electricity power stations. Obviously, this is a factor that the Government has taken into account in deciding to defer the recommendation that this nuclear plant be purchased and set up at Jervis Bay. With respect to the costs for the plant itself, the Government had in mind - again, I take this from the newspapers and not from leaks from Cabinet - that the original rough estimate to establish this SOO megawatt nuclear power station was approximately Si 30m. Of course, the tenderers have cleared the minds of the Government and the Minister for National Development because the final tender - the one that apparently looked best to the Government - was to have cost approximately $250m. This is almost double what was originally intended to be spent on the power station. With the economic conditions and the inflationary trend which exist in Australia today, I believe that the Government is wisely and capably looking after the future of capital expenditure in Australia. 1 have always said during Budget sessions and Estimates debates that in recent years, governments have been spending too much money on capital works and that with a population of 12 million, it is impossible to make certain that these capital works will not cause this inflationary trend that is with us today. The Government, of course, has taken an active part in recent months in endeavouring to stem this inflationary trend and I say caustically that it is about time. In recent weeks - in fact, in recent days - we have seen a statement made by President Nixon that he is to introduce a super-surcharge or a 10 per cent surcharge on imports into the United States of America. I am sure that Cabinet has not given full consideration to the effects this will have on Australia - to the effects on our exports not only to Japan, but also to America. I warn honourable members on both sides of the House that the decision by President Nixon will have a remarkable effect on what we are doing in Australia, I would hope that the Labor Party and the Australian Council of Trade Unions and Mr Hawke in particular would have a committee set up to assess the impact of President Nixon’s recent statement because people will be out of work as a result of that statement. People will be put out of work in Australia because our best market - Japan - will be reduced as a result of this decision. It will take many months - probably 18 months or 2 years - before the full effect has been felt by Japan and, in turn, Australia.

Mr Kennedy:

– A deflationary Budget will not help, either.

Mr WHITTORN:

– So far as I am concerned, I would say that the Budget was very deflationary. I very much appreciated what the Treasurer (Mr Snedden) said about the cost to this country of strikes and about people not carrying out the work that they are intended to carry out. 1 know that the ACTU supports those militant Labor unions which have decided not to work on a pipeline being constructed across Port Phillip Bay in Victoria. Here is a State government constitutionally set up, elected by the people, which makes a decision to construct a pipeline from Westernport to Altona in Victoria across Port Phillip Bay. The unions say: ‘We will not take part in the construction of this pipeline’. I know what I would do if I was the Premier of Victoria. I would hire labour from overseas. I have recently returned from countries where good labour is available to carry out the decisions of a State government which have been rejected by the Opposition party and by those militant unions in Victoria. I think it is about time the Australian Labor Party, particularly the members of the Opposition, made a decision about upholding law and order and decisions by governments constitutionally elected through the ballot boxes in the normal way of ordinary democracies. People are fed up with the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Whitlam) and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Barnard) inciting young people not to go to the Vietnam war; to sign their ballot papers and then to write a letter saying that if ordered to Vietnam they would refuse to go. People are fed up with the statements by the Leader of the Opposition to the effect that if he was a soldier in Vietnam and he did not like the war there he would write to his commanding officer and say: ‘I will not participate in this war’. People are fed up with the Deputy Leader of the Opposition saying: ‘Yes, there was amunity by 200 naval-

Mr Keating:

– I rise to a point of order. The honourable member is straying from the subject matter of the debate. The debate is about the cancellation of the nuclear power station, not the actions of the Leader of the Opposition or the motives of the Australian Labor Party in the general political context. The debate is specifically on the decision of the Government to defer the nuclear power station programme at Jervis Bay.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-I ask the honourable member to relate his remarks more specifically to the matter that is before the House.

Mr WHITTORN:

– -Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Would you please ask the members of the Opposition to let me continue my line of thought without interjection. Then I will keep to the subject matter of the debate, lt has been said and, of course, it is quite true, that there are better types of nuclear power stations than the one that the Australian Government would have ordered. The honourable member for Lang (Mr Stewart) has quoted Professor Baxter’s remarks. I think he could go further and quote what Professor Sir Mark Oliphant has said because it was he who said that the fast breeder reactor that is now being developed in Great Britain could give Australia and, in fact, the world, a better proposition than the one that was submitted to the Australian Government. 1 have no doubt in my mind that the Cabinet and the Minister for National Development (Mr Swartz) have given consideration to the information that is now available to them. A prototype is in the process of development in the United Kingdom. Professor Sir Mark Oliphant has said that he thought the prototype would be ready for tests by the end of 1972 or early 1973. He has also said that this type of reactor will provide power at considerably less cost to the consumer than ordinary power stations, and certainly cheaper than the nuclear power station that the Australian Government would have ordered. Therefore, the Government is wise in deferring its decision today and notifying the Parliament and the people that this initial $250m will not be spent on obsolescent equipment. I congratulate the Government on its decision.

During the discussions on the calling of tenders for this power station it was learned that the power so generated would be generated from beneficiated uranium. Honourable members would know that the uranium ore obtained from mines in Australia would have to be sent overseas before it could be used in a nuclear power station at Jervis Bay. How much would it cost Australia to set up this beneficiating plant? The estimates, which I again take from newspapers, are another SI, 000m. These are very high figures for any country, and certainly very high for a country with a population of 12 million people. Once again, I congratulate the Minister for National Development on his statement. I hope that in 12 months or so the Government will have enough information to be able to make a decision not as to the type of reactor that may have been purchased, but as to a better type that can be obtained from Great Britain when the developmental work is completed. I support the remarks of the Minister for National Development.

Mr JACOBI:
Hawker

– I support the amendment moved by the honourable member for Lang (Mr Stewart). If the honourable member for Balaclava (Mr Whittorn) is concerned about obsolescent equipment being installed at Jervis Bay 1 suggest that he support the amendment proposed by the Opposition today. If current Government policy continues for the next 3 or 4 years honourable members opposite will still be in the situation they are in today, supporting a further deferment.

The Opposition’s amendment calls for the setting up of a select committee to inquire into and report upon the whole question of power insofar as it affects Australia generally. The Government is deferring the Jervis Bay project because of economic reasons. That is a fallacious reason. lt has taken this Government more than 2 years to realise that nuclear power is not economic at this point of time. The Government’s admission that it is now forced to shelve the whole Jervis Bay project is once again a classic example of its sheer bungling and its irresponsible approach to national issues. The Government has shown its abhorrence to any semblance of recognition of the necessity for inquiry, or investigation to ensure that the appropriation of the taxpayers’ money is spent responsibly and constructively. The statement by the Minister for National Development (Mr Swartz) today, which is but one of his numerous statements made during approximately the last month, confirms the feeling, never more starkly portrayed than on this issue, widely held throughout the community that this Government’s policy is to thrust Australia into the field of nuclear power without any reference to Parliament, and without recourse to parliamentary inquiry, parliamentary debate, public inquiry or public debate. The whole bungle is a waste of the taxpayers’ money and has been carried out with sheer political arrogance and public contempt. It is not an isolated issue. One only has to look at the identical machinations of this Government’s Liberal Party colleagues in New South Wales with respect to the scandalous Clutha Development deal, with the connivance of this Government, to establish a commitment to this, their accepted form of policy implementation and executive government.

I do not intend to go into any technical detail but surely in a democracy information concerning the activities of government and policy decisions should be open to all so that people can know the full nature of their rights and privileges as decided by their elected representatives and so that informed and adequate public debate can take place on policy issues to ensure that checks and balances are available on the activities of government. Both this Government and the Askin Government in New South Wales stand indicted in respect of both Jervis Bay and the Clutha deal, because both projects were a fait accompli before either Parliaments or the public had any chance to question, to challenge or to evaluate the issues in terms of cost and in respect of economic, social or environmental factors. We are faced now with the spectacle of this whole project being suspended, despite the heavy appropriation of money. At least during the period of suspended animation we could examine the whole question constructively by means of a positive and detailed searching inquiry to ensure that the Government does not, in fact, perpetuate the existing bungle.

Let me make this objective observation: If one compares the Australian Government’s attitude to questioning, investigation, parliamentary debate and parliamentary inquiries with other major countries which have gone deeply into the field of nuclear power one comes up with some interesting results. The system of licensing nuclear reactors in the United States of America is particularly important. It involves a number of stages. First, there is a public evaluation study by the United States Atomic Energy Commission. This is known as the safety report. Secondly, there is a report from the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards - again public. Thirdly, there are public hearings before the grant of a construction permit. Fourthly, the Joint Committee on Atomic

Energy of the Congress is available for an overall review. Also in the United States is a Freedom of Information Act which specifies that all information held in government files will be open to public inspection with the exception of information relating to national security or the privacy of the individual.

In Canada the scope for public debate is almost as wide. The Parliament has a comprehensive and wide-ranging system of standing committees able to investigate all aspects of government. Numerous advisory bodies exist which publish regular reports on the advice they give. In addition the Canadian Government has used the mechanism of the royal commission to air major policy problems. Examples are the numerous reports of the Science Council of Canada. Further, the Canadian Government does not always announce policy but attempts to allow for participation in policy making. For instance, the Senate Standing Committee on Banking and Commerce recently has been investigating a White Paper entitled ‘Proposals for Tax Reform’. I commend that particular inquiry to the Australian Government. Over the last 2 years the Canadian Senate Science Policy Committee, as part of its terms of reference, has looked into the question of nuclear power.

In Great Britain the Government periodically publishes White Papers outlining the background and logic of its policy proposals. It did so in 1967. It published a paper on fuel policy. Periodically, and prior to the start of its nuclear power programme, the British Government published White Papers setting out its programme. The first was in 1955. A recent innovation has been the institution of Green Papers which set out tentative policies of the Government and inviting criticism and comment before policy is affirmed. When British power stations are proposed there is an option for public hearings prior to construction. In 1967 the House of Commons Select Committee on Science and Technology published a report on the nuclear power industry.

The West German Bundestag has an atomic energy committee. The Japanese Diet has a special committee on development of science and technology. This committee has a sub-committee on nuclear power policy and another on exploitation of power reactors. The Netherlands Parliament has a committee for atomic energy. Most parliaments have a comprehensive standing committee system within which one committee will have the authority to examine nuclear power legislation, policy problems or administration.

The Australian Government’s policy is unique as on so many current issues which are bedevelling our nation it stands isolated from world opinion, particularly in respect of procedures dealing with complex and crucial issues. I refer briefly to two important issues. There has been much talk about the need for a power station in Australia. In the brief time available to me the point I want to make is that we should examine the possibility of a duplex plant in preference to the proposed nuclear power station at Jervis Bay because, undoubtedly, wherever a power plant is established in Australia at the present time it will not be economically viable.

On a world-wide basis the expenditure velocity on nuclear research and development has been conservatively estimated at $75m each day for the past 30 years. When placed in perspective the returns have been extremely disappointing. The cost has been justified largely in the creation of a number of nuclear arsenals and fission propelled men-of-war. At the same time significant industrial developments have been achieved, as shown from the nuclear power output on a global scale. Furthermore, an abundance of isotopes for industrial and scientific research has been a useful bi-product. As a consequence nuclear wastes are accumulating at an everincreasing rate. When present difficulties are extrapolated into the future, such debris will certainly become a big pollution problem for many future generations. The lethal, long-lived solid wastes due to the proliferation of civil nuclear power plants in the United States alone will reach 58,000 cubic feet per annum in the year 2000.

With the postponement of yet another nuclear initiative - the power station at Jervis Bay - it seems appropriate to reassess Australia’s nuclear priorities and the procedures by which such initiatives are propounded. I do not want to discuss the question of electricity. I agree with the previous speaker that the estimate of what is required in Australia by means of conventional fossil fuel has been clearly documented. However I want briefly to refer to water. In contrast to power distribution, water resources ignore the existence of State boundaries. Except for the, in this sense, isolated States of Western Australia and Tasmania, water supply is essentially regulated by interstate and Commonwealth agreements, although local authorities take final administrative responsibilities for the distribution to the consumer. During the last 20 years the water supply authorities of the States, the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, the Commonwealth Bureau of Meteorology, the Australian Water Resources Council and several other organisations have cooperated to establish Australia’s potential water resources. The national picture which has emerged is not desperate by any means, yet the water prospects for some areas of Australia at the turn of the century will require intensive forward planning.

All water resources, including water in subterranean reservoirs, depend on the annual precipitation. Distribution of rainfall over Australia presents a picture of extremes, with abundant rainfall in the coastal regions contrasting with a few inches in the dry interior. The total annual precipitation is 2,850 million acre feet. It is estimated that 90 per cent of this is lost in evaporation and transpiration as compared with 70 per cent in the United States and 50 per cent in Canada. The average annual discharge for the entire continent - approximately 280 million acre feet - is about half that of the Mississippi and twice that of the Danube. Forty per cent of this water is lost in run-off to the Timor Sea and the Gulf of Carpentaria. Another 12 per cent is reserved for aqueously affluent Tasmania and 24 per cent runs through the north-east coast division to the seas off the Barrier Reef. Most of the runoff from the western plateau divisions disappears to sinks unknown in the unpredictable pattern. This leaves about 60 million acre feet to supply the populated regions in mainland Australia. The estimated present authorised planned annual commitment for this region is 16.4 million acre feet, or 27 per cent of the available run-off. In other words, there is surface water to be exploited with an average efficiency of 27 per cent at present and of more than 50 per cent by the turn of the century, allowing for an increase in population and per capita consumption. The most densely populated south-east area of the continent will soon begin to experience shortages of water from natural catchments. A case exists to explore other resources, including brackish water from subterranean reservoirs and desalination on a large scale.

The point that 1 wish to make briefly is that there is a question as to whether we should have a duplex plant rather than a single power plant in Australia, and that question ought to be investigated at this point of time. It is my view that no longer can the Australian people afford to give this Government an open cheque, with no limits imposed, to meet its bankrupt policies. No longer can we, as a nation, afford to give this Government an open licence to do what it wants to do to the total exclusion of either this Parliament or the Australian people. The Government has never at any time furnished this Parliament or the Australian people with any matters of substance relating to the Jervis Bay project. We have never been furnished with details relating to either capital costs or the costs to the taxpayer. In answer to repeated questions on this aspect the Government has refused consistently to divulge the actual costs involved.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER <Mr Drury)Order! The honourable member’s time has expired.

Mr JEFF BATE:
Macarthur

– lt is a pity that we are not going on in a progressive way with this proposed nuclear power station. AH the reasons which the Government and the Australian Atomic Energy Commission gave for the establishment of this power station still apply. This is more so than ever because the demand for power is doubling every 8 years, as we see from this statement. The States of Victoria and New South Wales were very anxious to see this power station go ahead in an area in which it has an assured market from the heavy industries on the South Coast and in the Illawarra district. As it takes 5 years to build a nuclear power station and another 3 years to get all the bugs out of it, it would be 8 years before we got any results, even if we started to build the station now.

The States of Victoria and New South Wales will need a big nuclear power station because their requirements for electric power will quadruple in. say, 16 years. There is a tremendous amount of coal in the area where it is proposed to build the nuclear power station. There is a thermal station in the area, and one would have thought that that thermal station could have met the extra demand for power. But because the proposed nuclear power station will be a very large station, the question arises as to whether power from this station would be cheaper than power from the thermal station. But 1 am not just thinking of the urbanised area in the 6 capital cities of Australia; I am thinking of the wide open areas, particularly the aluminium producing areas at Gove. Approximately S300m have been invested at Gove. The figures that I have been able to obtain show that bauxite is worth $5 a ton and that alumina, which is processed from bauxite, is worth S55 a ton. Some people have said that the finished product is worth $550 a ton, but I think that the latest figures 1 saw showed that it was worth $275 a ton. In other words, power, heat and energy account for the difference between $5 a ton and S275 a ton.

There is no coal in the areas where bauxite deposits have been discovered at Gove. So we need a nuclear power station with an acknowledged power market. If we had such a station we would be able to process the ore that is obtained from areas, such as those at Gove, and we would bc able to save for Australia the difference between $5 a ton for bauxite and $275 a ton for the finished product. What is happening at Gove now is that the 5 big partners process the ore into alumina, which is worth $55 a ton, and then it is taken to their enormous smelters in other parts of the world. The difference between $55 a ton for alumina and $275 a ton for the finished product - that is $220 - goes to the smelters in Switzerland and in other countries which are interested in the Gove project. We are losing this money because we are slow and tardy at going ahead and building a nuclear power station.

The Australian Labor Party is practically gloating over the fact that we are not going ahead with the construction of this nuclear power station at Jervis Bay.

That is a sign that we ought to be going ahead with it because the Labor Party is always so terribly wrong in these matters. All the anti-pollutionists and all these other characters are getting on the band wagon. Of course, Tom Burns said to these chaps: ‘Do not start appearing in these kinds of demonstrations’, but we are getting the fallout from those demonstrations in here. It is an attack on progress and on Australia’s need for power. Here is a chance to do something. The Labor Party began to spend S 1,000m on the Snowy Mountains scheme in order to produce power and to conserve a very small amount of water. The proposed nuclear power station at Jervis Bay will cost a little over $200m.

Mr Foster:

– Your Government wrecked the Snowy Mountains Authority.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Drury:

– Order! The honourable member for Sturt-

Mr Foster:

– It is true what I say. I rise to a point of order. Why has not the attention of the honourable member for Macarthur been drawn to the fact that legislation was passed through this House while he was a supporter of this Government?

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! There is no point of order, and I remind the honourable member for Sturt that it is against the Standing Orders for him to interrupt. I ask him not to interrupt, as he was doing prior to taking the point ot order.

Mr JEFF BATE:

– The development of nuclear power stations has reached a high peak of efficiency. When they are constructed care is taken to preserve the environment and the beauty of the surrounding landscape. Plenty of evidence is available to indicate that nuclear power stations are constructed on beautiful sites, such as that at Murrays Beach on the southern pincer of the Jervis Bay area. Already we have spent $500,000 on work by consultants. What the tenderers have spent would probably baffle the imagination. Probably they have spent millions of dollars in getting the tenders ready. Through the Sholhaven Shire Council we have spent $1.25m on roads, electricity and that sort of thing. I urge the Government to go on with this power station; there is no escape from going on with it. Mr Deputy Speaker, I ask for leave to continue my remarks at a later stage.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

Sitting suspended from 5.58 to 8 p.m.

page 226

FUTURE OF AUSTRALIAN FORCES IN VIETNAM, AND NATIONAL SERVICE

Ministerial Statement

Mr McMAHON:
Prime Minis ter · Lowe · LP

– by leave - Sir, I announce tonight that the combat role which Australia took up over 6 years ago in Vietnam is soon to be completed. In 1965, when Australia first sent troops to that country, the continued survival of the Republic was in dire jeopardy. The scale and weight of enemy attacks were increasing, and North Vietnam’s intervention was becoming ever more brazen. It seemed only a matter of time before Hanoi and the Vietcong, which supported Hanoi’s cause, would take over the country by main force in defiance of the 1954 Geneva Agreements.

Beyond the immediate threats within and against Vietnam there was a militant China - a China which was giving direct moral and material aid to North Vietnam and which had in the recent past occupied Tibet and fought with India, a China whose ambitions and policies in the area were causing great concern. Nor was that all. The independence of Laos and Cambodia were in precarious balance. Insurgent activity in border areas of Thailand had already begun. Sukarnoist Indonesia was committing violence against its near neighbours, with the then powerful Indonesian Communist Party exercising major influence over Indonesian policies.

This, then, was the situation in 1965. This was the background against which the Australian Government decided to commit Australian forces to the aid of South Vietnam. That decision was made in the national interest pursuant to our obigations under the Manila Treaty and at the invitation of the Republic of Vietnam. Its purpose was to help, jointly with the United States and others, to sustain and develop the confidence of the Government and the people of the Republic; to help defend it; to develop its capacities to deal with both overt aggression and externally promoted insurgency; and to enable it to make its own decisions about its future in a context of greater security. That purpose has now been substantially achieved.

Today the picture is different - in East Asia, in South East Asia, and not least in Indo-China itself. The aggression by North Vietnam has been slowed and its plans for over-running the South frustrated. Security throughout the country has improved remarkably. Successive pacification programmes have extended the physical control of the Vietnamese Government over the countryside. Political, economic and social advances have been made notwithstanding that the war has absorbed so much of the people’s time and energies. Above all, the armed forces of the Republic, with considerable help from the allies, have grown in size and developed their skills, cohesion and effectiveness. This has enabled them progressively to take over responsibilities from allied forces and at the same time to conduct operations against North Vietnamese forces in Cambodia and to disrupt their supply lines in southern Laos.

To this changed and improved situation Australia has made a significant contribution. Australian forces of all arms have played an honourable and effective part in their areas of operation. They have been worthy of this country. They have been honoured by our Allies. The main Australian effort has been in the general area surrounding Saigon and in particular in Phuoc Tuy Province. There, the security situation has markedly improved. The enemy has largely lost the initiative. The Vietnamese territorial forces have been steadily developing their capacity. And in the last year have gradually expanded their own areas of operations. The enemy is still there of course, and some setbacks may yet occur. But it is our view, shared by the Government of the Republic, that the existing relative strengths arc such that the territorial forces should be able to handle the likely contingencies.

In these changing and improving circumstances, the Australian Government has been giving close consideration to the future of the Australian forces in Vietnam. It has for some time been our policy to withdraw our forces progressively as and when in our judgment, and after consultation with the Republic of Vietnam and the

United States, the situation has allowed it. In coming to this judgment we have on each occasion considered several factors, including whether the forces and administration of the Republic have been ready and able to assume increased responsibility for local security.

We now judge that the circumstances are such that further effect can be given to our withdrawal policy. I have recently been in correspondence on this subject with the President of the Republic of Vietnam, and also with President Nixon and Sir Keith Holyoake. 1 am now able to announce that the Government has decided to withdraw all remaining Australian combat forces from Vietnam. The forces will begin withdrawing in the next few months, giving the Vietnamese time to adjust their force dispositions. HMAS ‘Brisbane’, due out of service in Vietnamese waters early in September, will not be replaced. Most of the combat elements will be home in Australia by Christmas 1971. Shipment to Australia of stores and equipment will be completed in the early months of 1972.

The Government has already pledged that, as the withdrawal of our forces proceeds, we will provide other appropriate forms of military assistance as well as economic aid. We have accordingly approved an aid package for the Republic of Vietnam totalling S25m. to be spent over the next 3 years. The package will include civil projects of an economic development character as well as defence aid in the form of military training and equipment. Seven million dollars have been set aside for this assistance in the current financial year. This figure will be progressively increased during the two succeeding years.

We are also discussing with the Vietnamese Government plans to retain in the Republic some military training and advisory elements, for example instructors at the jungle warfare training centre in Nui Oat, if they are wanted and if satisfactory arrangements can be made. We hope that these elements will continue to work in close association with the United States effort in this field.

Finally, 1 express the Government’s conviction that the decision I have announced tonight is a mark of the success which has attended our policies and actions in Vietnam over the years. This does not mean that security in the area is yet fully achieved. The Government of South Vietnam will continue to face serious problems, aggravated by the continuing and flagrant North Vietnamese aggression in Cambodia and interference in Laos. South Vietnam is confident that it can overcome these problems if it continues to receive appropriate assistance. The Australian Government shares that confidence. It is the Government’s earnest hope that the war can be brought to an early end by serious negotiations, that peace and stability will soon prevail throughout the area, and that the countries of Indo-China - not excluding North Vietnam - will be able to devote their energies with the help of others to worthwhile productive efforts.

I now turn to national service. The present form of national service was introduced towards the end of 1964. Against the background of the situation at that time, which I have described, the Government decided that the strength of the Army needed to be increased from its then low level of some 23,000. It was apparent, notwithstanding pay rises some months earlier, that this could not be achieved in time by voluntary means alone. Accordingly, in November 1964, the then Prime Minister announced the introduction of the present national service scheme. Further developments in the situation led to the commitment in 196S of major Australian Army units to Vietnam. In 1966 national servicemen were sent there. We now have a different situation.

There is improved political stability in South East Asia. We have decided to withdraw our forces from Vietnam. These factors have implications for the composition of our defence forces. The major portion of our defence manpower is obtained by volunteer recruitment. The Navy and the Air Force are both entirely volunteer forces. On the other hand for the full time Army, where the numbers are larger, more than one-third of the strength has had to be obtained in recent times by other than voluntary means to ensure an Army of the size we need. The extent of our defence manpower is measured not simply by the size of our Regular forces, but by the totality of the Regular, Citizen and Reserve forces. Fully trained former national servicemen in the Reserve are of particular significance. Reviewing the situation the Government has concluded that there can be some reduction in the number of men serving full time in the Army. The Government accordingly proposes to reduce the full time strength of the Army by some 4,000 in the immediate future. It has decided to do this by reducing the period of full time national service from 2 years to 18 months.

The present total liability of 5 years’ service for national servicemen will remain unchanged. But henceforth more of this service will be rendered in the Reserve - 3i years instead of 3 years as at present. National servicemen will be required to serve only 18 months full time. There will be complementary reductions in the period of part time service in the Citizen Forces which is at present available as an alternative to full time national service. These men will now normally serve a period of 5 years in the Citizen Forces. The number of men to be called up each year under the national service scheme, about 8,000, will be unchanged. At present, with 2 years’ full time service, this means a total of some 16,000 full time national servicemen in the Army at any one time. With only 18 months’ full time service, the number of full time national servicemen serving in the Army at any one time will fall to about 12,000. Correspondingly the total strength of the full time Army will fall by 4,000- from about 44,000 to 40,000. This reduction in strength will not affect the present organisation of the Army into 9 battalions. Some will be on a reduced basis.

The Government has given careful consideration to the effect of these changes on personnel already serving. We wish to ensure that the transition will be orderly and that as far as possible inequities are avoided. It has been decided that serving national servicemen who have completed 18 months service will be discharged broadly in accordance with their length of service. This will be done over a period of some 3 months commencing late in October or early in November. Legislation giving effect to the Government’s decisions will be introduced as quickly as possible. I am sure the Parliament will wish to give priority to it. In deciding on this reduction in national service, careful account has been taken of the strategic situation confronting us. While as I have said there have been improvements in many aspects of the situation in South East Asia, there are many continuing elements of insecurity and some new ones. At the same time, we see changes in the defence posture of our close allies, particularly the United States. These do not affect the fundamental character of our alliances. We must maintain a defence capability that is evident both to friendly countries and to potential enemies, and which we could develop in adequate time should more immediate threats arise. National servicemen will still constitute a substantial proportion of our Army - some 12,000 in a total full time Army strength of about 40,000.

The Government will review force levels as necessary as part of the 5-year defence rolling programme. It is important against the strategic outlook for the 1970s and the 1980s to have the right balance of equipment and men in the defence forces as a whole. Close attention will continue to be given to all practicable means of increasing voluntary recruitment. Before the introduction of national service in 1964 there were improvements in pay but their effect on recruitment was only marginal. Since then there have been substantial improvements not only in pay but in other conditions of service, for example, the provision of many more married quarters and much improved barrack accommodation. The Government’s establishment of the Kerr Committee, and the decisions it has already taken on the findings of that Committee, are further important steps. The Government will continue to ensure that conditions of service in our armed forces are as attractive as they can reasonably be with the aim of ensuring that the proportion of volunteers will be as large as practicable. I present the following paper:

Future of Australian Forces in Vietnam, and National Service - Ministerial Statement, 18th August 1971.

Motion (by Mr Swartz) proposed:

That the House take note of the paper.

Mr WHITLAM:
Leader of the Opposition · Werriwa

Mr Speaker, the Prime Minister’s statement confirms the information given by the ‘Sydney Morning Herald’ on 30th July that Australian troops would be out of Vietnam by Christmas and the information given in the Melbourne ‘Sun’ on 4th August that national service would be cut by 6 months. As the right honourable gentleman assured my Deputy yesterday, he had no evidence whatsoever that these leaks came from any Cabinet source; they could have come from departmental or other sources. The war in Vietnam has been the war of the great lie. This is the basic reason for the failure of that war. This is the real reason why the United States has been forced to withdraw. America is too great a democracy and the American people value too highly the spirit of truthful and free inquiry to condone or continue a war begun and nurtured in deceit. The Prime Minister has announced the end of the Australian commitment. He gives reasons as specious for ending it as were given for making it and as have served to prolong it so needlessly for more than 6 years. There is one reason and one reason only why Australia is now withdrawing. We are getting out because the US is getting out.

Mr McMahon - Nonsense. (Opposition members interjecting) -

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! I do not think that the Leader of the Opposition needs any assistance from his own supporters.

Mr WHITLAM:

– I tolerate interjections from the right honourable gentleman because he is the sole survivor of the guilty men who sent us there in 1965. There was one reason and one reason only for us going into Vietnam. We went in because the US went in. It is as simple as that. The date of our withdrawal has nothing to do with the military situation in Phuoc Tuy province or with the political situation in South Vietnam or with the general situation in the States of IndoChina. The Prime Minister has said tonight that our commitment was pursuant to our obligations under the Manila treaty and at the invitation of the Republic of Vietnam. It was neither. Well before Australia had 8,000 or even 800 troops there it had 80. Back in October 1964 in a considered answer the then Minister for External Affairs, Mr Hasluck, told the then honourable member for Yarra:

The Government of the Republic of Vietnam has not made any particular request to SEATO collectively to take action on its behalf. It has addressed various appeals from time to time to both SEATO and non-SEATO members.

On the same day he told me in a prepared answer:

In the absence of a specific approach from the Government of the Republic of Vietnam invoking . . . the Treaty, the question of a report to the Security Council has not arisen.

In April 1966 I asked, apropos to the commitment of April 1965, whether the position was still the same as Mr Hasluck had told the then honourable member for Yarra and he said ‘Yes’ and I asked him was this the reason why we had not made a reference to any request in our notification to the Security Council - as he had told me - and he said that we did not spell it out to the Security Council; we gave a comprehensive reply. The fact is that in those days there was no subterfuge about this at all. It was admitted by the Minister that we had never had a request under the SEATO treaty and that is why we did not report the matter to the Security Council or ask for United Nations action in the matter. That was applied to our original commitment and it applied furthermore to the increased commitment we made in April 1965. It is now said that we had a request - that was the term used by former Prime Minister Menzies - from the Government of South Vietnam. The coyness we have suffered for years on this question is amazing.

In October 1966 the honourable member for Fremantle (Mr Beasley) asked the Acting Prime Minister, Mr McEwen, as he then was, whether he would publish the request and he said: ‘Oh, this is too difficult. Mr Holt will be coming back at 9 o’clock tonight. I will ask him’. The next day the honourable member for Fremantle did ask Mr Holt, and he evaded the question. Of course, that was 1966. It was not the best year for precise or truthful answers. It was the year of the VIP replies. The whole question is this: Is there any letter at all? Was there ever a letter? It was challenged when the Pentagon papers were published.

Mr McMahon:

Mr Whitlam, may I please interject?

Opposition members - No.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! I call the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr McMahon:

– I am asking him whether he wants the letter.

Mr WHITLAM:

– May I put it in order and ask the Prime Minister who signed the letter from South Vietnam? Will he now table it?

Mr SPEAKER:

– This is in the context of your speech?

Mr WHITLAM:

– Yes.

Mr McMahon:

Mr Speaker, the honourable gentleman has persisted in saying

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! No honourable member may interrupt another honourable member while he is speaking. The Leader of the Opposition has asked a question of the Prime Minister in the context of his speech. Does the honourable member wish to yield to the Prime Minister to allow him to answer that question?

Mr WHITLAM:

– Yes.

Mr McMahon:

– The honourable gentleman has stated persistently that we have not received a letter from the then Prime Minister of South Vietnam requesting us to supply troops. The letter was originally a secret document which I have had reclassified and I will table a copy of the letter itself in the House tomorrow. I will let you, Mr Speaker, see the original letter and if necessary I will have that original certified to by affidavit.

Mr WHITLAM:

– I am delighted that after all these efforts and all the speeches that have been made by successive Prime Ministers avoiding the question, we are at last to get the letter itself. Can the Prime Minister state the name of the Prime Minister of Vietnam who sent it?

Mr McMahon:

– Yes, I can. The Prime Minister at that time was Mr Quat.

Mr WHITLAM:

– The Prime Minister has done a bit of homework since he issued his last statement on this subject last June, because at that time he thought it was Mr Tran Van Huong, lt has taken us a very long time to extort this information from the Government. It was only as recently as last October that we were at last able to get, as a result of probing by the honourable member for St George (Mr Morrison) and myself, from the right honourable gentleman when he was Minister for Foreign Affairs the documents from Geneva which the Department of Foreign Affairs had hitherto concealed in all its publications. If one wants to go through history, the whole of the Vietnam business stems from Geneva. The crucial statements that the United States had committed itself to the idea of free elections in a united Vietnam were concealed in every document. They were omitted from every document published by the Department. It was only last October that we at last got these documents of over 1 6 years before.

The history has all come out because of the Pentagon papers. Let me remind honourable gentlemen about the cablegram of 17th April 1965 from General Maxwell Taylor to Secretary of State Dean Rusk which read:

State (i.e. the . Slate Department) was to explore with the Korean, Australian and New Zealand governments the possibility of rapid deployment of significant combat elements in parallel with the Marine reinforcement … 8 April - received Deptel 2229 directing approach to the Government of Vietnam suggesting request lo Australian Government for an infantry battalion for use in South Vietnam. While awaiting a propitious moment to raise the matter 1 received Deptel 2237 directing approach be delayed until further orders. Nothing further has been received since.

Those of us who were in this House in 1965 will remember the expectation that the Prime Minister would be able to make a statement at 8 o’clock if he got the message. Was he? Was he not? Would the message come? Would it not? At last it did come, at 8 o’clock.

The position dates from Geneva, not from 1965. The Prime Minister’s speech tonight was just an attempt at justification through falsification. He claims that the war in Vietnam has been a success and that it has attained results advantageous to us and to the region. I say nothing of the cold, insensitive attitudes which his approach displays. Let us examine his claims of success by his own standards. He relates the origins of the war to the activities of China and the attitude of the United States towards those activities. He implies that the war was necessary to teach China a lesson. Let me put 2 questions to the right honourable gentleman: Is China weaker or stronger in the world today because of Vietnam? Is the United States weaker or stronger in the world today because of Vietnam? The fact is, of course,, that the disaster in Vietnam has led to a massive reappraisal of the role of the United States in the region and in the world. American troops will never again fight on the mainland of Asia, not because of the success of Vietnam but because of its failure. American troops will never again be engaged in large scale counter-insurgency operations like Vietnam, not because of the success of Vietnam but because of its failure.

These are plain facts which all the rationalising of the Prime Minister cannot hide. The whole point and thrust of the foreign policy of successive Liberal governments - the present Prime Minister is the great survivor of them - has been to embroil and keep bogged down American troops on the Asian mainland. That policy has failed - failed after immense damage has been done to the United States economically, socially, politically and internationally. The Prime Minister says today that the picture is different in East Asia, South East Asia, and all the states of IndoChina itself. The real comparison is with 1954, at the time of the Geneva Agreements. Would anybody say that the position militarily, politically, and socially is sounder from our point of view or from the point of view of any of the nations with which we have been associated during the intervening years than it was then?

Mr Howson:

– Yes.

Mr WHITLAM:
WERRIWA, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Forget, if you like, the hundreds of thousands who have been killed and incinerated, the hundreds of thousands of acres which have been defoliated and destroyed; forget, if you like, the 500 Australian who have been killed, the few thousand who have been wounded and injured and who will bear those scars for the rest of their life. (Extension of time granted) 1 thank honourable members. In every respect the situation has deteriorated since 1 954, and we ought to be ashamed of the way we have condoned the breaches of the arrangements which were made at Geneva in 1954. There will be a great task ahead of us and our associates to rehabilitate our honour and our standing in the world because of the situation disclosed by the Pentagon papers - the way in which the Agreements in 1954 were sabotaged and we stood by and allowed them to be sabotaged.

The significance for our region is this: After Korea, particularly after the Geneva Agreements, it would have been possible for us to bring China back into the comity of nations and to break down that mutual hostility and phobia of China and the United States. At the end of the Vietnamese war we have another such opportunity. We do not want to embark upon another decade of renewed suspicion between these great powers and the other great powers in the Pacific Ocean by missing the opportunity now. We would never have been in Vietnam had it not been for the mutual hostility and suspicion between the United States and China. Let us seize the opportunity now to get rational, peaceful and fruitful relations between all the great powers in the Pacific - China and the United States, Japan and the Soviet Union. We have some leverage on most of them and we ought to exercise it.

Now I speak very briefly on the question of national service. Despite all the evidence of the Gates Commission which reported to President Nixon, and despite the followup articles and investigations by academics, journalists and many military men in Australia on this issue, we still persist with the divisive, expensive, extravagant and wasteful system of national service in Australia. If we had decent conditions not only for the officers and men of our armed forces, particularly the Army, but also for their families and their dependants, if we were to see that while they were in the forces and when they got out when they were still young and active they had conditions as good as their civilian contemporaries, we would be able to have a volunteer Army of sufficient size and we would be able to retain those senior NCOs and those junior officers whom we cannot conscript.

Let me give the House some of the figures. In 1968-69 the number of officers who were given permission to resign from the Army was 55, in the following year 98, and in the first 8 months of the financial year just ended, 61. In the Navy for the 3 corresponding periods it was 21, 28 and 33, and in the Royal Australian Air Force it was 98, 115 and 112. In order to see the loss to the country involved in such resignations, I remind honourable members that it costs $92,000 to train a RAAF academy cadet, $56,000 to train a Duntroon cadet and $53,000 to train a 4-year degree Royal Australian Navy cadet. If we multiply that by the number of junior officers resigning from the forces, we lost hundreds of thousands of dollars, even millions of dollars, a year. Let us look at the establishment. The Army has an authorisation for 1,435 majors. It has 1,202 on strength. It has authorisation for 2,069 captains. It has 1,596 on strength. Then let us look at the other ranks and their disillusionment. In 1965-66 the percentage of re-engagement was 59 per cent in the Army and the Navy. For the first 8 months of last financial year it had dropped to 40 per cent and 28 per cent respectively. How much we lose there one cannot calculate. One cannot calculate the cost of training a specialist and of his accumulated experience; but, on the simplest level, to train an infantry man before he can join his unit costs $4,000.

I will take this opportunity to read to honourable gentlemen and again to make public the resolutions which my Party made at its Federal Conference 2 months ago.

They read:

Recognising that service in the regular forces constitutes one of the nation’s essential occupations, and insisting upon the highest of professional standards, Labor asserts that full and continuing attention must be paid to all aspects of conditions of service in order to attract and to retain an all volunteer Army and other services.

And while we acknowledge that in the national interest the right must be retained to raise national service forces should the security of Australia be threatened, we accept the assessment by the Minister for Defence once removed that there is no foreseeable threat to Australia in the next 10 years. We therefore conclude:

Conditions of service of members must maintain parity with the conditions of civilians of the same agc and qualifications and must allow for the inherent disadvantages and special requirements of the profession of arms.

Labor would provide war service bornes, repatriation health benefits, civilian rehabilitation training, scholarships for their children and generous re-engagement, retirement and resettlement allowances for members of the forces.

The cost of giving decent conditions for men of the armed forces, for their dependants, and for both when those mcn resign or retire would be very much less than the cost of continuing the system of national service. We have continued national service since it was introduced at the time of confrontation, and because of confrontation, in November 1964. We have continued it because it has become a Liberal shibboleth. The Liberals committed us to Vietnam. The Liberals committed us to national service. Accordingly, for no better reason than that they will not admit that they were mistaken. They will not admit that things are changing, above all, in the policy of our great and powerful ally, the United States of America. We retain conscription. We still have forces in Vietnam.

Mr FAIRBAIRN:
Minister for Defence · Farrer · LP

– We have heard the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Whitlam) make many inaccurate statements in this House before, but I have never heard him make quite as many inaccurate statements in such a short time as he has made in this evening’s statement. I tried to write them down. I found that it was quite impossible to keep up with the number of inaccurate statements that were made. He talked about the failure of the war. If the war had been a failure, surely the North Vietnamese would have been occupying South Vietnam. He talked about the United States of America being forced to withdraw from Vietnam. . The United States is not being forced to withdraw. It is able to withdraw because of the enormous strides that have been made in Vietnamisation, in improving conditions and in improving the military situation. He said that we are getting out of Vietnam because the United Staler is getting out. That is another completely inaccurate statement. We are getting out because the Government of Australia and the Government of South Vietnam have decided that there is no need for us to remain there further because the province which we have been looking after is in a very secure state.

The Leader of the Opposition said that there had never been a request to Australia for military assistance under the South East Asia Collective Defence Treaty. Of course this is wrong. It was under the general umbrella of SEATO that we were required to come to the aid of a protocol State, and we know that South Vietnam is a proposed State. He said that the situation in South Vietnam had deteriorated enormously since 1954. Obviously the Leader of the Opposition did not listen to the statement that was made by the Prime Minister (Mr McMahon) before he read his prepared speech. The Prime Minister pointed out the situation which existed in South Vietnam at the time that we made our decision to go in. Only this afternoon my colleague, the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr N. H. Bowen), pointed out that the situation was studied extremely closely before we made this decision.

Let us look at the situation which existed at the time. There was an enormous buildup in South Vietnam of both Vietcong and North Vietnamese troops.

There was the situation which existed in China - a more militant China - at that time. China had only recently gone into Tibet and had gone to war with India. China was also helping the North Vietnamese in the war against South Vietnam. There was the infiltration of Laos and Cambodia by the North Vietnamese. There was insurgency on the borders of Thailand. There was the Indonesian confrontation. That was the situation at the time. Naturally any government would have been extremely concerned. We were concerned because we knew that if South Vietnam fell there was every possibility that we would see in operation what has been referred to as the domino theory - a theory which is certainly accepted by every one of the smaller countries in South East Asia. They knew that if South Vietnam, the strongest of all of those countries, were to fall Laos and Cambodia could not possibly resist nor could Malaya hold out. There would have been a complete occupation of this whole area. The Government was confronted with this situation.

It would have been absolutely disastrous if there had not been some support for the South Vietnamese. I do not think that there is one person in the House tonight who believes that without our aid - when I talk of our aid I mean American aid as well as Australian aid - South Vietnam would not have been overrun. There is no doubt whatsoever that South Vietnam would have been overrun. There may be people in this chamber who would have liked to see that occur, but we certainly did not. We knew it was certain that without American aid South Vietnam would have been overrun.

Mr Morrison:

– What would have been accomplished?

Mr FAIRBAIRN:

– Does the honourable member not believe that South Vietnam would have been overrun? Would the honourable member like to see a Communist state in South Vietnam and the probability of other Communist states in South East Asia? Without American and Australian aid this would have happened. Admittedly Australia’s aid comprised only a small proportion of the aid given. Nevertheless we supported the Americans. There is no doubt whatsoever that without the assistance of the allies South Vietnam would have been overrun and would have become a Communist state. There would have been an enormous number of people slaughtered. Sir Robert Thompson, who was an adviser to the British Army and who is now an adviser to President Nixon, has said that he believes that something like a million South Vietnamese would have been slaughtered if the North Vietnamese had overrun the South. Should we have ignored this possibility? Should we have stood by and said: ‘We are very sorry, but we do not believe in war’? All that the people of South Vietnam wanted to do was to be able to run their own affairs free from external aggression. This is now happening.

The Leader of the Opposition asked why we went in and why we are now withdrawing. The reason why we are now withdrawing is perfectly straightforward. Anyone can see it. There has been a remarkable improvement in the military situation in Vietnam. I know this because I was in South Vietnam less than 6 months ago. I was fortunate enough to go on a trip with President Thieu into the Mekong Delta area.

Mr Daly:

– You were lucky to get back.

Mr FAIRBAIRN:

– It would have been most unsafe 2 years ago to travel in this area but it is safe now. I was with a number of members of the Asian Parliamentary Union who went with President Thieu to 3 of the larger towns and cities in the Mekong Delta area. The President walked down the main street shaking hands with people and was welcomed by them. He addressed a large meeting. There was no apparent concern of any sort in this area which, as I have said, was overrun 2 years ago by the Vietcong. This has been a remarkable achievement. Look at the way in which the defence forces have been built up by the South Vietnamese. We think that we are expending quite a lot of money on defence in this country and we are. The sum of $l,252m has been set aside for this purpose this financial year. Our nation is not very much smaller than South Vietnam but, whereas we have 86,000 regular troops under arms, the South Vietnamese have 1,221,000 which is a remarkable effort for any country. Whilst this number is directly under arms full time there are, of course, other organisations - the home defence forces for example - which are not under arms full time but are still armed. That is why we will be able to get out.

Remarkable achievements have taken place everywhere in South Vietnam and not only on the military front. I think the achievements have probably been as great as anywhere on the agricultural front. There has been an improvement in cropping. I was shown rice crops which produced 10 times the amount which previous crops used to produce. There has been a handing over to the peasants of the title to the land they farm. I was present at one of these ceremonies and took part in it. In the old days the South Vietnamese did not own their own lands; the French owned them. Now some 800,000 of them own about 3i million acres. This is all a part of the programme of classification and development. I was present when Thieu decorated a former Vietcong. He said to me afterwards that South Vietnam has an open arms programme under which any Vietcong who lays down his arms and joins the South Vietnamese will be given amnesty. President Thieu told me that 170,000 ex-Vietcong have now laid down their arms and are now working peacefully with the South Vietnamese. No-one who went up there could fail to see the enormous improvements that have occurred. That is the reason why we will be able to get out. The present situation has been brought about for a number of reasons. It has been brought about because of the capture of Kompong Som in the Khmer Republic. Enormous quantities of supplies were being brought in at this port and ferried right up to the South Vietnam border. These supplies were kept in an area where the South Vietnamese could not touch them. That situation has completely changed now. Kompong Som has been taken. The only way in which anything can come down from North Vietnam is along the Ho Chi Minh trail. Everybody would know that it is extremely difficult to stop supplies coming in along this trail because it is not in fact one trail but many trails and if one trail is bombed the North Vietnamese just move around and bypass it in another area. Nevertheless there has been a considerable reduction in the amount of equipment coming, along this trail. The reduction has been due mainly to the use of helicopter gunships by the Americans. As a result of the expedition into the area- of southern Laos which is commonly called Lam Son 719, there .has been a considerable reduction in the stores available. It is true that the South Vietnamese paid quite a heavy price as a result of this expedition or operation, but the North Vietnamese not only paid a much heavier price but also lost an enormous quantity of supplies. They are now feeling the effect of this loss. That is another reason why we will be able to get out. It is not just a matter of saying that we can go because the Americans are going. The fact of the matter is South Vietnam has never been in a better situation in the last 10 years than it is in today.

Mr Uren:

– Rubbish.

Mr FAIRBAIRN:

– This does not suit the honourable member’s ideology. He does not want the South Vietnamese to have control of their own country.

Mr Uren:

– They would not even let Ky stand for President.

Mr FAIRBAIRN:

– Well, who is running for President or for that matter, for VicePresident in North Vietnam? Can honourable members opposite who are trying to interject tell me of anyone who is standing? I have been in South Vietnam. I have met the elders of the hamlets and talked to them. One of them had been elected for the second time. A lot of them had been elected. There have been elections and elections will be held fairly shortly. We are able to withdraw our forces because of this enormous improvement in the situation. The Prime Minister has announced also that we are able to make a small reduction in the total strength of the Australian Army. We are going to do this by reducing the length of the period served by national servicemen from 24 months to 18 months.

The Leader of the Opposition in his usual flamboyant style says that we should be able to get all the volunteers that we want; all that we have to do is pay them more and they will all flock in. I challenge him to say what should be done because I think in Australia we have done as much as any country to see that recruits are attracted to the Services by good pay and by good conditions. It is interesting to note that in this respect we are sometimes compared with the United States of America and yet, in spite of the enormous wealth of the United States, the Australian serviceman is in a much better position vis a vis his civilian counterpart than is the case in the United States.

The Leader of the Opposition mentioned the Gates Commission. It is true that the Gates Commission said that it would be of advantage to have an all-volunteer Army in the United States. But this has not been accepted. The United States knows that the only way it can have an all-volunteer Army is to reduce the numbers to such an extent that only volunteers are left. In that event, the Army would be reduced to between one-half and two-thirds of its present strength. But in any case the United States President has made it clear in a statement which he made on 28th January that the draft is not to be abolished and that the necessary legislation for the draft will be retained.

We have done an enormous amount for the Services and I am sorry that I cannot detail it. The fact of the matter is that last night I made a statement awarding $35m a year extra for service pay. Over the last 4 years $24m has been spent on accommodation; we have built 21,700 houses; and the Defence Forces Retirement Benefits Fund is being investigated. We are doing and will continue to do everything that we can to attract further people into the Services but we will still have to retain national service.

Mr BARNARD:
Bass

– There is little novelty in the 2 announcements made tonight by the Prime Minister (Mr McMahon). The end of the Vietnam task force commitment and the cut in national service have been amply and capably leaked through the Cabinet sieve in recent weeks. These are part of a grab-bag of policies which the Prime Minister seems to have improvised during the recess with an eye to an early election. They have been hastily assembled without any regard to political consistency or morality. In 1966 the Government campaigned and won an election on committing troops to the Vietnam war. It expects to win votes 5 years later by withdrawing these troops. The Prime Minister may feel he is doing a ‘President Nixon’ by getting Australia out of Vietnam. He ignores the fact that President Nixon did not get America into Vietnam and the change of regime in the United States has given validity to the about face

President Nixon has achieved in America’s foreign policy. The present Prime Minister lacks this justification; his statements over the past 5 years paint him as the most fervently committed of the Liberal-Country Party hawks. Now he clearly thinks that by getting the task force out before Christmas he will perform a mystical act which will wash the blood from the chariot wheels of his Government. History will expose the hypocrisy of his action. 1 do not want to spend any time tonight looking at the record of the Government and how blatantly it has used Vietnam for its own narrow political ends. One could quote for days from the statements of the Prime Minister, the right honourable member for Higgins $Mr Gorton), the honourable member for Wentworth (Mr Bury) and other members of the Government. The whole course of the commitment was put in excellent capsule form by Brigadier Ted Serong who lead the first Australian Army training team to Vietnam. Brigadier Serong told the National Press Club on 4th February this year that Australian troops could now be withdrawn in safety from Vietnam. He said:

Australia went to South Vietnam as a political gesture, lt has stayed in the country as a political gesture and it will withdraw at a rate which is also a political gesture.

Tonight the Prime Minister has announced the final political gesture. It is not a gesture to the United States or the South Vietnamese Government. It is a political gesture to the Australian people. The Prime Minister has sought to wring a few drops of political capital by ending the infamy of this commitment.

It does not matter in what language the present political, military and economic picture in South Vietnam is dressed. The objectives of military victory which lured the United States of America and Australia into the war have not been achieved. Undoubtedly the Vietcong has been weakened in South Vietnam but its infrastructure has not been rooted out. On even the most conservative estimates there are still at least 62,000 active Vietcong cadres in South Vietnam. The Vietcong is still strong enough to collect taxes, recruit troops, and cut practically any road in the country, at least temporarily. Its level of activity has been curtailed but it retains its ability to strike sudden and devastating blows. Nor is there any sign that the military strength of North Vietnam has been impaired by years of protracted warfare. This was demonstrated in the operations in Laos earlier this year when main force North Vietnamese units severely mauled a South Vietnamese expeditionary force backed by United States firepower.

Beyond Vietnam the Communists control large areas of Cambodia and Laos. Racial tensions between the Indo Chinese peoples have prevented effective cooperation against the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia. There are signs that Cambodian Government troops dislike and distrust their South Vietnamese allies as much as they do the Communists guerillas they fight. Once the American and other supporting troops depart it should be possible for the South Vietnamese Government and. forces to handle internal . security and to contain the Vietcong. But it is most unlikely that the South Vietnamese would be able to stand up to an all-out assault from North Vietnam in association with the Vietcong. Even with strong American air and logistics backing, South Vietnamese would be very hard pressed to beat off such an offensive. Whatever the wash-up in South Vietnam, the wars in Cambodia and Laos would continue with the balance increasingly in favour of the Communists. No one knows this better than the new Minister, for Defence (Mr Fairbairn), despite what he may have been told to the contrary in his recent visit to that country. In such an atmosphere it is humbug to suggest that the Government is withdrawing in triumph because the job has been done and the war won.

The withdrawal announced by the Prime Minister is predicated on the basis that Phuoc Tuy province has been secured. In the popular terminology it has been Viet.namised The South Vietnamese provincial and regional forces are strong enough to counter the few hundred North Vietnamese and Vietcong still in the province. According to Government logic this gives the green light for the 2 battalions and other units still in Phuoc Tuy to be withdrawn. After 6 years of commitment, the spending of more than S200m and the loss of some 460 men killed and 2,200 wounded the war is almost over for Australian servicemen. It is no reflection on the zeal or dedication of these soldiers to say that in relative cost-benefit terms to Australia the war has been an unparalleled disaster. Australia is not a jot the more secure because of the expending of blood and money in Vietnam. If anything the country is less secure because the course of the war has destroyed the balance in IndoChina. It has destroyed the neutrality in Laos and Cambodia and turned them into miniature Vietnams. This has ensured years of bloodshed in Cambodia and Laos even if an effective political solution could be devised for Vietnam.

In this broad context the Australian commitment to Vietnam has just over 4 months to run. It will be 4 months filled with many dangers. The reaction of North Vietnam and the Vietcong to the rapid run-down of United States forces is impossible to predict. The existing complexities of the war within South Vietnam will be complicated by the presidential election which is already disrupting political life in that country. There are 2 major dangers confronting Australian troops remaining in Vietnam in this twilight period. The first is the possibility of a sudden isolated offensive by Communist forces. There is no doubt that the Vietcong could muster sufficient strength for such a strike against a flag force. This would add further to the toll of lives lost needlessly and in vain.

The Communists might well decide to continue their existing policy of lying low while the American strength runs down. It is most improbable they will do anything to halt the pace of American withdrawal. However, if it is decided that the process of withdrawal has gone beyond the point of no return - that it cannot be reversed beyond the political deadline of June next year - the Vietcong could try to bloody a few noses before the end. This would have immense propaganda advantages for the Communists in the renewed political and military struggle for South Vietnam once withdrawal is completed.

There is also the possibility that the North Vietnamese will stage a major attack across the demilitarised zone as American strength winds down. This would increase the chances of a revival of Vietcong activity in Phuoc Tuy province, and makes it vital that Australian troops be got out as quickly as possible. There can be no more lip service to the principle of Vietnamisation; if the South Vietnamese cannot handle the relatively passive province of Phuoc Tuy now, their chances of controlling the whole country are hopeless.

Now that the Government has finally taken the decision to get out, it should apply all its resources to getting out immediately. The longer our troops stay in South Vietnam the more vulnerable they become. At such a crucial time even a period of 4 months is an eternity. Grave risks have already been taken because of the protracted nature of the withdrawal. It will be recalled that when a policy of phased withdrawal was first put forward by the Labor Party in the 1969 election campaign it was intended that withdrawal would be completed within 6 months. By the. time the battalions leave it will be a year since withdrawal began.

In the last few months there has been a rapid run-down in support for the infantry battalions. Tanks, RAAF bomber and transport units and some engineers have been pulled out. This means that a reduced infantry element remains with reduced close support at a time when the available amount of American support is contracting sharply. With fewer American combat troops in South Vietnam it becomes easier for North Vietnamese regulars to infiltrate and move around South Vietnam. This increases the threat of a sudden attack against the Australians in Phuoc Tuy and every day the commitment lasts this danger mounts. I do not suggest that the Task Force could be over-run but it could be the victim of a Tet offensive style operation with the Communists accepting heavy losses for propaganda purposes. Instead of being a quiet backwater of the war, Phuoc Tuy could become a tempting target if the North Vietnamese and Vietcong decide American withdrawal is irreversible, and the Australian flag force would be exposed.

I have pointed to the physical dangers inherent in prolonging the commitment even by a day. Another grave problem is the less tangible threat to the morale of Australian troops during this frustrating run-down period. This is illustrated in the morale and psychological problems imposed on the American command structure with the unsatisfactory outcome of the war and the certainty of its end. These severe tensions have found outlets in drug taking and the breakdown of the command structure. The morale of Australian soldiers in Vietnam has borne up superbly under the rigors and frustrations of the war. But the deterioration of American morale and command structure must have some impact on our soldiers as the futility of their sacrifices becomes manifest. This sort of influence is a fact of life in such an atmosphere; there are dangers that the prevailing malaise of the Americans will affect Australian troops. Again these are dangers that increase with the extension of the commitment because of exposure to American despondency and the growing indifference of most Australians to the war. This period when the war seems of diminishing importance both to the soldiers in a combat role in Vietnam and for the Australian people who formerly supported the war will be a critical one for the Australian army. The dangers of transmission of morale problems through the Services after Vietnam represent another reason for the immediate withdrawal of all remaining troops.

Looking beyond the withdrawal from Vietnam, the Prime Minister’s statement raises questions of the future pattern of Australian defence planning through the I970’s and into the 1980’s. Defence planning and the whole military effort in the past decade have been geared to the Vietnam commitment. From the build-up in defence procurement in the, early 1960’s to the reintroduction of national service and the dispatch of troops in the mid 1 960’s all defence planning has been geared to an active combat role in Asia. Vietnam has distorted the evolution of our defences and diverted it into sterile channels. During the 6 years of the commitment strategic assessments and analyses of the role and organisation of the Services have been suspended. In the homely words of Sir Frederick Scherger, a former Chief of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, it was not the time for changing horses while Australian troops were in Vietnam. This re-assessment and re-organisation to give more coherent and balanced defence policies can no longer be deferred on the grounds of preoccupation with Vietnam. The Army will be most affected by the end of the commitment because of its involvement in the day-to-day conduct of the war.

Its planning, organisation and trainingindeed the whole rationale for its existence - have been directed to maintaining the commitment to Vietnam. It is not unfair to say that the military’s concept of its own role in the past few years has been confined to the training, equipping and dispatching of task forces to serve in South East Asia. One aspect of this reappraisal has been incorporated in the Prime Minister’s statement - the curtailment of national service from 2 years to 18 months. National service was introduced for Vietnam on the basis that the conscript would be trained for a year and serve a year’s combat duty in Vietnam. With Vietnam over it is difficult to follow the Government’s logic on the length of the term of service. On its own terms surely the proper approach would have be;n to cut the term of service back to a year because the year’s combat duty in Vietnam had been eliminated. Instead, future conscripts under this Government will have to serve another 6 months after their year of training is completed. This seems a peculiar compromise which warrants further explanation to the Parliament.

In conclusion 1 would like to refer briefly to a statement made by the honourable member for Wannon (Mr Malcolm Fraser) just after he was appointed Defence Minister late in December 1969. In his first statement on the war the honourable gentleman said that the job of the Task Force still required many years to complete and that although they would ultimately be withdrawn, withdrawal would occur Mater rather than sooner’. Plainly the Government then envisaged a commitment extending into the late 1970’s. Tonight’s statement by the Prime Minister points up the ironies of this tragic commitment and emphasises how easily political gestures can rebound on those who make them.

Mr JESS:
La Trobe

– If one listened to the speech of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Barnard) I think one might have gained some idea of what this nation might have been if its foreign and defence policies had been common to both sides of the Parliament. Listening to the honourable gentleman when he spoke of the power of the Communist Party and of the North Vietnamese, of the infiltration of the North Vietnamese, of the fact that they have moved into Cambodia and Laos, of the strength of the Vietcong, of the withdrawal of the battalions in the Australian task force and of the fact that the absence of Australian forces would pose a threat to South Vietnam, one came to the conclusion that he could not have made a better speech if he had been Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party. 1 think it must have confused many of those people who have listened to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition and the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Whitlam) over the ) ears

We remember when the Deputy Leader of the Opposition went to South Vietnam in 1967. We remember the trouble that he got into with a certain Mr Chamberlain when he came back and said that the Labor Party should review its defence policies and when, for the first time, he admitted that there was aggression from the North whereas his colleagues had said that at no time was there any aggression from the North. We remembered this tonight when the Leader of the Opposition rose wearing his rimless glasses and looking like some Q.C. in a television movie and spoke about our part in this war being born of a lie and deceit. We remembered what was said in 1966 by the then Leader of the Opposition, the right honourable member for Melbourne (Mr Calwell). He said that the Labor Party, if elected, would withdraw all Australian troops from Vietnam instantly. It was his deputy - the present Leader - who stabbed him in the back and said that it would not. I would have wished that the right honourable member for Melbourne would have spoken in this debate, perhaps following the Leader of the Opposition.

I think that much of what the Deputy Leader of the Opposition said tonight about the situation in Vietnam was true. However Australia has achieved much, in conjunction with the South Vietnamese and with the United States of America. It is not possible to garrison any country forever. Australian forces went to South Vietnam because it was threatened in 1965 and 1966. Australians went there because South East Asia throughout appeared to be under pressure and under threat. Australia realised, as did the United States of America, that if South Vietnam fell other sections of South East Asia possibly would fall. This was the Australian Government’s opinion, right or wrong. At that time the luckier nations which had a better way of life in this part of the world accepted some responsibility. Members opposite have stated glibly that other member nations of the South East Asia Treaty Organisation did not answer the call. Does that make our decision to answer the call wrong? We live in this part of the world and we will remain here. What France did is of little concern to me and what others did is of little concern. In my opinion the Australian people endorsed the Australian Government’s decision to take part in the conflict in South Vietnam and to accept responsibility. All the glib argument concerning a paper, whether it was signed, when it was received and what colour it was is the most utter tripe that I have ever heard. I am amazed that the honourable member for St George (Mr Morrison), with his termiting throughout the diplomatic corps, was not aware that there had been a written paper. I suggest that his Leader may be taking him to task at this moment.

In my mind there is no doubt that all the Australian servicemen who served in and assisted a small country in its time of need have the gratitude of all Australians. There were no greater ambassadors than our servicemen, both regular soldiers and national servicemen, whom we sent abroad. Some sections of the Australian community - high on the list I would put the Australian Labor Party - gave them the barest support in the trials and tribulations which they faced. The former Leader of the Opposition said that the Labor Party would support our servicemen but in my opinion the Labor Party supported them in name only.

The present situation is that South Vietnam has had a chance to equip and build its army. It may not be adequate. Everything that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition said may be true. The North Vietnamese and the Communists may be waiting until the American and Australian forces withdraw. It may be that an attack will then be mounted. Will this make the Labor Party happy? Is this what the Labor Party wants, because the people of Australia are entitled to know? I say to the Labor Party and to the people of Australia that 1 would not be in too much of a hurry to buy bunting. I would not hang streamers out too soon because the time may come - it may not be this year and it may not be in 10 years time - when we will regard South Vietnam as not being the proudest mark on the Australian escutcheon. Other parts of South East Asia mav decide, in their time of need and if confronted with an Australian government which is not prepared to do anything, to seek succour from those who threaten them. Let us not get too elated.

I do not want to discuss foreign affairs but let us consider the situation into which the Leader of the Opposition has got himself. I am not sure that his views are by any means endorsed by the Australian people. He is claiming that the President of the United States will agree, as he agreed, with every point made by the Chinese Premier. I think the American President is made of much sterner stuff. Indeed the Leader of the Opposition may have placed the American President in rather an invidious position. However, let me return to the situation we are now discussing. The Prime Minister (Mr McMahon) rightly has announced that the position in South Vietnam is better and that South Vietnam has a more effective army. We hope South Vietnam will be able to stand on its own feet. There were many contradictions in what the Deputy Leader of the Opposition said tonight. He said that in the Phuoc Tuy province the South Vietnamese were prepared and were capable of holding the area. Later he said that the South Vietnamese were not capable of holding it. Throughout his speech there were contradictions. We hope that the South Vietnamese are capable of holding that province. Australia is prepared to lend South Vietnam military advisers for a reasonable time to see that the South Vietnamese training programme is accelerated. Australia is prepared to continue providing civilian aid to assist the South Vietnamese with their other problems - and they will have great problems confronting them. However, our forces are now coming out and the American forces are coming out. If members opposite like, it may be said that we have made the decision in unison. There is nothing wrong with that. The Australian Government has decided that the South Vietnamese have been enabled to equip themselves and to stand on their own feet. Cambodia may go and Laos may go but Australia has at least played a part in assisting other countries of South East Asia to live in peace. We have shown those who may try to threaten and attack that there are people who are prepared to stand and fight, even though the alternative government of Australia is not among them.

We are now confronted with the great need to do what the Prime Minister has said - to equip the Australian defence forces on a balanced basis for what may confront Australia in the future. I agree wilh what has been said about reducing the period of national service training to 18 months because when an army is brought home it is not always easy to keep the men fully occupied for 2 years. They can be fully occupied when active service is involved. They can be trained and can expect to have 9 to 12 months in the field. I agree with what is proposed. If the Labor Party intends to cut out national service, to reduce the Army and to reduce our defence programme, this should be communicated to the Australian people. When members opposite suggest, as did the Leader of the Opposition, that the national servicemen will be given war service homes and given this and that - they are to be given gold swords and gold spurs - all I can say is that this has never been done in the past by any Labor government. The first thing that has suffered has always been our defence forces.

Perhaps in the time remaining to me I can say what I think should be done. I think that we have to keep the regular division of the Army at reasonable strength - perhaps the battalions not at full strength, as the Prime Minister has said. I think that we have to set up the framework within this country for training non-commissioned officers. We have to maintain the level of officers and non-commissioned officers so that in the event of any emergency the Army can bc expanded early and it could be recruited to. This is a high priority.- Also, I think that we have to increase our naval forces. I do not think we have sufficient naval forces to protect the coast line and the areas which are vital to this country, such as the islands in the Pacific, Papua New Guinea and the other areas essential to Australia. I think without any doubt that we have to realise that a threat to Australia might not occur within 10 years, but if we look at what is happening around us there are many matters which we should consider in respect of defence.

First, as 1 said and as the Prime Minister has said, the Nixon doctrine as stated in Guam puts a responsibility on us, as it puts it on other small nations, to help ourselves. The developing military and nuclear power of China is another threat to us as it is to every other nation in this theatre of the world. Then there is the problem of insurgency and turbulence throughout South East Asia. Then there is the future development of Papua New Guinea and what part we may be expected to play in its defence. Also there is the intrusion of the Russian naval units into the Indian Ocean. Nobody is suggesting that we can match them. Nobody is suggesting that we can meet them. But we can play a part, together with those allies in this area who are prepared to stand with us, and we must do it. Then there is Australia’s commitment to Malaysia and Singapore.

All these matters are now vital to our defence. They are matters on which we have to organise now, not 10 years later. These are the matters that must concern Japan as a possible stabilising influence throughout Asia but later, perhaps, as a dominant power in the world and not always necessarily on our side. We have to consider the future strategic balance in the Pacific Ocean. These are matters vital to our defence and I say to the Minister for Defence (Mr N. H. Bowen) who is sitting at the table and to the Prune Minister: Do not think that war and threats are over and that we can buy our streamers and dance around the maypole. It is my opinion, anyway, that the threats to Australia in the overall situation are not further away; they have moved one step closer to us.

Mr MORRISON:
St George

- Mr Deputy Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Lucock:
LYNE, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?

Mr MORRISON:

– I do. I understand that the honourable member for La Trobe (Mr Jess) charged me with termiting the foreign service. I would like to make 2 points. The first point is that when my candidature for Parliament was announced, the then Minister for External Affairs said that I had served Australia well. The second point relates to the question of the availability of the document which has been referred to. I refer the honourable gentleman to my speech in this House on 14th April 1970. At page 1087 of Hansard I made 2 observations. Firstly in regard to the document I said:

But again what one would have regarded as an historic and unprecedented document which occasioned Australia’s sending forces abroad to participate in an undeclared war was not and has never been published.

I then went on to quote the Prime Minister of the day as having stated:

The Australian Government is now in receipt of a request from the Government of South Vietnam . . .

I then pointed out:

He is admitting that whatever message may have turned up the decision had been made before the receipt of that message.

I still adhere to that point of view, and I ask the honourable member for La Trobe to withdraw his remarks.

Mr JESS (La Trobe)- Mr Deputy Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation. I withdraw the word ‘termiting’. What I meant was that in association with his post in the Department of External Affairs it did appear to me that the honourable member for St George (Mr Morrison) had access to certain information. The other point I made was that he, as a member of the Department of External Affairs, should have known that the document existed. That is all I wish to say.

Mr BRYANT:
Wills

– The honourable member for La Trobe (Mr Jess) has completely exposed the utter hypocrisy of the Liberal Party’s policy over the last 6 or 7 years. He cares only if America cares. It is international puppetry carried to the last extreme. One of the cliches which the honourable member used was: ‘We answered the call’. Who answered the call? Did the young Liberals answer the call? Did the young Ministers of 26, 32 and 33 years of age, who were of the military age group when this war was declared, answer the call? In the days when Australia was really threatened people who believed in wars went to the wars themselves. Who answered the call? There has been nothing more devastating in Australian history than the political immorality of honourable members opposite, over the last 6 or 7 years in particular.

The honourable member for La Trobe claimed that the policy concerning our commitment in Vietnam and national service has been endorsed by the people. It was not endorsed in 59 of the electorates at the last Federal elections. It was not endorsed at all by the majority vote in a couple of States. It has never been endorsed in my electorate. It has never been endorsed by the actions of honourable members opposite who are of military age. So my view of it is that the honourable member for Latrobe can speak with no conscience at all on either of these issues.

There are 2 issues before the House tonight. First, there is the Vietnam commitment and, secondly, there is the general question of national service. I would just say about national service that I have arrived at the conclusion at this stage in my life, when I am safely beyond military age, that in the first instance no-one has the right to dispose of another’s life or freedom, that national service is the ultimate act of violence by the community against a minority of its own members and that that cannot be tolerated in a modern democratic society. I listened to our colleague the Minister for Education and Science and Minister for Defence (Mr Fairbairn), our multi-hatted Minister, spending his time by consoling himself with a reiteration of the cynical mythology of the Liberal Party over the last 6 or 7 years - a litany to the God of War - as to exactly how one solves the problems of South East Asia by military action. His was a total insensitive speech, if I may say so. It was a cliche-strewn apologia for the last 6 or 7 years.

Today is a sad day of triumph for the Australian Labor Party, in particular for my colleague the right honourable member for Melbourne (Mr Calwell), because those things which we have been saying for 6 or 7 years have now been accepted by honourable members opposite, but they have not the grace to say they were wrong. This is a piece of continuous mythology because, in the first instance, it was said that there was a necessity in South Vietnam which warranted our involvement there. 1 think that the words of the Prime Minister of the time, who is now safely beyond our reach, were that there could be no doubt of the gravity of the situation in South Vietnam. So honourable members opposite built up the whole mystery of it all - the necessity to go to South Vietnam to save us from being overwhelmed tomorrow night or tomorrow week by the hordes of Asia. Now, apparently in 1971 the situation has so changed that it is safe to withdraw our troops, because the Prime Minister for the time being (Mr McMahon) has said: The important political stability in South East Asia has made it possible’. But what did the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr N. H. Bowen) have to say only this afternoon? He said:

But the conflict is still unresolved and North Vietnam has its troops -not only in South Vietnam but also in Cambodia and Laos. Malaysia and Thailand, Burma, and Ceylon have still to contend with insurgency and subversion. India still faces the crippling burden of coping with some 7 million refugees from East Pakistan. Pakistan itself is torn by civil strife.

Pakistan itself is torn by civil strife, yet it is now safe to withdraw from Vietnam.

We on this side of the House have said that the Government should never have sent troops there, that there is no possible solution to the political problems of this part of the world through Australian military action, and that it would only be by diplomatic initiative that we would make any sensible contribution. I have said in this House often, and I say again, that in this kind of conflict Australia’s only possible military contribution has been the sacrifice of helpless young men who have been grabbed up and carted off and dealt with as if they were so many cattle or shuffled like so many cards by the people opposite who are completely insensitive to every human feeling. The utter hypocrisy of it all! The utter silence of my friend from La Trobe on the position of the people of Cambodia, or the people of Pakistan, or of Bangla Desh if you like! Are these the people who, if it is necessary, will go forth to South Africa and rescue the black millions from the oppression of the white minority? Of course they are not.

As I said earlier, and as has been demonstrated often in the past, the Government acts only if America acts and if America is going home Australia is prepared to go home. So it is an act of complete national immorality to retain the young men in Vietnam. For every hour they are there, those 5,000, 6,000 or 7,000 men are in mortal peril. One will lose his life today, perhaps one in a fortnight’s time, and perhaps three at some other time. Together with my colleague, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, I say that if the Government is going to bring them home the only moral action is to bring them home now. If there is no possible use or need for them there in January there is no possible use or need for them there in 2 or 3 weeks time.

For some reason or other my colleagues opposite seem to be completely insensitive to the perils of war - not only to all the threats of it, the immorality of it and the folly of it but also to the utter hopelessness, the degradation and the destruction of life and limb. These seem to have escaped them all. They are able to talk about human beings, human lives, human hardship and human sacrifice in a totally abstract situation. It is the total heartlessness of it which I cannot understand. We have paid for our insurance with the United States, but it does not look as though we are ever going to collect the premium. What has it cost? Five hundred young men have been killed. Some 2,500 have been wounded; 325 of those are seriously incapacitated and, as I understand it, 25 of them are totally and permanently incapacitated. Those of them who were young national servicemen taken in at the age of 20 and who are totally incapacitated and are now living on repatriation benefits were conscripted into a lifetime of poverty. They can never enjoy any of the good things of the life they were supposed to be defending.

Goodness knows what it has cost in terms of money. It is a total of perhaps $200m a year. If there were any way of calculating what it has cost the country it might be a total of between $600m and $ 1,000m. But more than that it has also cost us a serious division of the country. National symbols such as Anzac Day have been the subject of derision. Our own flag has become the banner of derision because of this, and if honourable members opposite do not understand that and do not realise it they are more completely insensitive to the tides of social feeling in this community than I think they are.

There are some other matters that we ought to debate here tonight. It is unfortunate we cannot debate these things at such length as we ought. My colleague the Minister for Labour and National Service (Mr Lynch), who ought to be sitting in here, tonight is not doing so. My colleague the Minister for the Army (Mr Peacock), who ought to be here tonight, is not here either. Perhaps they are preparing to go to Vietnam, being of the right age group. But why are not our neighbours infected with the same neurosis that we have about all these things? Why is it that our neighbours do not feel that they are in mortal peril, that they do not rush off and institute national service immediately if the threats that the honourable member for La Trobe sees under the bed, in the clouds and up in the hills continuously were there?

The Prime Minister said that he is going to reduce the full time strength of the Army by 4,000 men and that the period of national service will be reduced to 18 months. Let me place these points before honourable members: I have spoken on countless platforms throughout Australia. 1 have taken the opportunity on as many occasions as possible to ask my colleagues opposite to come on the platform with me and debate the question, not from the standpoint of morality if they do not see morality in public affairs but on the general system of national service. First of all, it is totally inequitable and unjust. We take one section of the community and we impose a burden upon them. I believe it is completely uneconomic and I am supported in that view by a recent publication of the ‘Canberra Papers on Strategy and Defence’.I will not read it all as I have only a few moments left, but it is an article written by a Mr McGurr. It states: The Report of the Gates Commission points out that the budget cost of paying men in military employment is not necessarily the real cost to the nation.

It goes on:

The real cost or opportunity cost is the value of the nation’s foregone production.

Honourable members can read it all themselves but this is an important point to any Australian. It continues:

If the conscript receives a wage whose value is less than his alternative civilian wage, which is a measure of the value of his foregone production, his loss of wages can be viewed as a special tax levied on him– and so on.

What right have we to do that to any particular group in the community? Perhaps my colleague who will follow me in this debate will be able to find an answer to that question. What right has he to sacrifice some young men for whatever his idea of security might be? This is a challenge we have never faced. We have taken it as read that we have a right to pick up one group in the community and say: ‘Go there, do this, do that.’ But we do it only for military service. If we are short of policemen we do not call people up to be policemen. If we are short of teachers we do not call people up and say: ‘Go and be a teacher.’ But we will do this when their lives can be forfeited. Let me ask honourable members a question. The honourable member for La Trobe and the Prime Minister have implied that it is necessary and essential that for its defence Australia should have 9 battalions of infantry. That is what national service is about, is it not - to maintain the strength of our 9 battalions of infantry? Why 9 battalions of infantry? Why not 19 or 90? What would 9 battalions do to hold back the surging hordes that are so terrifying to the honourable member for La Trobe that he has had to leave the House?

Let us examine for one moment Australia’s strategic situation. It is a country of 3 million square miles with 5 million or 6 million square miles of sea around it. Of what possible use are 9 battalions of infantry? I say that this is totally irrelevant militarily. I am not decrying the power of the Australian infantry battalions and I am not decrying the strength or the morale or anything else of the battalions in Vietnam, but in what possible way can they control the seas of Australia which are the only valid and relevant parts of Australia’s defence? This I think is a question that all Australians must ask. They must ask themselves this because they are paying the bill. Really the people who are paying the bill are the young men who are called up. thousands of miles of sea round about us that we should keep under constant scrutiny and surveillance? Of course it is. But infantry. I say it is a piece of utter rot; it has no relevance whatsoever to Australian defence and nobody has yet explained to me how that could be so. Therefore I believe that on all these issues national service must be rejected.

First of all it must be rejected because of the immorality of it, as I see it - this demand imposed upon a section of the community that it shall pay the sacrifice while others get on with business as usual. How can a community such as ours support that view? I do not know what is wrong with the parents of Australia that they have tolerated it for so long. I have gone to meetings of the Draft Resisters Union - good solid young men who are struggling with their consciences. They are as Australian as the Minister for Defence who now sits at the table. They are as Australian as any one of us. They will not go into the courts and plead conscientious objection. I say: ‘Why do you not do this?’ They say: ‘Well, look, I would defend Australia if I thought the issue was valid but I will not fight in a war like this. I will not surrender my freedom to the Army either on this sort of issue. I will not support the foreign policies of this Government.’ So they face whatever terrors and rigours they have to. I cannot understand how honourable members opposite tolerate the system. I see these young men at these meetings, always on their own. When I see 15 or 20 of them at a meeting I ask them can they get their parents to come along. Most of them have their parents on side but some of them have not. But there is the utter loneliness of the 20-year-old which is inflicted upon him by the community at large, by the Liberal Party voters in every electorate, by the Country Party voters in every electorate, by the Democratic Labor Party voters in every electorate and by honourable members opposite. Quite frankly I cannot understand it. I cannot tolerate the morality of it and as far as I am personally concerned, while I have no particular grudge against any honourable member in this House - as persons I rather like all of them - if there is anything in my political power that can be done to remove from this House every person who has voted for this immoral act over the last 6 or 7 years I will do it.

Mr CORBETT:
Maranoa

– The honourable member for Wills (Mr Bryant) concentrated in his speech on the morality and immorality of the war in Vietnam. I ask him: Is it immoral to go to the aid of a small South East Asian country which is suffering the savagery of Communist aggression? The Australian Government decided to do that. The honourable mem ber for Wills referred to the great suffering and disabilities which have been inflicted on Australian servicemen in Vietnam. Let him put the blame where it lies, on the Communist Government of North Vietnam. There would have been no need for our forces to go there to defend South Vietnam but for the aggression of the Communist Government of North Vietnam. Every honourable member in this House regrets sincerely the suffering and tragedy of war but it is a fact of life that action must be taken to meet aggression. The honourable member for Wills also wanted to know what right this Government had to call up young men for national service. There is a need to maintain an army in this country. Surely this is well recognised. The honourable member said: ‘Why 9 battalions? Why not 19 or some other number?’ The number of battalions in our Army has to be related to the population of this country. It has to be a number which will base a sound defence force in this country if and when it is required. Does not the honourable member want an Australian army at all? Is the honourable member prepared to allow the Army to deteriorate to the extent that it will not be a credit to this nation?

I now want to refer to Australia’s commitment to the war in Vietnam. Australia did go into South Vietnam at the request of South Vietnam. It was interesting to hear tonight the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Whitlam) asking whether there was any letter at all. That certainly came home to roost in the debate that followed his question. The Leader of the Opposition said that the United States of America has been forced to withdraw from South Vietnam. America has not been forced to withdraw from South Vietnam. America and Australia were both keen to get out of South Vietnam at the earliest possible moment consistent with giving to South Vietnam the opportunity to prepare itself - as the honourable member for La Trobe (Mr Jess) said - to resist the aggression which was coming across its borders. The Leader of the Opposition said: ‘Let us seize the opportunity to bring peace now that there are better relations between the United States and China.’ There would have been no opportunity to seize if it had not been for the efforts of the allies in South Vietnam to preserve the freedom and security of that country. However, now that the opportunity is here we will be able to have peace in South Vietnam and at the same time ensure that the South Vietnamese will be better able to look after themselves.

I hope that the relations between the US and the People’s Republic of China will mean a lessening of Communist aggression in South Vietnam and indeed throughout the whole of South East Asia. As the Leader of the Opposition stated, the Australian Labor Party said at its last conference that there was no foreseeable threat to Australia for the next 10 years. If this is so it is due to the fact that the Communist aggression has been stopped in South East Asia. It is all very well to ridicule this suggestion. It has been ridiculed. The domino theory has been ridiculed. I am not directing this comment at the Labor Party in particular but the people who have ridiculed this most emphatically are the Communists, their fellow travellers and sympathisers. There is no question about this. They are the ones who have ridiculed this ever since it was suggested. I still believe with many other people in this country that if South Vietnam had been conquered the same thing would have happened in Laos, Cambodia and so on down the line. The events in Cambodia and Laos have shown conclusively that the Communists were moving into those areas.

Apart from the protection provided to a small South East Asian country it was in the interests of the security of this country for us to be in South Vietnam. If there had been no containing of that aggression who knows where it would have stopped? What would have been the position when the abortive coup in Indonesia was taking place if that advance of Communists had not been stopped? I know that this has been a subject for ridicule but I do not accept the argument that has been put against it. Who is in a position to say where this aggression would have ended? It is only a matter of supposition and the argument has been used very often by Communists and their sympathisers. History has shown that Communist aggression can be stopped only when it is opposed by sufficient strength to deter further advance.

This has been proved time and time again. This is what happened in South Vietnam. It also happened in Korea.

I believe that all that Australia and the United States want is to play a part in giving time to South Vietnam to prepare itself to defend itself against aggression. Surely that is not immoral. The position, as I understand it, has just about been reached, despite the reservations of the honourable member for La Trobe. He said that perhaps South Vietnam is not yet strong enough to protect herself. Only time will tell whether this is so. Despite the frustration and the long period involved the operation of containing Communism in that area has been successful. It has taken a long time and it has been a very difficult war. It has been a difficult war because the Vietcong infiltrated the whole of South Vietnam. Under such circumstances it was the most difficult type of war to wage. In spite of the difficulties it has been waged successfully up to this point of time. I sincerely hope, as I am sure every honourable member hopes, that the improved relations between the US and China will contribute to an easing of the tension in South Vietnam.

In regard to allied policy I point out that the nations - including Australia - which responded to South Vietnam’s request for assistance did so because of their belief that as countries with a special interest in South East Asia they could not allow such aggression to succeed and they could not deny to the people of Sou:h Vietnam the chance to choose their own way of life and their own government. I now turn to the progress that has been made in Vietnamisation. Quite a lot has been done in this direction. The Prime Minister (Mr McMahon) referred tonight to the effectiveness of Vietnamisation. Last year there were about 4,600 Vietnamese Regional Force troops in 28 companies in Phuoc Tuy province. Of those 28 companies 4 were formed into a Regional Force battalion to replace the Australian battalion withdrawn last year. This process has been going on for some time and it will continue. There were 58 platoons of Vietnam Popular Force troops for village defence commanded by village chiefs. These troops totalled about 2,300. Since then there has been a transfer of further responsibilities to the regional and popular force Vietnamese troops in Phuoc Tuy province. As the Prime Minister has said, the Australian Government will examine means to continue to assist the Vietnamese forces by way of military training, particularly in respect of the joint warfare training centre at Nui Dat.

In addition, it is important to mention that very effective work has been carried out in South Vietnam in the field of civil aid. Surely this is something of which we can be proud. It is helping a country that needed this type of assistance to develop and to become established in the nations of the world. Civil aid has been given mainly in the fields of education, agriculture, health and public works. In all the discussions that have taken place tonight we have hardly heard anything from honourable members opposite about the great work that the Australian troops and the Australian people have done in that field in South Vietnam. Repairs and extensions to schools have been completed. Officers and men have conducted English classes for adults and children. Hamlet water supply systems, including wind pumps, storage tanks and reticulation, have been constructed in many centres. Experimental farms have been established to assist in diversification in agricultural programmes sponsored by the South Vietnamese Government. This is the sort of work that has been carried out by the Australian and United States forces apart from their work in the military field.

About Slim has been spent on the participation of military personnel of the Australian forces in Vietnam in aid projects such as civil action projects, the jungle warfare training centre and military advisory training teams. Some $50,000 has been spent on the jungle warfare training centre at Nui Dat where the training of South Vietnamese military personnel is under way. This is another aspect of the work of the Australian task force there. They have been helping the South Vietnamese to defend themselves; not to attack anybody else, but simply to preserve their own country. This is the sort of work that has been done there and is going on. I have not heard one word of condemnation of North Vietnamese aggression which surely is the key to this whole situation.

Let me concentrate on the great assistance that has been rendered by civil aid. Some 600 houses have been constructed for Vietnamese regional and popular forces in the year 1970-71. The aim is to improve the housing conditions of families of members of the forces. In the first year expenditure on special aid was approximately $390,000. Economic aid for Vietnam is provided under both the SEATO Economic Aid Programme and the Colombo Plan. If the Australians, the Americans and their allies were not in South Vietnam to preserve freedom this work could not go on. The country would be under Communist domination and Communist aggression today. I do not mind the Communists looking after their own countries. What I want to see them do, and what I think every right thinking person wants to see them do, is to stay within their own boundaries and prove the value of their Communist doctrine in those countries if they can. That is all we are asking. That is what this Government has aimed to achieve.

Mr Foster:

– Kick the can.

Mr CORBETT:

– That is all very well about kicking the can. If that is the only answer the honourable member has to what I have put up here, the argument must have been a pretty good one. This is not kicking the can; this is quoting the facts of what has happened in South Vietnam. I believe that the Australian Government and the Australian people can be proud of the part they have played in protecting a small South East Asian country and helping to preserve the security of our own great country.

Mr UREN (Reid) . (9.55)- Earlier this evening the Prime Minister (Mr McMahon) stated that the Australian forces would be withdrawn from Vietnam by Christmas. Personally, I am grateful. I am grateful for every mother who has a son of military age and who might be eligible to be sent to Vietnam. I am grateful for every sweetheart, for every sister, for every father, for every brother and for every young man who does not have to go to this bottomless pit of human suffering known as Vietnam, because it is to this war, it is to this hell, that we have been sending our young men.. What we have to examine is the cost of our experience, of our experiment in Vietnam, of our insurance policy, in Vietnam, to see whether it was worth the deaths of nearly 500 young Australians. We have to examine whether it was worth maiming nearly 2,500 of our young men.

We have to examine our position in history and our geographical position in the area and see whether it was in our interests to involve ourselves in the internal affairs of another country in the mainland of Asia.

These are the things we have to examine, as the United States of America is examining its cost of 50,000 United States lives and S 125,000m since involvement and, worst of all - I say this as an Australian - the deaths of over 1 million Vietnamese. Was our involvement in Vietnam worth it? It seems that the people in the United States think it was not worth it. The great crime of the United States Government - the Government of the most powerful nation on earth - is that it has inflicted over 10.000 million tons of TNT on the people of Vietnam. It has exploded more explosive capacity on little Vietnam than the allies exploded in the whole of the Second World War on the Axis powers. Those men, many of them in the Pentagon lusting for power, wanted to bomb these people back to the Stone Age. That is madness. It is megalomania.

In fairness to the United States, because there is something great in that nation, not only the students, academics and people from all walks of life but also parliamentarians from both sides of the Congress have examined their guilt, and 58 per cent of the American people have said that it was immoral that the United States should have involved itself in Vietnam at all. Parliamentarians from both sides of the fence, Republicans and Democrats alike, have condemned the barbarism and the action of the United States Government, whether it be a Democrat or Republican administration, in Vietnam. But I ask: Has the Australian Government examined its guilt? Have the conservative forces throughout Australia examined their guilt? Why is it that in this country businessmen, newspaper men, students and academics can examine their guilt and say that they were wrong, but not the parliamentarians.

Senator Hannaford God bless him was the only member of the Government ranks, whether it be in State legislature or Commonwealth, whether it be in the Senate or in this House, to have the courage to examine his guilt. Others take a monolithic position that there is no wrong, like Disraeli’s political dictum: ‘It does not matter what we say so long as we all say the same thing’. This is the sickness of this Government. The Government cannot examine its guilt and the crimes it has committed by becoming involved in Asia because of a fear of the Asian hordes to the north. The Government wanted the United States to involve itself in Asia and to stay in Asia, and that is why it committed Australian troops to Vietnam. There has been a lot of hypocrisy about some letter that is being peddled.

It has been put on public record by men such as Dean Rusk and Cabot Lodge that the United States both privately and publicly put pressure on their NATO and SEATO allies to give them military support in Vietnam, but they all refused except the Australian Government and a few lonely New Zealanders. No other country committed military forces to Vietnam. We did so because we believed that this commitment would act as an insurance policy. This Government has to examine whether that insurance policy has paid off. I say to every member of the Government that he will have blood on his hands for the rest of his life. Every Prime Minister, every member of the Government, every member of the Liberal and Country Parties since we became involved in Vietnam will be remembered by me because of his lack of moral courage. They all have blood on their hands because they committed young men to Vietnam as a very doubtful insurance policy. The Government had built up some mythical fear that the Asian hordes would come down and threaten us in the future. Where do you draw the line in Vietnam or do you fight them on our shores?

Let us examine not only the great loss of life but also the cost of our involvement in Vietnam. The war has cost the United States $ 125,000m. It has cost this country over $200m, and that is a very conservative figure. Let us examine what the cost to the non-Communist world may be. America did not stop bombing North Vietnam and sit down at the conference table because it thought that was a good thing. As I said, it had spent $ 125,000m on the war. In 1968, because the United States had 500,000 troops in Vietnam, the war was costing that country $30,000m a year. General Westmoreland said in his infamous report that he needed another 206,000 troops for military victory in Vietnam. What he forgot to mention was that it would cost another $ 10,000m to S12,000m to finance the commitment of these troops.

The records show that at that time there was a run on gold. The 6 European powers which control the gold standard met and decided that they had to create a twolevel price for gold, because $US35 no longer equalled the value of 1 ounce of gold. The United States dollar was under pressure. As I said before, the United States Government was divided. It could not put any legislation through Congress to make internal economic remedy. It took President Johnson, that great manipulator, 2 years to get through the 10 per cent surcharge tax, and even then it was on the understanding that the Government would cut its expenditure by S6,000m in that financial year. There was a threat to the United States dollar. The ‘Wall Street Journal’ said that it was about time the American people were told the truth about the war in Vietnam because the economy was crumbling about their feet. We found the financial barons saying: ‘Let us get out of Vietnam. Let us stop the war’. So President Johnson sacked General Westmoreland, he stopped bombing North Vietnam and he agreed to sit down at the conference table with the National Liberation Front.

The tactical position in the United States then changed to what Roger Hillsman, the former Secretary of State for Far Eastern Affairs in the John Kennedy Administration, called the low cost and long haul policy. In other words, America wanted to save the lives of its servicemen in Vietnam; so it withdrew its troops and put Asian troops in their places. Without any reduction in the intensity of the war and taking advantage of technological advances the United States changed its role to a bombing one. But it is interesting to note that the United States was worried about its balance of payments being under pressure because of the expenditure on the war in Vietnam. It was completely undermining the value of the

United States dollar. It is against this background that President Nixon had to make his recent decision to levy a 10 per cent surcharge on all imports. There has been a further undermining of the value of the U.S. dollar. After the Second World War, the United States held 56 per cent of the world’s gold in Fort Knox. Today West Germany, whom we defeated in the war, holds more gold than docs the US. The gold reserve of the United States threatens to fall to less than $ 10,000m. The United States has a crisis in its balance of trade. Our trade could be threatened if the United States cuts off trade with Japan, which is at present our greatest customer. If the United States cuts off trade with Japan, Japan in turn might have to restrict trade with us. We might then find that the stupidity of our involvement in this cesspool of Vietnam, this quagmire of Vietnam, has not only cost us the lives of men but has threatened our financial resources. We cannot afford to jeopardise our human and financial resources. 1 ask the Government to examine its guilt, its stupidity and blundering in becoming involved in this cheap and degrading insurance policy. It is gambling with the lives of our young men. I am not talking about politics but about a matter of morality. Why has this Government adopted a monolithic approach? Why has not one supporter of the Government questioned whether the Government’s policies on Vietnam have been wrong? Why has not one supporter of the Government had the courage to speak out publicly against the Government’s policy? Why have honourable members opposite been so monolithic in their support when in the United States both Republicans and Democrats alike have opposed their Government’s policy, whether it be Democratic policy or Republican policy? The Government should at least start to examine the failure of its policies. If it does not there is no hope for it, for the people or for honourable members opposite as parliamentarians.

Mr CALWELL:
Melbourne

- Mr Speaker-

Mr Swartz:

– I raise a point of order. There was an arrangement whereby there would be 4 speakers on each side. We have a matter of public importance to come on after this matter, but in view of the fact that the right honourable gentleman was the Leader of the Opposition about the time these matters occurred, we would be happy to extend to him the couresy of an extension of the debate.

Mr CALWELL:

– 1 thank the Leader of the House for the courtesy he has extended to me. 1 would not have wanted this debate to end tonight without having the opportunity to make my own contribution to it. I was the Leader of the Opposition in 1964 when the Menzies Government decided to send Australian troops to Vietnam. On behalf of the Australian Labor Party, I opposed the move. 1 opposed the imposition of national service and 1 opposed conscription. 1 echoed the words of President Johnson who said that it was a cruel, dirty war. In fact. 1 elaborated upon those words and said that it was a brutal, filthy, genocidal, unwinnable civil war. I believed that then and 1 believe it now. But politics is a funny game. The Government won a tremendous majority in 1966 by persuading the people that we ought to be in Vietnam and tonight it has hopes of winning the next election by telling the people that we are getting out of Vietnam. 1 congratulate the Government on the decision it has now taken, but I wish we had never gone into Vietnam at all. 1 deplore the loss of SOO servicemen and the wounding of thousands more. 1 believe in fortress Australia. I do not believe in forward defence. I hope that this is the last time Australian troops will be called upon to fight in any European or Asian war. Lots of people are now climbing onto the bandwagon. I have heard quite a number of fullsome speeches - great rhetoric - about the iniquities of this war, but those speeches have been made by rainbow heroes who speak from hindsight. They did not speak with me when I spoke with what I hope was foresight. If ever anybody in Australian politics has a right to feel justified in what he did - I hope I am being humble enough when I say this - I think I have. I think my justification has been borne out by what came out of the Pentagon papers.

I led the Labor Party in those days and ] took the consequences of defeat. I was sabotaged for years before the campaign ended. 1 was importuned to shake the bloody hand of Marshal Ky in the national capital. I told the then Prime Minister that I would not shake his hand. A dinner was to be held in honour of Marshal Ky but they could not have a dinner without the Leader of the Opposition. You cannot present Hamlet without the prince or the ghost. Some people who had been to Saigon and who had been entertained by Marshal Ky were annoyed and disappointed with me. They would not man the barricades with me outside Parliament House or walk with me in any of the demonstrations that were held throughout Australia against Marshal Ky. Who supports Marshal Ky today? Nobody supports Marshal Ky today. I do not speak from a prepared document; I speak as does a Quaker - as the spirit moves me - and the spirit has moved me tonight to say that I am happy that the Government has decided to bring our troops back from Vietnam. I feel a humble pride in the fact that what 1 forecast in 1 964 has come true. 1 hope that the Government will arrange its foreign policies in such a way that we do not have to be involved in the defence of Singapore, Malaysia, Indonesia or any other such place. 1 am not going to pull kids out of bed - or support anybody who wants to do it - and send them off because they have drawn a marble in the lottery of death. I am not going to send them out to kill or be killed in the interests of American capitalism. I am a socialist and I speak as I feel. Anybody can have a go at me if he wishes. 1 am not a stooge of Chou En-lai nor am I a stooge of Richard M. Nixon. I believe that we have a tremendous job to do to hold this country together during the periods of pressure that will be applied on it. Thirteen million of the best people in the world live in the 3 million square miles of country that is Australia. We are easily the best people in the world. None of my ancestors came here less than 125 years ago. I wish more like them were coming still. I wish more and more people could be attracted to our shores.

I have been told that I am a racialist. I have racial pride, but so has every man, whatever the colour of his skin - yellow, black, brown or white. A man who is not proud of his race is not proud at all. I do not despise anybody else’s colour, but we have been made differently and we have the right to defend our heritage. This country was made by the sweat and labour of people who have come here over the past 200 years. I do not want our energies dissipated in any more wars. 1 have been very happy to find that so many people have made the observation in recent times that we ought to get out of Vietnam. It is becoming respectable to say that we ought to get out of Vietnam.

Mr Bryant:

– Even the RSL has said it.

Mr CALWELL:

– The Returned Services League, which was a great proponent of the idea of our participation in the war in Vietnam, has now - I give it credit for doing so - changed its view. I want to see this country developed; we all do. We all want to see it held as a citadel for the type of civilisation that we believe in. Democracy has a lot of faults; of course it has. Winston Churchill once said that democracy is the worst possible system of government in the world except for every other system of government.

Mr Uren:

– You have been reading Alan Reid’s book.

Mr CALWELL:

– I have never done Alan Reid the honour of reading his books and I am not now reading anybody else’s book; I am too busy writing my own. 1 will not imitate my predecessor, who wrote ‘Afternoon Light’. There will not be much afternoon light in my book. There will be much more lightning and thunder. But that is not a plug.

Mr Speaker, 1 wish the Government had brought our men out of Vietnam earlier. I hope that it will reconsider Australia’s defence strategy. I have no objection to the building up of a strong defence force in this country. I was a Minister in a wartime government that conscripted kids and other people to fight for the defence of this country and I would agree to that policy being adopted again if this country were threatened with an invasion by people who were near our shores. But I have been sickened by the hypocrisy and the humbug of the rainbow heroes that I have talked about who are trying to attract to themselves the honour and credit for what has been decided in recent years when they did not have the moral fibre to stand up and be counted when we walked the streets. Even if we did walk them alone, which was my challenge, we did demonstrate and we did make our protests. I am glad that I have lived to be a member of this Parliament still when the final chapter on that awful Vietnamese encounter is about to be written.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 250

PEACE IN THE INDIAN SUB

page 250

QUESTION

CONTINENT

Discussion of Matter of Public Importance Mr SPEAKER-I have received a letter from the honourable member for Fremantle (Mr Beazley) proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:

The need for Australian initiatives to assist the cause of peace in the Indian sub continent.

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

Mr BEAZLEY:
Fremantle

- Mr Speaker, a situation of some danger is developing in the Indian sub-continent, namely, the danger of a war between India and Pakistan and it is not impossible that a war between India and Pakistan could lead to a world war. Although many of the matters that we will discuss are parts of an iceberg above the surface, I think that below the surface between these 2 countries there is a basic fear on the part of Pakistan that India has never really accepted its right to exist, and there is a basic fear on the part of India that Pakistan is consenting to being used as an instrument of Communist China to break up the unity of India. There are significant people in both countries who take those views of the other country.

The resolution that was passed this morning by the Parliamentary Labor Party on this subject states:

The need for Australian initiatives to assist the cause for peace in the Indian sub-continent by:

Conveying to the Military Government oi Pakistan the conviction that the overwhelming election of Mujibar Rahman should be allowed to follow its normal constitutional path to the formation of a Government.

Conveying to the Military Government of Pakistan that the execution of Mujibur after a secret trial will be regarded a> judicial murder.

Increasing aid to the refugees.

Interceding wilh the Military Government of Pakistan to desist from military action in East Pakistan. 1 believe that the Australian Government should press these policies. I do not say that I believe that every power in the world will support these policies, but I believe that we should propose them because they are right

In the debate which has just concluded, a very great deal has been said about giving people the right to be ruled by their elected governments and that those elected governments should not be overthrown by force. Now, Yahya Khan is an . ally of a Communist government. If he were Communist, we know that everybody in this House would be stressing that here was a classic pattern of genocide - perhaps one of the biggest cases of genocide in history. We would be told how there were 7 million or 8 million refugees from Communism. How it would be stressed that Mujibur Rahman had 167 seats of 169 seats in an election conducted by Yahya’s government and that if anybody represents the people of East Pakistan, he does.

The Government of Pakistan is an ally of Communist China. It is probable that the visit of President Nixon to Communist China and the fact that the United States has allowed arms to go to Pakistan is the cause of India abandoning its non-alignment and becoming a Soviet ally. So, this is a serious development in what I think was another example of the rather maladroit handling of the affairs of Asia on the part of the President of the United States of America. 1 think that his timing in allowing arms to go to Pakistan in particular was extremely unwise because they are being used in a campaign, without any question, to overthrow the elected government. For those who want to make points about Communism, Bhutto, who is one of the architects of this policy in the West, is completely sympathetic to Communist China. There is at the moment an alternative government played down or an alternative political party led by Maulana Bhasani in East Pakistan. There is, finally, a naxalite type of movement led by Mukhtiar and the one man who threatens every Chinese strategy in Pakistan is Mujibah Rahman because he could form, with the consent of the overwhelming majority of people in East Pakistan, and enough to be a majority in both Pakistani, a government which would be really independent.

Pakistan has been governed under the Government of India Act of 1935 for a long time. Under the Government of India Act, the British Parliament enacted all sorts of parliaments in India but gave emergency powers under section 92 to the Viceroy to suspend all parliaments and to rule in his own name. The President of Pakistan as the legatee of the powers of the Viceroy of India has constantly suspended all parliaments in Pakistan and ruled in his own name backed by military dictatorship. This is one of the facts of life.

I have no hostility to Pakistan. I have no hostility to its military dictatorship. But it did conduct this election. It Icd to a result that it did not expect. Yahya Khan went to East Pakistan and talked to the elected Prime Minister of the country, poured in troops while he was doing so, then overthrew him, and in the actions of the Pakistan troops, which the Ministers know are described by their own diplomats, there are all the atrocities of which we could ever accuse the North Vietnamese multiplied many times over; and many more people have fled the country.

There are tremendous pressures on Indira Gandhi to go to war. It would be an extremely dangerous war; but it is a tempting one for certain Indian politicians because had Yahya Khan had the wisdom to allow Mujibah Rahman to be Prime Minister of Pakistan the political force from Pakistan - that is, the Awami League - at least would have had a vested interest in keeping Pakistan united while it formed the Government of Pakistan, lt has always felt that too much of the resources of East Pakistan have been appropriated by West Pakistan. No doubt it would have run a different economy but it would have had a vested interest in keeping the country united.

It happened that I went to Dakar when Iskander Mersa a former governor and President of Pakistan overthrew the government of East Pakistan in the year 1954. I had afternoon tea with Iskander

Mersa on one day and morning tea with the ejected Ministers the next. So, I heard both sides of the story. But I would say that what Yahya Khan has done - without intending to do it - is to make impossible the unity of the 2 Pakistans If from 1910 to 1923 it became impossible for Great Britain, with far greater resources than Ireland and living right next door to Ireland, to resist the course of home rule, I say that in the long run the 47 million people in West Pakistan separated by 1,000 miles of Indian territory from the 76 million people of East Pakistan will not be able to preserve the unity of the 2 Pakistans by the methods of massacre. The wisest course of action for them to adopt would be for this constitutional process which they themselves set in motion, and which led to such a startling result in the immense victory of the Awami League in East Pakistan, to proceed.

Now, as more refugees pour in, the pressure in India to go to war increases. The Indians ask: ‘Is it any more intolerable than to be asked to carry the burden of a refugee population which apparently is going to go on increasing indefinitely starving to death on our territory?’ The Indians may well ask: ‘Is it not better to end this intolerable burden by going to war?’

What the Australian Government has done with respect to this matter was announced by the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr N. H. Bowen) today. Rice or something of the sort worth $500,000 is to be sent and requests are being made to the Government of India for information as to what it wants. The Government, for heaven’s sake, should look at the precedent it established when Sir Paul Hasluck - Mr Hasluck as he was then - was Minister lor External Affairs, as the portfolio of Foreign Affairs was called then. There was a crisis in India with the famine at Bihar. The Government shifted 580,000 tons of wheat, worth S35m, to India and it set up 6 excellent modern bakeries which function in India today. That action seems to me at least to represent thinking on an adequate scale. But, in the current crisis, first of all the Government fooled about with a few thousand dollars. It was shamed then into raising this to aid worth Sim. I pay a very warm tribute to the officers of the Department of Foreign Affairs, to the medical people and to all those who have gone to India. But I do ask whether, in the face of the magnitude of this tragedy, what the Australian Government is doing is adequate. I would think that my colleagues in the Country Party must have been rather glad when the Australian taxpayers paid for 580,000 tons of wheat to alleviate the Bihar famine. It was not only right that the wheat was shifted, but also it was certainly no loss to the Australian farmer. An adequate generosity at the present time is no great disability to Australia, if we have unsaleable surpluses of grain or unsaleable surpluses of any rural commodities. We will not only bc doing the right thing in a disastrous situation, but also we will be doing the right thing by a part of our own rural economy. If the Government will see its way clear to greatly increasing the aid that it is giving and offering in this area - I realise it is a question of offering - it will have the enthusiastic support of honourable members on this side of the House and it will have the enthusiastic support of the country.

I do not think the Government should go on pussyfooting about the situation there. With due deference to the Minister for Foreign Affairs, what he had to say this afternoon was pussyfooting. Undoubtedly, if it was simply a Communist leader and not a Communist ally which did the things that the Government of West Pakistan has done in East Pakistan the roof would be lifted in this place by honourable gentlemen on the right side of Mr Speaker. It is not a question of who is right; it is a question of what is right. I have always taken the view about political assassinations - when people have tried to justify to me Irish gunmen and so on - that it is no more respectable to murder a man because you disagree with his politics than it is to murder an old woman because you want her purse. I hope we will define a standard of what is right. The massacres conducted by non-Communist or anti-Communists in Indonesia or Pakistan are something that if we are to create a sane world have to be spoken about in precisely the same way as honourable gentlemen opposite have always spoken if it was done by Communists.

I think that on both sides of the House it would be a very good thing if we abandoned some of our selective indignation and applied the same standards to everybody - if we applied the same standards to Milton Obote as we have applied to Smith of Rhodesia. When we start doing that I think we will start building a sane world. In this particular situation that now exists, I would like to hear that the Australian Government had instructed its officials at the United Nations to invoke not merely the processes of bilateral a .1 by Australia directly to India and some other people directly to India, but the mobilisation of the United Nations agencies to help to solve this position, because it is doubly dangerous. It is not only a humanitarian question, but it is a provocation towards a war - a provocation towards a war in which both the Soviet Union and Communist China might intervene if it is launched. That would be to threaten the stability of the whole area. It would be a tragedy if through leaving India to carry an undue burden you were to strengthen the hands of those in India who are advocating war as the solution of the situation that is developing.

I welcome very much indeed what the Minister had to say about increased aid, but I do ask the Government to think on the scale, at least, on which it thought during the Bihar famine a number of years ago in India, to look at its grain surplus, to look at its capacity to assist with food, to look at its capacity to assist with food and shelter, and to look at its diplomatic resources to try to mobilise the agencies of the United Nations to do what they should be doing in this situation.

Mr N H Bowen:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– I have listened with close attention to the honourable member for Fremantle (Mr Beazley) tonight as I have on other occasions when he has given the House the benefit of his well informed views on the Indian sub-continent. 1 have admired his eloquence, the depth of his feeling and the nobility of his sentiments. But I have waited before, as 1 have waited tonight, and always in vain, to hear one practical constructive suggestion of what Australia should do that it has not already done.

He mentioned 2 things. He recalled the precedent set when Sir Paul Hasluck was Minister for External Affairs of the Australian Government giving wheat. I will come to that later. The other thing was that he said we ought to lift the roof on this side of the House. That is tha level of practicability of his suggestions. This motion calls for the need for Australian initiatives. What initatives has the honourable member suggested that we have not already taken? I would like to hear them. The problems are enormously complex and difficult. This complexity and this difficulty is not lessened by the fact that we are dealing here with 2 sovereign governments which are concerned with matters that are occurring within their own borders. These sovereign governments, both of India and Pakistan, are seeking to deal according to their own lights with matters inside their own countries and under their own jurisdiction. Let us look at possible initiatives. The United Nations is already active in this matter, but so far it has failed to solve it. Its failure emphasises what I have been saying. On 19th July U Thant proposed to both India and Pakistan that representatives of the United Nations High Commission for Refugees be deployed at specific points on both sides of the East Pakistan border to facilitate repatriation of refugees. This suggestion has not been accepted by the parties. In particular, it has been rejected by India.

On 20th July U Thant expressed apprehension about the deterioration in the security situation. He suggested that the United Nations Security Council was in a position to consider the situation and to reach some agreed conclusions as to measures which might be taken. India rejected this suggestion. It is - believed that members of the Security Council have informally discussed together U Thant’s initiative but they have not taken the matter up. Indeed, they appear to have taken the view that a debate would be ineffectual and might possibly be harmful. Of course, Australia is not a member of the Security Council at this point. What are the other initiatives? None has been suggested from honourable members on the other side of the House. There have been proposals for consultation under the aegis of the British Commonwealth. After all, India and Pakistan, as well as Australia, are members of the Commonwealth. But these, proposals have proved fruitless.

What other initiatives are open? Australia can, of course, bring to bear in the interests of peace such influence as it has with either or both of the parties. They are both friends of ours. This House may rest assured that to the extent that it might be fruitful or productive in the interests of order and peace this has been done. There have been communications with both parties from the Australian Government. In the case of Pakistan alone, these include 4 communications at the level of Prime Minister to President. Do not think for one moment that the Australian Government has not been taking such initiatives as it can. We have done even more than the honourable member for Fremantle has even thought of suggesting. It is not the Government’s practice, of course, to reveal the contents of confidential messages between heads of government, and I shall not do so. I do not think that the even. of our influence with the parties is likely to be increased if I start revealing the contents of the confidential communications between heads of government. We do not increase our influence by taking that kind of action, but at least I feel 1 can say to this House 2 things: President Yahya Khan has publicly expressed his intention of transferring power, in an orderly way and in a stable environment, to democratic civilian institutions. We hope that he can achieve this.

Dr Gun:

– What about the-

Mr N H Bowen:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

-I appreciate the facts that perhaps the honourable member wishes to call attention to by interjecting. But we hope that in the long run President Yahya Khan can achieve his purpose. If it cannot be achieved it is difficult to see the end of the road in Pakistan. The second thing is that the Australian Government is well aware of the widespread concern arising from the trial of Sheik Mujibur Rahman which is at present being conducted in Pakistan.

We hope that the President will exercise magnanimity and compassion in dealing with the Sheik. The Prime Minister sent a message to the President about the Sheik’s trial as lately as 13th August. I think that I should inform the House of these facts.

Honourable members will be aware that India has signed a treaty of peace, friendship and co-operation with the Soviet Union on 9th August. Naturally we are studying this treaty closely to assess its possible implications for the presence of the Soviet Union on the Indian sub-con tinent and in the Indian Ocean. However, leaving that to one side, current international opinion appears to be that presently this treaty will operate as a stabilising and restraining influence on the current situation between India and Pakistan and that those pressures to which the honourable member for Fremantle referred - pressures on India to take some action - may, by this treaty, to some extent be stabilised and restrained.

Let me say a word or two about aid because one of the suggestions which the honourable member put was that the Government, in its aid programme, had been pussy-footing or lagging in comparison with what has been done in the past. Without too much detail I should like to refer to the course of events. On 19th May the Secretary-General of the United Nations issued an appeal for international assistance. The Australian Foreign Affairs Department had already prepared contingency plans and the Prime Minister’s announcement on 27th May of the first portion of our aid of $500,000 was the third pledge of aid. Australia was the third country to pledge aid in this situation. On 8th June the Government announced thai it would provide up to another $500,000, making a total aid pledge of Sim. Aid to the value of §908,500 has since been delivered to the refugee areas in India and 5 ambulances worth S39.500 are en route. They have not arrived yet because they are going by sea. However they will arrive shortly. We are currently consulting with the Indian authorities about the balance of approximately S52.000.

The offer of further aid was considered and, of course, we came to the question of wheat, which has interested the honourable member for Fremantle. We made a substantial offer of wheat worth over SI. 5m, but wheat was not wanted. It is well to refer to this earlier offer. The Indian Government did not want wheat and the offer was not accepted, fi was because India did not want wheat that we looked to alternatives. We then gave the rice to which I referred in my foreign affairs statement this afternoon. This gift of rice is worth $500,000. It is made under the Food Aid Convention. Private organisations in Australia also have made a massive effort and a massive contribution. The way in which this aid has been given has been extremely effective. It has been suggested that in some way it was slow or late. Let me refer to a statement made by the League of Red Cross Societies. This is a body as experienced as any in dealing with emergency relief and this statement appeared in a report issued to the United Nations Economic and Social Council on 6th July this year. The statement reads:

Owing to pressure from the general public, there is a strong and understandable temptation for donor governments and voluntary agencies - and even sometimes intergovernmental organisations - to rush supplies and personnel to the disaster area without really knowing whether this assistance is needed or has priority. It should be realised that quick help is not always double help, lt must also be realised that the main principle of disaster relief is to bring to the victims the help they really need. It is not to bring any kind of help, however well intended. Supplies, equipment and personnel should only be sent with the express consent of the disaster country, or if it is obvious that they are needed, lt is often difficult for authorities and voluntary, agencies of a disaster stricken country to refuse assistance offered, even though it may not be needed.

There has been the spectacle of a Qantas aircraft arriving with supplies properly addressed, properly documented and proper arrangements made for the refrigeration of cholera vaccine, because in high temperatures it cannot be left out for more than quarter of an hour otherwise it becomes useless. Arrangements were made to enable the supplies to go direct to the destination. The plastic equipment foi buildings was precisely what was wanted. The milk and other supplies that Australia sent were precisely what had been asked for and they went directly to their destination. On the other hand a charter aircraft from a well-intentioned person arrived at the airport. The person alighted at the airport and no-one was there to receive him. He tried to make inquiries as to what he should do. Eventually he was assisted in unloading the aircraft, but the supplies were left at the side of the airport. It is absolutely essential to deal with the proper governmental authorities on these occasions to plan what is to be done and to do it effectively. This is what Australia has done.

There has been criticism of the Government’s action - criticism which I believe is entirely unjustified in this case. It is appropriate that I read from a cable which I received today from India. It states:

Although relatively small in magnitude Australia’s timely refugee relief has been greatly appreciated by the Government of India and by the Government of the States directly concerned. This gratitude has been expressed on numerous occasions by Indian Ministers and senior officials, both privately and publicly. Apart from the humanitarian aspect of the relief aid our contribunon has had a very valuable impact on IndoAustralia relations generally, out of all proportion to its magnitude. We were correct in our early decision to deal directly with the Indian Gin urnment, to consult wilh it about what waa u anted and where it was wanted. Each air lift of our relief supplies was well-planned and executed. Thereby we avoided the delays and frustrations suffered by other governments and agencies. Moreover Indian Government officials had the feeling that we are working wilh them and not supervising or directing them and we have been overwhelmed with thanks.

This was a rather lengthy message and I shall skip some of it but it also slates:

The plastic polyfabric material supplied by Australia was particularly successful. We have inspected camps largely constructed from it in Tripura, Assam and West Bengal. Ii has saved many lives and international agencies and other donor governments are now providing similar material. And as for our medical supplies, they have been well-selected and packaged and are being put to good use.

It is very easy to try to make u little political capital from the present situation. I am nol speaking about the honourable member for Fremantle when I make this reference, but there have been occasions when the Press has interviewed people who have been prepared to say that in some way our aid was not being properly directed, These criticisms have been grossly exaggerated in the present case. It may be that more assistance will be needed. The Government is deeply concerned, as is the honourable member for Fremantle, with all aspects of this situation, both the question of peace and the question of human suffering. The Government will continue to keep under review all practicable ways of using its influence for peace and all practicable ways within its resources of assisting those who are suffering at this time.

Dr GUN:
Kingston

– A great deal of blame has been cast upon the 2 countries, India and Pakistan, in the current dispute. In a most excellent m-inner the honourable member for Fremantle (Mr Beazley) has told the House where the blame properly should lie for initiating this dispute. There is no question that in East Pakistan live the majority of the population of the Pakistan nation. Ever since the partition of the Indian sub-continent in 1947 the people in East Pakistan have been subjected to economic exploitation. They have produced most of the wealth of Pakistan. They have produced most of the foreign exchange. But little of that foreign exchange has been spent on the eastern side in East Bengal. To reinforce the economic domination of East Bengal by West Pakistan, West Pakistan has extended its control by overwhelming dominance of the public service. As if this were not enough, it has had complete control of the armed forces. In fact up to the time shooting started in March less than 10 per cent of the Pakistani Army consisted of Bengalis. Elections were held throughout all Pakistan in December 1970. As the honourable member for Fremantle has told us, the Awami League was elected with a majority in the Pakistan National Assembly, but that National Assembly has never been convened. So following years of exploitation and the democratic election of a government, the Assembly was never convened. Then to make sure that the aspirations of the Bengali people could never be realised, there was an Army crackdown by West Pakistan on the hapless people of West Bengal. So I do not think there is any doubt as to the side on which one places the blame for initiating this dispute.

I know it is true that there are areas of grey. It is probably true that the Mukt Fouj have been guilty of excesses against certain people, perhaps the non-Bengali minority in East Bengal. But that does not in any way detract from the fact that the dispute was Initiated by West Pakistan. To add to this recent insult is the trial of Sheik Mujibur Rahman which I hope all honourable members will agree is a gross outrage and a violation of natural justice.

Having recently visited West Bengal myself, I had the opportunity to see the refugee situation at first hand. Today most honourable members have received a telegram from Community Aid Abroad. That telegram reads:

Our OXFAM representative West Bengal reports 10,000 children will die in 3 weeks and general worsening refugee situation. Request you urge Australia makes substantial new aid grant.

From my own experience there and from seeing many of the refugees in the camps, I have no doubt about the truth of that statement and the fact that the situation cannot but deteriorate. I am afraid that many of the children whom I saw at the time I was there are beyond any help. However much help is given for some, I am afraid that it is a little too late. However, we have to try to increase the aid which we will give, and I will come on to that matter shortly. But we must bear in mind that if all the aid in the world is given to the refugees, this still leaves another problem, and that concerns the people in West Bengal itself, the people who were there before the refugees arrived. This question is causing tremendous political friction between the refugees and the West Bengalis. The presence of a great number of additional men is flooding the labour market. Before the refugees arrived a West Bengali could go and offer his services as a rural labourer for about 2i rupees a day. Now, because of the refugees offering their services, wages are approximately 1 rupee per day. So there is a downward pressure on wages and simultaneously there is an upward pressure on prices. This can only cause a tremendously explosive political situation. Another matter is that the refugees are given 1 rupee’s worth of food every day. For how long will the people of West Bengal sit there quietly and watch this happening while they have to pay for their food?

Then there is the tremendous physical overcrowding. In some of the areas I visited the population had trebled in about 6 weeks. So I think we must bear in mind that however much aid we give, if we give the absolute optimum, if we give everything we have, it still will not solve the basic problem of the friction between the refugees and the people of West Bengal. I asked many refugees whether they would ever return to East Pakistan. Most of those to whom I spoke said they would like to but that they could not do so in the present situation while the military was still there. Somehow the military must go. Having looked at the situation, I am reluctantly forced to the conclusion - and this is only a personal opinion - that the refugees will not return in any substantial number until there is an independent State in East Bengal, in other words, an independent Bangla Desh. However, I am not suggesting that the Australian Government should take a stand either way on this question. I do not think that we should call either for an independent Bangla Desh or necessarily for a reunification. I agree with the view expressed to me by the Indian Prime Minister, that this is a matter to be determined by the East Bengal people themselves.

The Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr N. H. Bowen) has suggested that we have not made any constructive suggestions about what should be done. I thought that the honourable member for Fremantle made some very practical suggestions, and 1 would like to support them. The most important thing is that the aggregate aid we have given is pitifully small. It is now worth $1.5m. When I visited East Pakistan, the amount of foreign aid pledged to the Indian Government from various countries totalled $200m. At that stage we had given aid worth Sim, plus the aid which had been given through Austcare and other voluntary agencies. So we had given less than 1 per cent of the total amount of aid pledged. I would have thought that a country like Australia which has one of the highest living standards in the world and one of the highest per capita incomes in the world could have done a lot better than that. It is important that we must not lose sight of the situation. The aid has to continue, but I am afraid there is a great danger that when references to cholera are not reported on the front pages of our newspapers, people will forget all about the situation in East Pakistan. We must remember that for so long as the refugees are there the situation will continue. 1 think there are a few other practical things we could do. I should like to see the Australian Government take a particular responsibility for a specific geographical area within West Bengal. I think that one of the troubles in Australia is that a lot of people seem to think that because there are so many months to feed the situation is uncontrollable and that we cannot do anything about it. I think that if Australia took a responsibility for a specific area, Australians would see that there are problems within manageable proportions and that it would motivate us to try to provide continuous aid. I hope that the Government will give consideration to doing this. i visited an area in the northern part of West Bengal, m the Jalpaiguri district. I think that by accepting responsibility for this area we could quite easily help the

16262/71- R-[9]

Indian Government to overcome the situation. If we are lucky, perhaps other governments throughout the world might follow the lead, and then each could do its part in specific areas of West Bengal and the other Indian States that surround East Pakistan and thus help the Indian Government to overcome this massive problem. I would like to see us do the same sort of thing in East Pakistan. But I think that if we do that perhaps we should lay down certain conditions; perhaps we should insist on the presence in that country of our own personnel in order to see that the aid is disbursed to the right quarters. It might also have the effect of inhibiting the conflicting parties from shooting and killing each other.

I am sorry that the honourable member for Holt (Mr Reid) who visited India with me has not had an opportunity to speak in this debate. I do not want to embarrass him politically, but as he is the only member of this Parliament who has recently visited East Pakistan, I rather regret that he has not had an opportunity to speak in this debate. Incidentally, the honourable member for Holt has done a great deal more for the Indian sub-continent over a longer period of time than the Australian Government has done, and I believe that he deserves a great deal of credit for the aid programme which he has spearheaded for several years now.

The Minister for Foreign Affairs asked what we could do. I think there is something else we could do. I think that for many years we have been a very unswerving and rather unthinking ally of the United States of America. We must remember that the United States has been sending shipments of arms to Pakistan. We know for what purpose those arms shipments will be used. I should like to see us use our good offices to try to dissuade our American friends from sending any more arms shipments. I do not think it is any use at this stage the American Government wringing its hands about the friendship treaty between the Soviet Union and India. I think this was inevitable. From my own discussions there, it seems that the stocks of the United States are very low indeed in India. Frankly, I believe Mrs Gandhi when she said that there has been no fundamental realignment of India’s foreign policy. i think the recent development was inevitable, and I do not think anyone should express any surprise about it. I think there is a lot we can do-

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Lucock:

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

Mr KATTER:
Kennedy

- Mr Deputy Speaker, I should like to comment on the reference that has been made to the honourable member for Holt (Mr Reid). Many of us who know this man’s experience, his dedication and his understanding of the problems of the Indian sub-continent are looking forwarding to his contribution which I understand will be made in the debate on the statement given by the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr N. H. Bowen). We will have an opportunity to hear him speak for 20 minutes, not for the limited time of 10 minutes which would have been available to him in this debate. I think we can look forward to that with a good deal of anticipation.

There is much to say regarding the contributions that have been and are continuing to be made, either on the basis of making contributions or of making initiatives to foster peace not only in the Indian sub-continent but throughout South East Asia, that it would take much longer than 10 minutes to list them and to evaluate them. I suppose I had a rather unique opportunity of hearing the general spectrum of opinion about the initiatives that we have made over the years in this sphere. I am very proud to say that the first time I stood on the rostrum of the United Nations was to announce Australia’s contribution to the Special Committee for Refugees, and that contribution more than compared with similar contributions made by many other countries.

It may interest honourable members .to know that constant reference was made by delegates at the United Nations to the fact that they thought of Australia as being a developing nation and that this demand upon us was far in excess of our capacity. It might be well to remember that we have disasters on this continent, not that I would detract for one moment from the humane requirements of the disaster area in East Pakistan. However, let us just look for a moment at one or two of the headings under which we are providing assistance and, if you like, initiatives for peace.

What are initiatives for peace? lt is rather interesting to look at the type of peace we are talking about. Is it peace at any price? Is it peace at the expense of the institutions and ideologies which have been built up over the centuries to the present stage of Western democracy? Should they suddenly be scrapped and should we make initiatives for peace on any basis? Not for me, not for members on this side of the House. Twenty-five million dollars is to be made available to Vietnam over 3 years. We also support the Colombo Plan which very much involves the sub-continent of India.

Honourable members opposite have brought this item forward as a matter of importance. They will- have another one tomorrow, and another on the next day. It will be brought forward on either an emotional basis or some shabby political basis. Honourable members opposite will bring them forward, we will anticipate them and we will meet them. I would like to refer to the appreciation of the various nations of South East Asia, particularly the people of India and Pakistan, of the aid supplied by this great country. It is of no credit to members of the Opposition that this image has been retained, because they have at various times attempted to shatter this image. I remember well the attack made on our diggers over that shabby business of a girl having a glass of water thrown down her throat. Never at any stage did members of the Opposition refer to the fact that this particular spy had been responsible for either the death or mutilation of 28 Australian soldiers.

Mr Beazley:

– I rise to order. We are debating an urgency motion relating to events in the Indian sub-continent. The debate seems to me to be reverting to Vietnam and so on. I ask you, Mr Deputy Speaker, whether this is in order?

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Scholes:
CORIO, VICTORIA

– I think the honourable member should relate his remarks to the matter before the House.

Mr KATTER:

– All right, I will deal with that other matter at another time. Let us look at the background of this situation and the claim that we have contributed nearly nothing, if you like - some mere pittance - to assist in this situation. On 19th May, following a very large influx of

East Pakistan refugees into India, the Secretary-General of the United Nations issued an appeal for international assistance. The Department of Foreign Affairs had already prepared contingency plans. The Prime Minister announced on 27th May that the first portion, $500,000 worth of aid, was the third to be pledged by any country. That is not a bad effort This was the third highest amount to be pledged by any country.

Mr Beazley:

– Not the third highest surely. It was the third in line.

Mr KATTER:

– All right, the third in line to make our offer of contributions. Honourable members opposite are very political when they want to be. The number of refugees increased rapidly and when cholera broke out among them the Government was accused in the Press of failing to provide aid quickly and of not facilitating the provision of private aid by granting tax exemption for donations to voluntary organisations. On 8th June the Government announced that it would provide up to another $500,000, making a total aid pledge of $lm. This is not too bad for a country of this size and on which such demands are made. Aid to the value of $908,500 has since been delivered to the refugee areas in India. Five ambulances worth $39,500 are en route or have probably arrived by now. We are currently consulting with Indian authorities about the balance of approximately $52,000. This is not too bad.

We have our own Budget realities to contend with. This has become quite evident. We have had to raise charges to the Australian people and to place further burdens upon them. We had to look to our own resources and find just what we could provide without stretching our financial situation to a point which would not be tolerable. There was also the recent offer of 25,000 metric tons of wheat. As the Minister for Foreign Affairs pointed out, India had excess supplies of wheat and was not ready to accept this offer. But at least the wheat was offered to the Indian Government.

Mr Keogh:

– I rise to order. The honourable member for Kennedy is reading the speech that the Minister for Foreign Affairs has already read in this House tonight during the same debate.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Scholes:

– Order! There is no valid point of order.

Mr KATTER:

– I will read it 45 times if I can bring the points home enough. The difficulty with some honourable members opposite is that they want to have all the say and when we want to reiterate some particular point which is telling they do not like it.

Mr Foster:

– That is a lot of rot.

Mr KATTER:

– Keep quiet. You sound just like a didgeridoo. You make a lot of noise and you are full of emptiness. I have to some point repeated the initiatives that have been taken and I will go through them again very quickly. One particular operation that we have been involved in and which I think makes quite an impact, if one wants to talk about initiatives for peace on the Indian sub-continent or in any of the other Asian countries, is our attendance at the conference of the Asian Parliamentary Union each year. I do not think the Opposition would be very happy about this because it is a conference of anti-Communist countries. I say this with a great deal of reluctance because I have a great deal of respect for many honourable members opposite, particularly those who have been formed in the mould of the old Australian Labor Party: I have yet to hear them rise and offer one word of criticism of the atrocities and the terror which has been spread by the Communist forces on almost all the Asian sub-continents. This motion is not of national importance. It has been recognised by the United Nations and by fair minded countries that we have made a tremendous contribution to this tragic situation that exists at the moment on the Indian sub-continent.

Mr CROSS:
Brisbane

– The honourable member for Kennedy (Mr Katter) damned his case by saying in his closing words that this motion was not a matter of national importance. The Labor Party has brought this matter of urgency before the Parliament as early as possible because, notwithstanding the fact that we all know that our Government has communicated with the governments of Pakistan and India, the Labor Party felt that members on both sides of this House would seek to identify themselves with the views already expressed by the Government in the way in which on previous occasions they have sought to identify themselves with the Government in some international crisis. I am sure that honourable members who were here at the time when troops from the Soviet Union and other Warsaw Pact countries invaded Czechoslovakia will recall that on both sides of the House honourable members united to express the concern through this Parliament of all the people of Australia at what was happening in that part of the world at that time. We sought - unsuccessfully, unfortunately, when one recalls the speech just made by the honourable member for Kennedy - to convey to the governments of the Indian sub-continent through this Parliament the concern felt by all Australians at the present position between India and Pakistan, the present position in East Pakistan and West Bengal and the other adjoining States of India.

May I draw the attention of the House to the exact terms of the matter of public importance spelled out by my colleague the honourable member for Fremantle (Mr Beazley). It reads:

The need for Australian initiatives to assist the cause of peace in the Indian sub-continent by -

conveying to the Military Government of Pakistan the conviction that the overwhelming election of Mujibur Rahman should be allowed to follow its normal constitutional path to the formation of a government;-

Does the honourable member for Kennedy disagree with that? -

  1. conveying to the Military Government ot Pakistan that the execution of Mujibur after a secret trial will be regarded as judicial murder;-

Does the honourable member for Kennedy disagree with that? -

  1. increasing aid to refugees;

Does the honourable member for Kennedy disagree with that? -

  1. interceding with the Military Government of Pakistan to desist from military action in East Pakistan;-

Does the honourable member for Kennedy disagree with that? -

  1. urging United Nations action to keep the peace and assist refugees.

Can any honourable member disagree with that? I think that every phrase adopted by the honourable member for Fremantle is unexceptionable. Let us put the record straight. Like my colleagues the honourable member for Holt (Mr Reid) and the honourable member for Kingston (Dr

Gun) I had the opportunity to spend some time in West Bengal recently. Naturally as a member of the Joint Foreign Affairs Committee of this Parliament I was interested to see just what sort of a job Australia was doing there. I am not criticising the speed with which aid was given in West Bengal. Indeed every person to whom I spoke said that the Australian aid was very well programmed and that Australia asked what was needed and got it there. What we are concerned with, however, is that notwithstanding what has already been done and what the Government has announced today - the additional $500,000 worth of aid which will be given - the problem that yet remains to be solved is enormous.

The honourable member for Kingston outlined the situation as he saw it in the refugee areas. What is the position? I went to 4 refugee camps near Kaliani north of Calcutta to look at the situation there. I think the Government of India has done a remarkable job with the assistance it has been given and with its own resources - principally wilh its own resources - in housing and feeding the people who are there as refugees from genocide in East Pakistan. But when one looks at these people and sees the adults who are at present dazed - if that is the right expression - by the atrocities and by the oppression which they saw in their own country before coming into India and when one looks at the food they are being given one realises that the present ‘Situation in these areas cannot last on its present basis. It is true to say that these people have roofs of a kind over their heads. It is true to say that they have sufficient food to sustain them for a short period of time but it is equally true that the small children who are there and are suffering from malnutrition, cholera, typhoid and other diseases are not being given that extra food and those extra vitamins or drugs which would enable them to return to full health.

I agree with the honourable member for Kingston. The message that has been conveyed to us on behalf of Oxfam today by the Save the Children Fund organisation states that 100,000 children will die. I attended a Save the Children Fund hospital at Kaliani About 40 children are being brought into the hospital each day right on the very edge of death. While we were at the hospital several children passed away. They are not in any position to bring in all the sick children. They bring children in for treatment only when they are on the very edge of death. So there is the humanitarian consideration of the fact that hundreds of thousands of small children and other people in this area will die of starvation and famine.

The flood of people across the border still continues at the rate of 40.000 to. 50,000 a day. As this flood continues an increasing number of these people are suffering the effects of famine and disease in East Pakistan. This creates a tremendous problem for India because these refugees are entering an area of India which is in many ways an industrial area. There has been great unemployment. None of these refugees from Pakistan can be employed while there are Indians out of work. So we have this situation of the young men going off to join the independence army of Bangla Desh. As I said, other adults are stunned by the things that have happened to them. This situation will not go on for ever. Already there are indications of communal strife. We hear a lot about Communism from honourable members on the other side of the House. In Calcutta literally thousands of Maoists - people belonging to the Peking oriented Communist Party in India - were marching in a trade union demonstration. These people are subverting the refugees. They are sending out teams to say to the refugees that their present situation is in no small measure brough about by the fact that the Government of India has not recognised Bangla Desh. In this great nation of India where a large number of communities live together in what one might describe at times as an uneasy peace, where we have known great disasters and genocide as between Moslem and Hindu at the time of partition and on other occasions since, we have this explosive situation that could blow the Indian sub-continent apart, with all that that means for this part of the world.

It is our purpose not to make carping criticism of what Australia has done so far but to register in this Parliament the fact that the need for assistance at a much higher level is great and will remain for a long period of time. If all of these pressures and persuasions which the world is endeavouring to exert on the Government of Pakistan are unsuccessful the situation could well be that India will be left with the 7 million refugees, which it has at present, or perhaps 10 million or 11 million refugees. It may be left in the long term with the responsibility of feeding and clothing these people and endeavouring to provide them with employment in the most politically and industrially sensitive part of the nation of India. That is the problem.

I would like to say that the work done by the officers of the Department of Foreign Affairs in India - I will not mention names - is very impressive. These people are on the job. They know what the problems are. I can only hope that the Department and the Minister will continue to be advised of the situation by the information that these officers send. Surely if this Parliament can do anything honourable members on both sides can register the abhorrence which all Australians feel at the genocide being carried out in East Pakistan and urge this Government to respond to the wishes of all Australians and to ensure that the aid that Australia is giving and the influence that Australia can exert is sustained into the future. If this Government fails to do this what happens in the Indian sub-continent may be very great compared with the terrors that we have been told for many years have happened in Vietnam and elsewhere.

Mr BURY:
Wentworth

– I do not think any Australian or any honourable member in this House could be otherwise than horrified at what has happened in India. This matter has been raised by the honourable member for Fremantle (Mr Beazley) who has a long and very deep knowledge of India and a personal interest in the country. Of course, he would be more affected by recent events than most people because he knows more about them. But the matter as it has been raised in this House really divides itself into 2 questions. First of all, there is the question of what support and help we can give and, secondly, what can we do in the political sphere. This situation is compounded from 2 things. The first is that a number equal to half the population of Australia is living in the open, in tents or whatever can be provided for them. There is very little hope of employment or in many cases, of even having a satisfactory meal for a very long time. It has also produced a source of most dangerous political infection. Out of this, as the honourable member for Brisbane (Mr Cross) has just pointed out, come all kinds of horrible political developments of a nefarious kind, always disrupting, trying to pull down the established authority, and spreading doctrines of desperation which will be or potentially could be exploited by other powers outside.

What the Government has done with regard to aid has been to get close advice from our officers on the spot, as the honourable member for Brisbane has said, and above all to act in close conjunction in West Bengal with the Indian authorities. All kinds of people all over the country give advice on what is wanted, where it is wanted, how to do it and so forth, but the only proper way to do it is to keep in close touch with the authorities there, work with them and supply what we can, as we can, to the right spot when it is wanted. So far $lm - now another donation of money has been provided - has gone to pay for those things which could be sent quickly and efficiently. That is not the limit of Australia’s donations. The honourable member for Kingston (Dr Gun) should check the sums which he says have been provided by other countries to find out what has been pledged, what has appeared in public headlines and what, in the end, is actually supplied and finds its way there. I feel certain that, proportionately, Australia will stand up very well.

The future course for aid - it is encouraging to know that it will be supported by all sectors of this House - is to meet requirements as they emerge. So far the requests have been for medicines. They have not been for food but it is likely that in the near future they will be for food. When they follow that form Australia will be in a flexible position and will follow it up and supply the necessary medicines, food or whatever is wanted. A number of things have been suggested to the Indians and we have been told, in many cases, that they were not wanted and that something else was wanted. The main thing is not to supply what someone in Australia thinks would do them good but to meet their own particular requirements and wishes.

On the broad political question reference has been made to the fact that India has a pact with Soviet Russia and that the

People’s Republic of China is interested in Pakistan. These things illustrate the difficulties of Australian political initiatives. Australians have to realise that we are not a great power. We cannot go to India and order the affairs of the world. We are not in a position to take any very spectacular initiative in the United Nations. What we can do is support other people who are bigger than we are and who have more influence, and support the courses which we applaud. The fundamental fact to realise is that we have done what it is possible to do in the way of political initiative. The way the motion is worded creates a very strong implication that not enough political initiative has been taken. As the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr N. H. Bowen) pointed out, we have made our views very plain throughout to the rulers of both India and Pakistan. Messages have been sent from Prime Minister to President and from Prime Minister to Prime Minister.

We have done what we can. What we have not done, and what I thought the honourable -member for Fremantle did, is to start taking sides in the quarrel which, after all, is between 2 countries with both of which we are friends and with which we have had very friendly relations. Some very brutal, horrible things have been done on both sides. There has been a mutiny in the East Pakistan army with a lot of troops being very brutally killed. Some of the West Pakistani troops have undoubtedly perpetrated a good many horrors and the whole situation is interlaced with legacies from the past, handed down from generation to generation. Such people are worse than the Irish, and on a tremendous scale. I am sure that whatever is done there is no prospect of wiping out the hideous hates which infect the whole population and the rules of the country. As to the action which can be taken, I think the Minister for Foreign Affairs fairly made the point as to the practical political initiative to be taken. We could certainly take sides, but that would help nobody. Following his precepts, it would almost certainly win us the lasting hostility of Pakistan. Our part is really to concentrate on relieving, as far as we can, the human suffering in the situation which has evolved. Later, when areas generally, and particularly East Pakistan, pick up, within the limits of our resources we will assist them to recover and to resume their economic life. At present the economic life of East Pakistan has largely broken down.

In discussing political initiatives we have to measure Australia’s size and strength in the field in which we are operating, in a matter which includes India, Pakistan, Soviet Russia, the People’s Republic of China and so on. We are only a small fish. We cannot have a great influence. The influence and power we have are very properly and wisely concentrated where we do have a place and where we are considered very carefully by all the people in our area; that is our neighbours in South East Asia. If we start spreading our political concentration right over the world wherever there is trouble, we may have ideological feelings as individuals or as a nation, or feel strongly about a situation, but we could finish by dissipating our influence over the whole of the world and by doing nothing very effective.

If this motion has done nothing else, it at least has established that measures taken by the Government - nobody has spoken out against them so far - to pledge assistance and carry out assistance in these areas will have support. The honourable member for Kingston (Dr Gun) made a point about our friend, the honourable member for Holt (Mr Reid). The honourable member for Holt has informed me that he will refer to this subject again during the debate tomorrow when he will have more time to expand his views, and will give the House the benefit of his own experience. If members of the Opposition wish to point to a political initiative of a fruitful character which we could take, they should do so. I believe that so far the Government has done all that is reasonably possible, considering the facts of the case, both in respect of political initiative and in providing supplies to help the refugees.

Mr SPEAKER:

– The discussion is now concluded.

page 263

ADJOURNMENT

Employment - Textile Industry - Trade Unions

Motion (by Mr N. H. Bowen) proposed:

That the House do now adjourn.

Mr FitzPATRICK (Darling) (11.29)- I rise to protest at the manner in which the honourable member for Wentworth (Mr Bury) framed at question time yesterday his question concerning the employment of married women at Broken Hill, and also to point out how biased or misinformed was the Minister for Labour and National Service (Mr Lynch) in his reply to the question. Let us examine the facts to see whether, as the honourable member for Wentworth claims, the employment of married women is regulated outside the law by the Barrier Industrial Council applying antediluvian prejudices. I am prepared to agree that it would be a fair assumption that most members of the Barrier Industrial Council believe that a family man should be able to earn enough money to support his family, and they would rather see a single daughter than a wife go to work. However, to go on from that point and to say that the Barrier Industrial Council forces its belief on the rest of the town is a long way from the truth.

The married woman policy was formulated when the problem of the number of unemployed single girls at Broken Hill was discussed at a round table conference. The parties to this conference were the Town Employees Union, the Shop Assistants Union and the Clerks Union on the one hand and the Chamber of Commerce on the other, the BIC merely sitting in as observers at this conference. In most cases the town agreements are drawn up in this manner. Perhaps I should have said they are partly drawn up in this manner because in nearly every case an officer of the New South Wales Industrial Commission is called in to decide areas where agreement is not reached. It is only after an agreement is reached that the BIC has anything to do with the unions’ domestic agreements. From that point on it is looked on as the custodian of the agreements. Following one of these round table conferences, a joint committee was set up between the unions and the chamber of commerce to investigate the number of single women out of work and to try to do something about it. Following the committee’s investigations the Broken Hill married women’s agreement was formed.

The union polices its own agreement, but if a dispute occurs both the Chamber of Commerce and the New South Wales Industrial Commission contact the BIC asking it to use its influence to see that both the terms and the spirit of the agreement are kept. The same procedure is followed with the hospital agreement - the hospital is another big employer of female labour - only in this case we have the officers of the hospital board and officers of the New South Wales Hospital Commission instead of the Chamber of Commerce involved. There are also other smaller places where the same procedure applies and the BIC becomes the custodian of the agreement negotiated. In other big establishments where we have no unions affiliated with the BIC, the unions or the BIC have no say in whether married women or single girls should be employed. Two good examples are the nursing staff at the hospital and the school teachers.

Of course the mines at Broken Hill are other big employers of female labour, none of whom are in unions covered by the Barrier Industrial Council. The unions on the Barrier Industrial Council have no say whatsoever in whether the mining companies employ single or married women, but the mining companies themselves have a distinct preference for single girls. I have been told by representatives of the mining companies that they believe it is in the best interests of the social conditions of the city to employ single girls. I ask: Does the honourable member for Wentworth dare to say that the mining companies are applying regulations which are outside the law and in accord with antediluvian prejudices? Of course not, because we all know the great contribution that the Broken Hill mining companies have made to the progress of this country. This could only be achieved with sound working industrial relations with the unions. During the last 3 years the mining companies paid the following amounts in Commonwealth tax and State royalties: In 1968, $21.44m; in 1969, $24.6m; and in 1970, $24.24m. If this was worked out on a per head basis, it would rival the best performance in this country. Yet this is what the Minister claims is an example of the excessive union power in Australia.

The Minister claimed also that Broken Hill was a closed town. That also is a lot of rubbish because tradesmen and other workers arrive at or leave Broken Hill nearly as frequently as they arrive at or leave any other town of a comparable size. I admit that the mining union - The

Workers Industrial Union of Australia - believes that the sons of its members should be employed before anyone from outside of the town is employed, but any honest person who cares to look at the record of the number of people who have been killed in the mines over the years and of the number who have died with mining complaints would have to agree that the members of this union have some right to demand that their sons have preference of employment over someone who comes from outside.

If either the honourable member for Wentworth or the Minister wanted to find an honest answer as to the merits of the Barrier Industrial Council, they should not look for it in the Packer Press; they should consult Mr Justice Taylor, the past President of the New South Wales Industrial Commission. Mr Justice Taylor knows more about the Barrier Industrial Council and industrial relations in Broken Hill than anyone else because he has done a lot to shape and guide these industrial relations. I have heard him give glowing praise of the merits of the Barrier Industrial Council.

It is my opinion that neither the honourable member for Wentworth nor the Minister was searching for the truth in relation to the question of the employment of married women at Broken Hill. I say this because the Government discriminates more against married women than any section of the Broken Hill community, ls it not a fact that a married woman and a single woman might have worked alongside each other for years, but if the single woman becomes sick she may receive a social service benefit but that the married woman who becomes sick is not entitled to any social service benefit if her husband is working? That is one of the most severe forms of discrimination of which I know. The Commonwealth Employment Bureau at Broken Hill had 41 adult females register for work in July of this year. Of this number 4 were married. In addition, 57 girls under the age of 21 years registered for work. In August the number of adult females who had registered for work rose to 45, 6 of whom were married. Sixtythree females under the age of 21 years also registered for work.

Things are even worse than that in other parts of my electorate. I should say that about 12 per cent of the work-force would be out of work at places like Coonamble and Nyngan. I wish to point out that although no man has chased me up the street asking me to find a job for his wife, many women have been crying out for jobs for their husbands, sons and daughters. I have not seen any evidence to the effect that this Government is concerned about providing work in these areas for husbands, sons or daughters. The emergency finance which has been provided for wool growers is some indication of the Government’s concern about unemployment. In many cases this money was paid into the banks and when the wool growers went to get it to pay the business houses and the local shire Councils-

Mr SPEAKER:

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

Mr BURY:
Wentworth

– I thank the honourable member for Darling (Mr PitzPatrick) for paying so much attention to a question I asked the Minister for Labour and National Service (Mr Lynch). The honourable member’s speech, on the whole, has confirmed the answer given by the Minister. Pressure is applied by the unions through the various industrial agreements they have. Perhaps it is wrong to say that this necessarily is the doing of the Barrier Industrial Council. So far as union relations with the mining companies are concerned, these are fairly well-known. If this is what the unions want and demand, naturally the mining companies find that it is healthy to go along with them. In fact this is how they get harmony. There are sufficient matters of one sort or another for dispute in Broken Hill and they are not going to waste industrial powder and shot on the unions over a question like this.

In the Commonwealth Public Service a lot of anomalies have been wiped out in the last few years. Women now have equal rights of employment, whether married or single. Equal pay has not yet come in completely but is being introduced progressively. In the last few years the Commonwealth Government has moved a great distance in this field. It was not very long ago that every single woman in the Commonwealth Public Service was automatically sacked when she married, so we have advanced. It might be said also that some glimmer of advance has taken place in sections of the trade union movement. I noticed a few nights ago that the President of the Australian Council of Trade Unions was complaining at a big union meeting that no women were present. Whatever his conduct may be in other respects, in this respect at least he nominally does show considerable glimmerings of light and hope for the future. The honourable member for Darling certainly has not convinced me. I can see that he would not be wrong about the Barrier Industrial Council itself being responsible as distinct from the unions and members of unions. The same people are involved.

Mr Grassby:

– What about the Chamber of Commerce?

Mr BURY:

– There are separate instruments and one can accept that there are. But very largely there are the same people wearing different hats and the same prejudices are applied strongly all round. If the mining companies, the retailers, the hoteliers or anyone else does not go along they are liable to be blotted out.

Mr SCHOLES:
Corio

– I rise to draw the attention of the House to a matter which is of serious concern to a substantial section of the work force and certain managements in my electorate. The existing situation in the textile industry in Australia, especially the wool textile industry, is critical. Since January of this year the membership of the Australian Textile Workers Union in the Geelong subdivision has dropped by 900 members. This has been caused mainly by severe recessions in the wool textile mills in the area. At least one major mill about which I have spoken before in this House has reduced its staff by more than 50 per cent. Other mills have made very substantial reductions in staff.

It appears that a number of factors have contributed to this. One of the major factors is the extremely low price of imported woollen and substitute woollen materials which are available on the Australian market. Some of them quite obviously have been dumped on the Australian market. Made up garments have sold at prices lower than the price of raw materials for manufacture. It is fairly true to say also that Australian merchants handling woollen goods prefer, for reasons best known to themselves - most likely it is profit - to market imported materials as opposed to

Australian made materials. One of the results of this is that there is practically no wool content in most of the fashion goods which are currently available in the shops for either men or women. Good quality woollen garments are just not available in any quantity.

If, as is being indicated, serious concern exists amongst members of the Government about the future of wool as a fibre, I would suggest that it is time that someone had a look at what future wool will have if Australian merchants are not prepared to merchandise what is one of our major products and prefer cheap substitutes dumped on the Australian market for a quick quid - because that is, I think, the real situation.

Recently, representatives of the woollen textile industry had interviews with the Minister concerned. They came away, with the impression that they could expect the tariff protection which they had already to be substantially reduced in the not too distant future. The future of large sections of the industry is most likely tied up fairly tightly with Government policy. It is tied up fairly tightly also with the ability of the industry to compete efficiently. There is no way in which an Australian industry can compete with low wage structure countries such as those of South East Asia, and there is no way in which an Australian industry can compete effectively, irrespective of its efficiency, against dumping, whether it be from Asia or Europe. In both cases, this is happening.

One of the things which concerns me seriously is the importation into Australia of goods made with wool purchased in other countries. Apparently the Australian Government does not seem to consider this to be serious. Wool is one of Australia’s major products; yet we are importing wool. I have been informed that woollen materials are imported by Australia even from Rhodesia. I understand that imports from Rhodesia supposedly are prohibited, but woollen materials are being marketed by Australian merchants.

Recently I was made aware of a situation in which Australian woollen fabrics woven by one of the leading Australian mills in fashion goods manufactures were delivered to its merchants for sale and the merchants after holding them for some months said that there was no market for those goods. The mil] put the products on sale direct from its own warehouse and sold them almost immediately. This would indicate to me that there is something seriously wrong with the marketing of Australian woollen products. This is something which the Australian Government would do well to consider.

The Australian share of woollen materials in the domestic market has dropped by approximately 10 per cent in recent years. This is a substantial drop; it is causing some long established and fairly efficient industries either to drop out altogether or to be in the situation where they may not be able to continue operations for much longer. I am more concerned about this matter because the textile industry is one of the few industries in Australia with a relative degree of decentralisation. The textile industry operates in a number of country towns. In a number of these country towns it represents the only really industry there.

I hope that the Minister for Labour and National Service (Mr Lynch) will look at his own figures on this matter instead of rather glibly saying that he is aware of the trends in the employment situation. If he has a look at the statistics for Victoria he will find that 1 in 7i of the persons receiving unemployment benefits in that State are in the Geelong district. That compares with a population ratio between Geelong and the remainder of the State of 1 to 32. If the Minister takes another look at those figures he will find that more people are in receipt of unemployment benefits in Victorian country towns than in the metropolitan area of Melbourne, despite the fact that the population ratio is approximately I to 24 in favour of the metropolitan area. This is something which, I think, could well be considered by the Government and could be the subject of some serious investigations by the Minister’s Department, because the figures are there in black and white.

In total there are more people in receipt of unemployment benefits in the nonmetropolitan areas of Victoria than there are in the metropolitan area. In my opinion, that is extremely serious.

It would appear to me that some form of quota system in relation to woollen materials is needed if we are to maintain our present woollen textile industries. This should be a matter of Government policy. I am seriously concerned at the quite obvious lack of any initiatives in this field. I think it is fair to say that the Government is well aware of the situation. Recently a wool textile manufacturers conference was held in Canberra. A Press release was made by the President of the Association. Mr S. D. Kelly. With the concurrence of honourable members, I incorporate it in Hansard.

WOOLLEN MILLS SUFFERING MAJOR CRISIS, SAYS INDUSTRY’S LEADER

CANBERRA - ‘There is a crisis situation in the wool processing industry which may soon match that of the wool producers,’ the president of Wool Textile Manufacturers of Australia, Mr S. D. Kelly, said here today.

Employment and orders have both fallen off seriously in most factories in the last year. There are hundreds fewer jobs than there were a year ago, and more redundancies are inevitable. In the woollen weaving segment of the industry, employment is down 25 per cent.

Production of wool and wool-blend woven fabrics dropped from 22 million to 19 million square yards in the last year, and forward orders are heavily down compared with a year ago,’ said Mr Kelly who spoke after the conclusion of W.T.M.A.’s annual meeting in Canberra.

Members of the organisation produce 80 per cent of all Australian wool textile products such as tops, yarns, cloths, blankets and rugs as well as major quantities of similar products in which wool is blended with other natural and man-made fibres.

The wool textile industry as a whole has not been in a worse state economically since the depression,’ said Mr Kelly.

Yet, paradoxically, it has never been a more efficient producer than it is today as a result of massive investments in new machinery and processes, and diversification of output.

Our capacity and ability to produce high-quality yarns and textiles is very great but seriously underemployed.

We are distressed but not dispirited.

A way out of our difficulties must and will be found.’

Mr Kelly said that the woollen manufacturing industry, which employed 18,000 people, was suffering primarily from imports of products similar to, or which could be substituted for, those made in Australia.

These come primarily from low labour-cost countries and those which have tremendous export incentive aids, either visible or - as is very often the case - concealed.

Imported synthetic yarns and fabrics are biting great chunks out of our local market.

It’s a standard pattern: first the synthetic staple comes in to be turned into yarn by Australian spinners who supply to local weavers and knitters.

Then the spinner is cut out by imports of yarns instead of staple. Then the weaver and knitter is cut out by the imports of fabrics. And now we can see the first significant signs of the fabric converter being cut out by imports of finished products such as garments and blankets.

It’s an insidious process and is slowly bringing not merely the woollen processors but also other sectors of the textile and garment industry to their knees.

Overseas fibre, yarn and fabric producers must have a quite laugh at the way in which this country’s textile industry makes a market here for the overseas products and then is quietly strangled.’

Mr Kelly continued: ‘This country is soon going to have to decide whether it wants a textile industry or not.

The woollen sector of this industry has already gone just about as far as it can in retrenchments, mergers, rationalisation, production efficiency and diversification, and the closing-down of less-efficient units.

We’re down to bare bones.

If we, and other members of the textile industry, get any leaner it could have a very severe impact on the whole of the country’s economy and nol merely on our own section of it. The industry’s highly-decentralised nature and the extent of its infrastructure would make this inevitable.’

Mr Kelly said that it would be ironic if the world’s greatest wool exporter allowed its own woollen industry to go to the wall.

What a great advertisement that would be for Australian wool. And how foolish we would look to the rest of the world.’

The wool textile industry was not ashamed of the fact .that it needed extensive tariff and quota protection to survive.

World-wide, the textile industry pays about the same for its machinery, plant and raw materials. And, in Australia, we achieve the same output from these machines and materials as other countries do.

The prime reason for differences in product costs is the price of labour - high here and low in most countries we import from.

The result, without greater protection than we have now, is a foregone conclusion.’

Mr Kelly said that the wool textile industry was currently conducting research to support current and future submissions to government on the industry’s actions and needs ‘in the interest not only of the industry itself but also the nation as a whole.’

One other matter which I think is serious enough to raise at this stage is that one of the major effects of the Budget brought down last night will be to increase substantially the costs and the disadvantages of industries which are established outside the metropolitan areas in each State. For one thing, the increase in telephone bills will hit much harder at industry which is established outside the metropolitan areas than it will hit those industries established in capital cities. I suggest that it is time for some examination of the possibility of paying a bounty on goods manufactured by industries in decentralised areas rather than have them compete on the open market. The employment figures prove the seriousness of the situation. It will be criminal ineptitude if the Government continues to allow people to wander into the capital cities and create the morass of urban problems which are choking our cities, without attempting to save the living and employment conditions of people in provincial and country towns. It is a very serious problem. I hope someone on the Government side will take it sufficiently seriously to have a look at it before there is a complete collapse of the textile industry in Australia, especially those textile operations which are decentralised.

Mr FOSTER:
Sturt

– Having paid some regard to what the Leader of the House (Mr Swartz) and not what the honourable member for Angas (Mr Giles) has said about the time of the House, I refer initially to the fact that yesterday in the chamber a question was directed to the Minister for Labour and National Service (Mr Lynch). This matter has been dealt with to some extent tonight by the honourable member for Darling (Mr Fitzpatrick). Yesterday in the Minister’s reply I detected an inability on his part to weigh up the situation so far as the trade union movement in Australia today is concerned. He is feeling his way in the department, of which he has only recently become Minister. It seems that we can look to a very unhappy relationship between the trade union movement and the employer organisations. I regret that I noted from the Minister’s reply that this was more than a likelihood. The Minister demonstrated that he is so inexpert and so ignorant of the trade union movement and of the employee’s side of the industrial scene that he fails to appreciate that Broken Hill would have the least number of man hours lost through illegal strikes, political stoppages and all these things which be and past Ministers have been so happy to relate to the House. I draw to his attention also that this is brought about by the fact that, by and large, Broken Hill is almost completely a union town. The Minister should recognise that. The workers honour their agreements. They do not break them. What complaint can the Minister have about that?

Either just before or just after the Minister accepted the portfolio, this Government bombed certain industrial agreements that were made between employer and trade union organisations. This set off a chain reaction within the trade union movement. I do not want to talk about that subject any more tonight. I would hope that the Minister would take us on on this subject and air some of the knowledge which he professes to have.

I want to talk about a situation which 1 have spoken of often in this chamber. Unfortunately, I usually raise this subject late at night. I will mention it again tonight in the forlorn hope that sooner or later something will be done. I must be a super-optimist. I mention the fact of the tremendous burden that the primary producers in this country are still being forced to bear in paying the exorbitant freight rates that have been imposed on them by the conference line method of shipping. Honourable members on the Government side of the House know that this situation goes back to 1927. They have been a party to it. The Leader of the Country Party in this House was a party to it as was Sir Alan Westerman, the former head of the Department of Trade and Industry. Their claims of the great benefits to be bestowed upon the farming community, the people and shippers of this country from the introduction of containerisation are on record in this House. Nothing has been done at all in this field, and no relief has been forthcoming. Since the inception of containerisation and the spread of conference line shipping we have seen ever increasing freight charges on our exporters. The rural community has suffered more in this regard than have the manufacturing industries. Why should this be so when we have in government a party that boasts that it is orientated towards the protection of the rural industries? I ask any one of the honourable members on the other side of the House: Why is it that today wool costs more to ship from this country than any other commodity? Why is it that you have not stirred yourselves in this regard? I could go on for hours on this subject. Honourable members opposite have done nothing. They have sold primary producers down the drain. I will continue to raise this subject and stir honourable members opposite. With the concurrence of honourable members, I incorporate in Hansard a letter dated 15th February 1971 addressed to the then Prime Minister giving details of various freight rates.

Dear Prime Minister,

Further to my letter to you of the 12th February 1971 I would once more try to persuade you of my conviction that our present inflation and depression is directly attributable to Country Party action and policy over the last SO years.

It would be most interesting for you or your Secretary to ask the Chairman of the Wheat Board a single, simple question. Who has prevented him from segregating our wheat? He is on record since 19S4 as regarding wheat segregation to be of tremendous importance.

Similarly you might contact Messrs. Elder Smith and learn from the Managing Director, of Montgomerie why they have been chartering ships since 1924 for oil, timber, coal, iron, minerals and even for wheat but not for wool, coarse grains, oilseeds, pelleted lucerne and other agricultural primary products.

In September 19S9 I paid for and published a booklet called ‘The Great Grains Scandal’. Last week I published a second booklet entitled ‘Fifty Years of Rural Betrayal’ and on it’s last page you will notice that only two people, Mr J. McEwen and Mr H. B. Staniland of Overseas Containers Limited attacked the previous publication, and how 1 have answered these attacks.

In addition to this booklet I had a full page advertisement in ‘The Sydney Morning Herald’ on Wednesday, 10th February 1971 referring to the rural betrayal, and the Country Party henchmen who hold responsibility. This time not a single person expressed any doubts about my views which have been expressly accepted by hundreds of people including Ministers of all three parties. Many culls and letters have expressed appreciation and I And it incredible to be called a ‘Lone Crusader’ and that in our great country to-day an individual who does not wish to be a party to policies so underhand as to be criminal, should be so described.

I enclose herewith a photocopy of Baltic Exchange Rates as published in to-days ‘Australian Financial Review’. To extract only a few transactions:

Consider the situation regarding wool. As you know since 1929 we have had the Preservation Act which gives U.K. shipping lines the monopoly to control our shipping and fix freight rates. Until 1967 (for 38 years) we have paid many times the freight we should, mainly for wool, which industry was then prosperous and was asked to pay higher rates to support other industries. This is not the case to-day.

In 1967 cellular containers were introduced and the freight rate was not reduced but considerably increased per ton door to door. Wool to Europe by container costs $118.00 per ton door to door. In fact, we could be using chartered ships which could freight the wool for about (24.00/ton maximum.

This would save S94.00 per ton

Most of the S24.00 freight increase goes to agents connected with the sale of our wool. They are in exactly the same position as I having to accept this ill-gotten money as compensation for being parties, however unwilling, to this tragic betrayal.

I enclose my two booklets and The Sydney Morning Herald’ advertisement and I challenge you again to correct me in any of my accusations which may be wrong on the rural betrayal carried out by the Country Party.

I also enclose copy of my letter to you of the 19th September 1968 and I ask you to act in the only way open to you if you really are concerned about our economy. This action entails stopping this betrayal by disassociating yourself from your coalition partner, and asking for a mandate to run this country in your own right. Only then will your prophecy of 14th September 1968 have a chance to become a reality.

Otherwise my prediction is that very soon we will have a depression. This time only in Australia and beyond compare, with that of 1929 which was worldwide.

The Government ought to establish a standing committee in this House as a most urgent matter to investigate this problem. It is just not good enough for honourable members opposite to leave the problem to the industry.

Mr Grassby:

– It is a jungle.

Mr FOSTER:

– It is an absolute jungle. What the honourable member for Wilmot (Mr Duthie) said yesterday is true. Before honourable members opposite attack me, let me say that apples are grown in my electorate. The fact is that New Zealand has been able to procure for the grower a greater return for his product because it has the courage to move away from the conference line and go to independent shipping. Tramp tonnage in shipping is available today. By ‘tramp tonnage’ I do not mean old and dilapidated ships of the type I had to deal with recently in South Australia. The owners of such ships are prepared to carry the commodities of this country to our diminishing markets abroad for a fraction of the rates presently charged. Honourable members opposite can make all the gesticulations they like. What I am saying is true. All honourable members opposite who think that this is no more than a chamber of mimicry are duty bound to do something about this problem. A lot more regard should be paid to freights because they are reducing our markets. They are one of the principal reasons why we have absolute chaos in the countryside today. If honourable members opposite do not know how the ship owners con the community and how they prevent the shipper from obtaining markets abroad it is about time they ceased being misled and went along to the waterfront areas to inspect what goes on. In addition, the Government ought to examine more of the proposals put forward from time to time. Proposals should not be accepted merely because they are those of the vast transport organisations. If honourable members opposite had sufficient common sense to absorb that it would more than break theirhearts. It would almost drive them around the bend if they were able to understand the sabotage that goes on in primary industry. We have lost grain markets over it; we have lost wool markets over it; we have lost wine markets over it. The Government has shrunk its markets in almost every area because of this.

Why do not honourable members opposite ask themselves why South Africa is able to ship into countries much nearer to Australia - almost on Australia’s doorstep - at less than half the freight rate, agricultural products of the type that we produce in this country? Why is this so? Why do not honourable members opposite question themselves about that? It is obvious that they do not like the truth. It is of no use blaming the railways and the internal transport system of Australia. In fact, they do not have to go any further than Australia to gain sufficient information to establish that the Government should carry out an invesigation. An honourable member from Tasmania has stood in this chamber on some occassions and spoken of the manner in which Tasmania was dealt with and how Tasmania cannot expand industrially in some areas because of the crippling freight burden on the Australian coast, let alone overseas. This is a real problem and it is time the Government tackled it in the interests of national development generally and for the nation’s good. It might even win back some of its country cousins if it did this. I conclude by saying that this will not be the last time that I rise on this subject.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

House adjourned at 12.2 a.m. (Thursday).

page 271

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS UPON NOTICE

The following answers to questions upon notice were circulated:

Pensioners (Question No. 3444)

Mr Uren:

asked the Minister for Social Services, upon notice:

  1. Is it a fact that an official report has been compiled on living standards of pensioners.
  2. If so, will he provide details of the findings of the report.
  3. When will the report be tabled in the House.
Mr Wentworth:
Minister for Social Services · MACKELLAR, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

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

Please see my answer to Question No. 2828, Hansard 31st March 1971, pages 1280-81.

Pollution (Question No. 2579)

Mr Uren:

asked the Minister for the

Environment, Aborigines and the Arts, upon notice:

  1. Is it a fact that in the last 12 months there has been an increased awareness of the pollution of water and air by the heavy metals - mercury, cadmium and lead - leading to the institution of very strict controls in many countries on the release into the environment of these metals and a great increase in the testing of food drawn from areas suspected or known to carry high concentrations of these metals.
  2. Can he say who in Australia is responsible for (a) regulating and controlling the release of these metals into the environment, recognising the fact that most heavy metals eventually finish up in off-shore waters and (b) measuring their concentrations in food produce.
  3. Is the spread through Australian ecosystems of these metals being investigated by any Commonwealth authority.
  4. Is there anywhere in Australia a systematic check of the levels of these metals in water, air and food; if so, where are the results published.
  5. Should more resources be invested to measure the levels and nature of pollution by heavy metals in Australia.
Mr Howson:
LP

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

  1. In recent years an increased awareness of air and water contamination by the heavy metals, mercury, cadmium and lead has developed, leading to the tightening of legislation in some countries.
  2. No single authority in Australia is charged with the responsibility for (a) regulating and controlling the release of these metals into the environment or (b) measuring their concentrations in food produce; however, with respect to (a) State and Commonwealth Departments of Health exercise a general supervisory role and with respect to (b) State Health Departments, the Department of Customs and Excise and other Laboratories perform this function.
  3. While no Commonwealth authority has set out to conduct specific investigations of the type the honourable member’s question would seem to envisage, it is to be expected that some evidence of the level of concentration of these metals will be revealed in the ‘market basket’ survey being conducted under a grant from the National Health and Medical Research Council by Commonwealth and State Departments of Health in conjunction with the Customs laboratory. Tests are also conducted by the Commonwealth Analyst.
  4. If by ‘systematic’ the honourable member means ‘unified and standard’, the answer is no. However, State and Commonwealth Departments of Health and the Department of Customs and Excise check the quality of water, air and food.
  5. In view of the division of responsibilities between the various States and the Commonwealth in this field I am not in a position to answer this part of the honourable member’s question. However, if there is a need for more resources no doubt appropriate consideration has been or will be given by the appropriate authorities. As the honourable member is aware, the Commonwealth and the States have agreed to discuss the establishment of a National Advisory Council on the Environment to advise on areas where co-ordination can properly be achieved. This area may be one of them.

Pollution (Question No. 2594)

Mr Uren:

asked the Minister for the Environment, Aborigines and the Arts, upon notice:

  1. Has his attention been drawn to the Clean Air Bill passed late last year by the Congress of the United States of America.
  2. If so, is it possible and desirable for a similar measure to be introduced in Australia.
  3. If such a measure is contemplated, will he ensure that it contains in the section dealing with moving sources of pollution similar provisions to those in the United States’ law and, in particular (a) provision for a reduction of 90 per cent by 1975 in the levels of emissions of hydrocarbons, etc., (b) the testing of cars to ensure compliance with standards, (c) grants for the development of inspection systems, (d) grants for research on fuels and vehicles and (e) permission for citizen suits to enforce non-violation of standards.
Mr Howson:
LP

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

  1. My attention has been drawn to Bill H.S. 17255, an Act to amend the Clean Air Act to provide for a more effective programme to improve the quality of air in the United States of America.
  2. and (3) Except in relation to the Territories of the Commonwealth, the matter of air pollution control is, in general, a matter that falls within the province of the States. However, as the honourable member is aware, the Commonwealth and the States have agreed to discuss the establishment of a National Advisory Council on the Environment which will advise on areas where coordination can be properly achieved and this area may be one of them.

Recycling of Resources (Question No. 2916)

Mr Uren:

asked the Minister for the Environment, Aborigines and the Arts, upon notice:

  1. Has his attention been drawn to the debate now occurring in many countries on the need to use economic and financial policy to encourage greater recycling of both renewable and nonrenewable resources than is occurring at present.
  2. Would the introduction of a tax on virgin resources encourage greater recycling of such items as paper and aluminium.
  3. If so, will he give consideration to the implementation of this policy in the 1971-72 Budget
Mr Howson:
LP

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

  1. 1 am aware that a debate is taking place in many countries on a variety of issues related to conservation and pollution control; in varying degree such debate embraces the question of recycling of resources. The issue of whether economic and financial policy measures would be appropriate in this connection would depend on a variety of factors including an assessment of how far action would be warranted to promote additional recycling and, if action were considered to be warranted, an assessment of what types of policy measures would be most suitable.
  2. It is by no means clear that the introduction of a tax on virgin resources used in the production of such items as paper and aluminium would necessarily lead to a greater degree of recycling of resources.
  3. See answer to (2).

Jervis Bay: Steelworks (Question No. 2991)

Mr Uren:

asked the Minister for the Environment, Aborigines and the Arts, upon notice:

  1. Does the proposed development of land for steel production by the ARMCO Steel Consortium at Jervis Bay involve the sale or lease of any Commonwealth land.
  2. If so, for what purpose will this land be used.
  3. What Commonwealth departments have been involved in feasibility studies on this development.
  4. Has the Commonwealth insisted that only the latest technology for steel production be used from the outset so as to ensure that the best methods of pollution control are incorporated.
  5. Has the Commonwealth insisted that as much of the natural environment as possible be retained.
  6. Have steps been taken to ensure that the proposed development will not result in environmental degradation of Commonwealth territory and other land around Jervis Bay.
Mr Howson:
LP

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

  1. No.
  2. See answer to (1).
  3. None.
  4. and (5) These are matters within the sovereign responsibility of the New South Wales State Government. In a letter to the editor published in the June issue of ‘Australian Quarterly’ the New South Wales Minister for Decentralisation and Development wrote that the proposed plant will incorporate the very latest techniques in terms of production and pollution control and that ARMCO has been a pioneer in the development of pollution control measures in the United States of America. Mr Fuller, also mentioned that, in addition, the activities of the newly created State Pollution Control Commission, backed by the full weight of the Clean Air Bill and the Clean Waters Bill, will ensure that the plant would not interfere with the environment or detract from the recreational attractions of the area.
  5. See answer to (5).

Australian Sporting Teams (Question No. 3207)

Dr Klugman:

asked the Minister for the Environment, Aborigines and the Arts, upon notice:

  1. Has the Government contributed to the expenses of any Australian sporting teams touring overseas during the last 10 years.
  2. If so, what was the (a) name of the team, (b) amount contributed and (c) reason for the contribution in each case.
Mr Howson:
LP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. (a) (b) (c) - Information provided by the Departments concerned is set out below:

Torres Strait Islanders: Pearling (Question No. 3253)

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister for the Environment, Aborigines and the Arts, upon notice:

What capital grants or loans have been made available to assist Torres Strait Islanders to participate alone or in joint ventures with Japanese in the pearling industry.

Mr Howson:
LP

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

No grants or loans have been madefor this purpose.

Conciliation Commissioners: Furlough (Question No. 2637)

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

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

  1. What is the name of each Commissioner of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission who has received a lump sum payment in lieu of furlough?
  2. What amount was received in each case, and what were the circumstances which gave rise to the decision to make these payments?
Mr Lynch:
Minister for Labour and National Service · FLINDERS, VICTORIA · LP

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

  1. and (2) I am advised that by virtue of the Public Service Act or the Commonwealth Employees Furlough Act, as appropriate, a Commissioner of the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission may in certain circumstances by granted furlough or payment of a sum in lieu of such furlough may be authorised.

In my view it would not be proper or reasonable to publish the names of those to whom payment in lieu of furlough has been authorised or the amounts received by them.

National Employers Policy Committee (Question No. 3001)

Dr Klugman:

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

Who are the members of the National Employers Policy Committee?

Mr Lynch:
LP

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

The members of the National Employers Policy Committee are Mr J. B. Clarkson, Mr M. Dillon, Mr W. A. Pettingell and Mr T. B. C. Walker.

Office of the Environment (Question No. 3175)

Mr Grassby:

asked the Minister for the Environment, Aborigines and the Arts, upon notice:

  1. When was the Office of the Environment established?
  2. Who heads this office?
  3. What is its establishment?
  4. What are its functions?
  5. Will the Office concern itself with the current level of pollution in both the Murray and Murrumbidgee rivers which is causing deep concern (Hansard, 16th March 1971, page 954)?
Mr Howson:
LP

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

  1. and (2) The Office of the Environment was established as a Division of the Prime Minister’s Department on 24th December 1970. That Department has now been abolished and the Division has been relocated in the new Department of the Enrironment, Aborigines and the Arts.
  2. The establishment of the Office awaits final approval.
  3. The Office of the Environment is responsible for advising the Commonwealth and recommending action that should be taken to prevent or reduce pollution arising out of the activities of any Commonwealth Department or Authority.
  4. Insofar as any pollution of these rivers might result from the activities of any Commonwealth department or authority, the Office of the Environment will be responsible for advising the Commonwealth and recommending action that should be taken to prevent or reduce such pollution. Also, as the honourable member is aware, the Commonwealth and the States have agreed to discuss the establishment of a National Advisory Council on the Environment to advise on areas where co-ordination can properly be achieved. This area would appear to be one of them.

International Labour Organisation Conventions (Question No. 3366)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Minister for

Labour and National Service, upon notice:

  1. Which International Labour Organisation Conventions were considered at the meetings of the Departments of Labour Advisory Committee in (a) April 1970 and (b) April 1971?
  2. What requests and suggestions did the Committee make at each meeting for legislative or administrative action by (a) the Commonwealth, (b) the Territories and (c) the States in addition to its recommendation for the removal of restrictions on the payment of workers’ compensation to dependants living in another country?
Mr Lynch:
LP

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

  1. Information relating to the following ILO Conventions was before either or both meetings of the Departments of Labour Advisory Committee in April 1970 and April 1971: Nos 13, 17, 32, 47, 52, 58, 62, 81, 87, 92, 94, 95, 98, 100, 101, 104, 106, 107, 109, 110, 111, 112, 119, 120, 121, 123, 124, 127, 129, 131 and 132.

Consideration of particular Conventions by the Departments of Labour Advisory Committee is, of course, only part of the overall continuing consultations between my Department and the State Departments of Labour regarding their possible ratification.

  1. As the honourable member will be aware, the annual DOLAC meeting provides the means for regular consultation between the Permanent Heads of the Commonwealth and State Labour Departments on labour matters generally. Discussions at these mettings essentially take the form of an exchange of views on a range of matters of mutual interest and action which individual State Governments may take in the light of the discussions is primarily their own responsibility.

Papua New Guinea:

Road Signs (Question No. 3380)

Dr Everingham:
CAPRICORNIA, QUEENSLAND

asked the Minister for External Territories, upon notice:

  1. Will he table, before final designs are decided upon, the pictorial road signs proposed to be introduced to Papua New Guinea in 1971-72 as mentioned in ‘House of Assembly News’, Number 29, page 6?
  2. Have those concerned considered the comprehensive submissions of the Semantography (Blissymbolics) Institute, 2 Vicar Street, Coogee, to the Australian Automobile Association, to Expo 1967, to United Nations organs and to others which especially stress (a) the need to accompany every pictograph by a printed equivalent, as every pictorial sign needs to be learnt and (b) the clarity, simplicity, free availability and universality of the world’s first pasigraphy, making it ideal for public signs which so often demand split-second recognition?
Mr Barnes:
CP

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

The matter referred to is one which falls within the authority of the Assistant Ministerial Member for Transport in the House of Assembly for Papua New Guinea. The Administrator on the advice of the Assistant Ministerial Member for Transport, has provided the following information:

Final designs for Papua New Guinea road signs have been decided upon. The Motor Traffic (Signs) Ordinance 1968 states ‘as far as practicable road signs shall be of a pictorial nature accompanied by explanations as required in English or a prescribed language’. The roadsigns approved for prescription as regulations under this Ordinance are those in the United Nations Convention on Road Signs and Signals 1968 adapted as necessary to ensure that pictorial representations are recognisable and intelligible to local people and generally in keeping with the way of life in the Territory. For example, a man will be depicted wearing shorts as distinct from long trousers as in the United Nations system.

The Administrator has received a copy of a comprehensive submission recently made to the Minister for External Territories by Mr C. K. Bibs of the Semantography Institute.

Northern Territory: Pre-School Enrolments (Question No. 2487)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Minister for Eduation and Science, upon notice:

Will he bring up to date the information on pre-school enrolments and staff in the Northern Territory given on 21st August 1970 (Hansard, pages 424 and 426)?

Mr Fairbairn:
LP

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

In respect of the answer to question No. 748 (Hansard, 28th November 1968. page 3492). updated information is as follows:

(2) and (4) Pre-school centres for which my Department is responsible have been established at the following places in the Northern Territory. The number of Aboriginal, part Aboriginal and other’ children attending these Community Preschool centres as at 26th February 1971 was as follows:

The following pre-school centres for full-blood Aboriginal children are operated by the Education Branch, Welfare Division of the Northern Territory Administration. The information concerning them in this and subsequent parts has been made available by my colleague,the Minister for the Interior.

Pre-schools for Aboriginal children as at 28th February 1971 are located at the following places. Enrolments of Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal children are shown for each location.

  1. Of the 27 pre-school centres listed above the 22 under A. are staffed by teachers employed by the Commonwealth and the 5 under B. are staffed by mission teachers subsidised by the Commonwealth. On Government settlements and at Government schools on missions, staff buildings and school equipment are provided by the Commonwealth. On missions, subsidies for staff and capital assistance for buildings are provided by the Commonwealth. All school equipment is issued free to all pre-school centres.

Each centre in the Northern Territory under the control of the Department of Education and Science is provided with the following: Buildings and groundworks, the teaching and assistant staff, some equipment and consumable stores. The preschool committees provide, maintain and replenish the bulk of equipment and employ and pay the wages of cleaners.

  1. The Population Count of 30th June 1970 of Darwin, Alice Springs and Tennant Creek indicated that the following numbers of 3 and 4 year olds were living within reach of the centres in Darwin, Alice Springs and Tennant Creek listed in the reply to parts (1), (2) and (4) of this question, i.e. in the table entitled ‘Aboriginal and Part-Aboriginal Children attending Departmental pre-schools in the Northern Territory as at 26.2.71’.

No separate details of the Aboriginal population were available from the Population Count.

Nine hundred and fifty two Aboriginal children of pre-school age live within reach of pre-school centres (including mission pre-schools) controlled by the Welfare Division of the Northern Territory Administration.

  1. The number of Aboriginal children of preschool age (at least 3 years and under 5 years) resident in the Northern Territory is estimated at 1,200. The total number of pre-school aged children in the Northern Territory (including fullblood Aboriginals as at 30th June 1970 was estimated to be 3,700.
  2. In the Northern Territory there are:

    1. 891 Aboriginal children of pre-school age receiving pre-school education (including 42 who attend Community Pre-schools operated by the Department of Education and Science). This number represents 74 per cent of the estimated number of Aboriginal children of pre-school age in the Northern Territory.
    2. 870 ‘other’ pre-school aged children were receiving pre-school education at 26th February 1971 representing approximately 35 per cent of the estimated number of ‘other’ 3 and 4-year old children in the Northern Territory.

My predecessor’s answer to question No. 746 (Hansard, 25th February 1969, page 120), was updated in the answer contained in part (7) (ii) (a) (b) (c) of question No. 102 of which an answer was given in Hansard, 21st August 1970 at page 426. A further updating is given below:

Coal (Question No. 3305)

Dr Everingham:

asked the Minister for National Development, upon notice:

  1. Is it a fact that Queensland coal is exported to Japan for about$12 per ton?
  2. If so, is this less than half the price that Japan pays for similar coal from other sources?
  3. What proportion of the known coal reserves of Australia will be exported by 2000 A.D. based on the rate of increase of consumption over the last 5 years?
  4. What will be the monetary returns to Australia at present consumption rates?
  5. Are these returns dependent mainly on decisions of the Queensland Government?
  6. Are these decisions less favourable than similar decisions in other regions of Australia supplying coal to Japan?
Mr Swartz:
LP

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

  1. The average value of coal exported from Queensland to Japan during the 8 months ended February 1971 based on data published by the Bareau of Census & Statistics, was$A10.47. Contract prices were increased during this period and future figures will reflect these increases
  2. In 1970 there was a difference of$US8/9 between the FOB contract prices of some Australian coals as compared with the top grade United States coals. Queensland coal is not of as high a grade as the best American coal. During 1970 Japan purchased spot cargoes of United States coal at prices well above contract prices.
  3. Between 1964-65 and 1969-70 the total annual tonnage of black coal exported from Australia increased from 6,051,000 tons to 17,464,000 tons or a rate of increase of export consumption of 189 per cent. It is unrealistic to assume that exports will continue to expand at that rate. However, if exports were to continue to grow by an average of 12 million tons every 5 years, cumulative exports by 2000 A.D. would be about 1700 million tons, representing approximately 20 per cent of the total known reserves of recoverable black coal in Australia at the present time.
  4. The FOB value of coal exported from Australia in the year 1969-70 was:
  1. No. The annual monetary return to Australia from the export of coal would depend upon the quantity exported and the prices received. Contracts for the export of coal are negotiated between the seller and purchaser.
  2. See answer to (5). The Joint Coal Board, in its Annual Report for 1969-70 commented as follows on the average FOB prices for Australian coal for the year 1969-70:

The Queensland price of$A9.53 per long ton reflected the particularly low price received for much of the year by one major exporter. New South Wales exports include a large proportion of high volatile coking coal and also some steaming coal. The lower prices received for these coals is reflected in the New South Wales average of$A9.43.’

Reporting on export prices of New South Wales coals, the Board said in respect of the year 1969- 70: . . Exporters were successful in obtaining substantial increases for practically every brand of coal, and, in addition, existing contracts were rewritten for a 5-year period … the new prices in most cases operated from 1st April, 1969 … At the same time, more generous escalation provisions were included in the new contracts. In 1970, further substantial price increases were agreed to, operating from 1st April, 1970. The new FOBT prices which also make provision for increased rail freights, range from $A9 to $A 11.80 per long ton. Prices of Queensland coals were also increased.’

Additional price increases have been negotiated by most exporters subsequent to those referred to by the Joint Coal Board.

Commonwealth Technical Scholarships (Question No. 3413)

Mr Kennedy:

asked the Minister for

Education and Science, upon notice:

  1. What method is used in each State and Territory for the awarding of Commonwealth technical scholarships?
  2. What were the numbers and percentages of students who (a) were enrolled in the third last year of technical education, (b) completed or sat for examinations for scholarships and (c) were awarded scholarships in each State and Territory in the year 1970?
  3. What was the total value of all Commonwealth technical scholarships awarded in 1970?
Mr Fairbairn:
LP

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

  1. Selection for Technical scholarships available to students entering approved courses is made on the basis of results obtained by applicants in one of the following:

page 277

NEW SOUTH WALES AND THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

page 277

VICTORIA

page 277

QUEENSLAND

page 277

SOUTH AUSTRALIA AND NORTHERN

page 277

TERRITORY

Examination

page 277

WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Examination

page 277

TASMANIA

Selection of applicants for Later Year scholarships which are awarded to students who have completed one or more years of approved courses is based on results in those approved courses.

Victoria (1967) 8610

South Australia (1969) 2376

In other States, schools are generally not designated as ‘technical’ at the secondary level. As indicated in answer to (1) students may compete for Technical Scholarships on the basis of a number of different qualifications in each State and applications are received from students in a wide range of institutions, both schools and technical colleges.

The number of students who applied for Commonwealth Technical Scholarships available at the beginning of 1970 was as follows:

Australian Capital Territory: Jervis Bay and Wreck Bay Areas (Question No. 3430)

Mr Enderby:

asked the Minister for Education and Science, upon notice:

  1. How many (a) Aboriginal and (b) other Australian children of school age live in the Jervis Bay and Wreck Bay area of the Australian Capital Territory?
  2. How many (a) Aboriginal and (b) other Australian children of school age living in the Jervis Bay and Wreck Bay area of the ACT attend (i) primary and (ii) secondary school?
  3. How many primary and secondary schools are in the area and where are they located?
  4. How many (a) Aboriginal and (b) other Australian children from the area are assisted to receive (i) primary, (ii) secondary, (iii) university and (iv) other education elsewhere in Australia?
  5. What is the (a) nature and (b) cost of this assistance in each category?
Mr Fairbairn:
LP

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

  1. There are 57 Aboriginal and 75 other Australian children living in the Jervis Bay and Wreck Bay areas of the ACT. The figures include children between 5 and 15 years of age and those over 15 years still attending school.
  2. Numbers of school age children living in Jervis Bay and Wreck Bay attending primary or secondary school.
  1. There is 1 primary school in the Jervis Bay and Wreck Bay area located at Jervis Bay. Secondary school children in the area attend Nowra High School.
  2. (a) (i) Nil; (ii) 18; (iii) Nil; (iv) Nil;

    1. (i)-(iv) Nil.
  3. (a) Aboriginal secondary school students attending Nowra High School receive assistance by way of

    1. Commonwealth Aboriginal Secondary Grants which are open to students of Australian Aboriginal descent who were 14 years of age but under 21 years on 1st January 1971 and who are likely to benefit from remaining at school. The Grant includes a text book and uniform allowance of $200, and living allowance of $240 in the lower secondary forms and $300 in the final two secondary forms. Allowance is also made for incidental expenses, fares and any compulsory tuition fees. Nine students receive this grant.
    2. New South Wales Aboriginal Educational Grant in Aid allows a grant of $25 per year for secondary school students under 15 years of age. The grant is used for school fees and uniforms. Nine students receive this grant.
    3. Canberra Toc H, a community service organisation provides grants which aim to encourage Aboriginal students to take advantage of a full secondary education and thereby increasing their vocational opportunities. These Grants of $100 each per year generally apply to students receiving the New South Wales Grant-in-Aid. Nine students receive these grants.
    4. (i) Commonwealth Aboriginal Secondary Grants - The cost of this scheme is estimated at $3,300 for a full year.
    5. New South Wales Aboriginal Educational Grant-in-Aid - $225 per annum.
    6. Canberra Toc H. grants - $900 per annum.

Australian Capital Territory: Jervis Bay and Wreck Bay Areas (Question No. 3431)

Mr Enderby:

asked the Minister for Education and Science, upon notice:

What were the numbers and percentages of (a) Aboriginal and (b) other Australian children living in the Jervis Bay and Wreck Bay area of the Australian Capital Territory who (i) were enrolled for the first year of secondary education in 1966 and (ii) were still attending secondary school in (A) 1969 and (B) 1971?

Mr Fairbairn:
LP

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

Citizen Military Forces (Question No. 1745)

Mr Hayden:
OXLEY, QUEENSLAND

asked the Minister for Labour and National Service upon notice:

  1. What was the total number of young men who (a) registered, (b) volunteered for Citizen Forces training as an alternative to national service training and (c) were finally inducted into national service training each year during which the current national service training scheme has been in operation?
  2. What, in each year, was the proportion of those who volunteered for Citizen Forces training to those who (a) registered and (b) were finally inducted into national service training?
  3. What is the estimated number of men who were eligible to register for national service training who in fact failed to register?
  4. How many men in each State sought exemption from national service training on conscientious grounds and how many of them were granted exemption?
  5. What is the proportion of those granted exemption to those who sought exemption?
Mr Lynch:
LP

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

  1. (a) The number of men who opted to serve in the Citizen Forces as an alternative to national service as a proportion of men who registered for national service is shown in (c) above.

    1. Not all men who opt for alternative service in the Citizen Forces at the time they register are enlisted in those Forces and there is no meaningful comparison with the numbers called up and enlisted for national service.
  2. See answer to Question No. 1905 (Hansard, House of Representatives, 22nd February 1971, page 470). More up-to-date figures were given in my statement on the National Service Scheme: 1970-71 released on 1st August 1971. It disclosed that 106,681 men registered during 1970-71, 1,924 men were denied the benefit of the ballot and automatically considered for call-up because they failed to register at the proper time and 148 of them were also prosecuted and convicted of that offence.
  3. The following table sets out the position of men who have applied for total exemption and whose cases have been determined by the courts up to 30th June 1971:
  1. 72 per cent have been granted total exemption and 14 per cent non-combatant duties. 14 per cent have been refused

International Conventions (Question No. 2330)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs upon notice:

Will he bring up to date the information on international conventions in his predecessor’s answer of 12th June 1970 (Hansard, page 3595).

Mr N H Bowen:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

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

In relation to Part A of the answer given by my predecessor, the following international conventions have ben drawn up under the auspices of the General Assembly of the United Nations and of the Specialised Agencies:

Treaty on the Prohibition of the Emplacement of Nuclear Weapons and other Weapons of Mass Destruction on the Seabed and the Ocean Floor and in the Subsoil Thereof.

This Treaty was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly 7th December 1970. Australia supported the drawing up of the Treaty and signed it subject to ratification 11th February 1971. The Treaty has not yet entered into force.

Convention on Psychotropic Substances 1971.

This Convention was endorsed by the United Nations General Assembly 20th May 1971. The Convention has not yet entered into force. Australia supported the drawing up of the Convention and the question of Australia’s becoming a party is under consideration.

Item Nos. 57, 58, 59, 62, 73, 77 and 84.

The question of Australia’s becoming a party to these Conventions is presently under consideration.

Item No. 74.

Australia become a party to this Convention 19th June 1970.

Item No. 87.

Australia has ratified this Convention and will be a party as from 15th June 1972.

Item No. 97.

Australia became a party to this Convention 12th November 1970.

Item Nos. 99, 100, and 101.

Australia has not ratified these Conventions because Australian law and practice is not in accord with their provisions.

Australia supported the adoption of the following ILO Conventions as indicated. The question of Australia’s becoming a party to these Conventions is under consideration. None of the Conventions has entered into force:

Minimum Wage Fixing Convention No. 131 1970. adopted at Geneva 22nd June 1970.

Holidays with Pay (Revised) Convention No. 132 1970, adopted at Geneva 24th June 1970.

Accommodation of Crews (Supplementary Provisions) Convention No. 133 1970, adopted at Geneva 30th October 1970.

Prevention of Accidents (Seafarers) Convention No. 134 1970, adopted at Geneva 30 October 1970.

Workers Representatives Convention No. 13S 1971, adopted at Geneva 21st June 1971.

Benzene Convention No. 136 1971, adopted at Geneva 21st June 1971.

To ‘Name and Date’ of Item No. 116 add: Prototol further amending the 1929 Convention for the Unification of Rules Relating to International Carriage by Air 8th Marin 1971.

Item No. 118.

Australia became a party to this Convention 20th September 1970.

Hague Convention for the Suppression of the Unlawful Seizure of Aircraft.

This Convention was concluded under the auspices of the International Civil Aviation Organisation at The Hague 16th December 1970. Australia supported the drawing up of this Convention and signed it subject to ratification 15th June 1971. The Convention has not yet entered into force, (vii) Protocol of Amendment to Article SO (A) of the Convention on International Civil Aviation (Chicago 1944) 12th March 1971, New York.

Australia supported the drawing up of the Protocol which has not yet entered into force. The question of Australia’s becoming a party to the Protocol is under consideration.

To ‘Name and Date’ of Item No. 132 add: Constitution of the Universal Postal Union with Final Protocol 10th July 1964;; Additional Protocol to the constitution of the Universal Postal Union 14 November 1969; General Regulations of the Universal Postal Union with Final Protocol 14th November 1969; Universal Postal Convention with Final Protocol and Detailed Regulations 14th November 1969.

Australia supported the drawing up of the convention, which replaced those previously listed. The Convention entered into force 1 July 1971. It has been decided that Australia should ratify this Convention.

To ‘Name and Date’ of Item Nos 133 to 140 add ‘14 November 1969’.

Australia supported the drawing up of the Agreement of 14 November 1969 under Item 134. It has been decided that Australia should ratify this Agreement. The name of the Agreement of 14 November 1969 under Item No. 136 has been changed to ‘Agreement concerning Giro Transfers with Detailed Regulations.’ The name of the Agreement of 14 November 1969 under Item No. 139 has been changed to ‘Agreement concerning International Savings wilh Detailed Regulations.’

Item Nos 157 and 158.

Australia signed these Conventions subject to ratification 17 December 1970.

In relation to Part B of the answer given by my predecessor, Australia has become a party to the following additional transport convention:

Convention on Offences and Certain Other Acts Committed on Board Aircraft, 1963.

In relation to Part C of the answer given by my predecessor the following information is provided:

Item No. 28.

Australia has become a party to this Con.venction and it should be deleted from Part C. See now under Part A to this answer.

Item No. 17 - to column headed ‘Parties’ add: Hungary

Switzerland.

  1. Item No. 21 - to column headed ‘Parties’ add: Japan.

In relation to Part D of the answer given by my predecessor the following information is provided:

  1. Customs Convention on the Temporary Importation of Pedagogic Material concluded at Brussels 8 June 1970.

Australia supported the conclusion of this Convention and signed it without reservation as to ratification 25 June 1971. The Convention will enter into force generally 25 September 1971.

  1. Seventh Proces-Verbal extending the declaration on the Provisional Accession of Tunisia to the General Agreement on Tariff and Trade drawn up at Geneva 2 December 1970.

Australia supported the drawing up of this Proces-Verbal and the question of becoming a party to it is under consideration. The Proces-Verbal entered into force 1st January 1971.

  1. Fourth International Tin Agreement adopted at Geneva 15th May 1970.

Australian supported the conclusion of this Agreement which was drawn up under the auspices of UNCTAD. Australia signed the Agreement 28th January, 1971, and ratified it 9th June 1971. The Agreement entered into force 1st July 1971, on which date it superseded the Third International Tin Agreement (Item No. 24).

  1. International Wheat Agreement, adopted at Geneva 20th February 1971.

Australia supported the adoption of this Agreement, which was drawn up under the auspices of UNCTAD. Australia signed th: Agreement 29th April 1971, and ratified it 15th June 1971. The Agreement entered into force 18th June 1971 (as regards the administrative arrangements only) and 1st July 1971 (as regards the remainder).

  1. Agreement Establishing a Registry of Scientific and Technical Services for the Asian and Pacific Region.

The Agreement was adopted at Manila 16th July 1971 by the ASPAC Ministerial Council Meeting. Australia supported the drawing up of this Agreement and signed it at Manila 16th July 1971. The Agreement entered into force on that date.

  1. Asian Oceanic Postal Conventoin opened for signature at Kyoto 17th November 1969.

Australia supported the drawing up of this Convention done under the auspices of the Universal Postal Union. Australia signed the Convention subject to ratification 17th November 1969. The Convention entered into force 1st July 1971. It has been decided that Australia should ratify the Convention.

  1. Protocol to amend the International Convention for the Classification of Certain Rules of Law Relating to Bills of Lading 1924, drawn up at Brussels 23rd February 1968.

Australia supported the drawing up of this Protocol done under the auspices of the Diplomatic Conference on Maritime Law. The Protocol has not yet entered into force. The question of Australia’s attitude towards becoming a party to the Protocol is under consideration.

  1. Patent Co-operation Treaty, concluded at Washington 19 June 1970.

Australia supported the conclusion of this Treaty, done under the auspices of the Paris Union for the Protection of Industrial Property. Australia has not become a party to the Treaty, nor has it yet entered into force.

  1. Item Nos 49 to 55.

The heading of the first column should be changed from ‘Organ’ to ‘Auspices’ and changes made, as indicated hereunder, to the notes appearing in relation to each instrument.

  1. Item No. 49.

This Convention was drawn up under the auspices of the Berne Union for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works and the Paris Union for the Protection of Industrial Property.

  1. Item No. 50.

This Convention was drawn up under the auspices of the Berne Union for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works The new administrative provisions that were introduced in the Stockholm revision of the 1886 Convention can be adhered to separately and are in force. The substantive provision of the revision have not yet come into effect. Consideration is being given to Australian accession to the new administrative provision;; in conjunction with consideration of the question of accession to the Convention listed under Item No. 49. Consideration will be given to the question of Australian accession to the substantive provisions following the further revision of the Convention in July 1971.

  1. Item No. 51.

This Convention was drawn up under the auspices of the Paris Union for the Protection of Industrial Property. The revised Convention is in force. The new administrative provisions introduced at the Stockholm revision of the 1883 Convention can be adhered to separately and consideration is being given to accession to those provisions in conjunction with consideration of Australian accession to the Convention listed under Item No. 49. Legislation will be necessary before Australia is able to accede to the substantive provisions.

  1. Item Nos 52 to 54.

These Conventions were drawn up under the auspices of the Madrid Union forthe International Registration of Trade Marks. the Special (Lisbon) Union for the Protection of Appellations of Origin andThe Hague Union for the International Deposit of Designs, respectively.

  1. Item No. 55.

This Convention was drawn up under the auspices of the Nice Union for the International Classification of Goods and Services to which Trade Marks are applied. Consideration is being given to accession to this Convention in conjunction with consideration of the question of Australia’s accession to the Convention listedunder Item No. 49.

  1. Statutes of the World Tourism Organisation.

The revised Statutes of the International Union of Official Travel Organisations (IUOTO) were approved by the Extraordinary General Assembly of IUOTO held at Mexico City 17 to 28 September 1970. The Australian Representative to the Assembly made (ad referendum) a declaration approving the Statutes and accenting the obligations of membership on behalf of the Australian Government. The Australian Government has not formally signified its approval of the Statutes to date nor has it formally signified its acceptance of the obligations of membership.

Papua and New Guinea: The Warmaram Group (Question No. 2368)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Minister for External Territories, upon notice:

What has been the cost of each form of assistance which he set out in his ministerial statement on the Warmaram group on 9th June 1970 (Hansard, page 3123).

Mr Barnes:
CP

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

Ministerial Conference (Question No. 2460)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Minister for National Development, upon notice:

  1. What meetings has he attended with State Ministers since he became Minister?
  2. What were the names and portfolios of the other Ministers who attended each meeting?
  3. What was the (a) date, (b) place, (c) purpose and (d) outcome of each meeting?
Mr Swartz:
LP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: (1), (2) and (3) Set out below is information in respect of Commonwealth-State Council meetings which I have attended since I became Minister for National Development

Press statements were issued after each of the abovementioned meetings indicating important matters discussed.

In addition to these meetings of Councils set up by the Commonwealth and States for consultation on formal and regular basis there are other CommonwealthState bodies such as the River Murray Commission and meetings of Ministers concerned with Northern Development which meet on a less regular basis and on which 1 have previously supplied details to the Honourable Member.

Much of the responsibility of my portfolio touches on matters involving the States and consequently it is necessary that I frequently meet with State Ministers both formerly and informally on various aspects associated with my portfolio. As appropriate, Press statements are issued concerning these meeting with State Ministers and copies of these would have been available to the Honourable Member.

Interdepartmental Committees (Question No. 2591)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Minister for National Development, upon notice:

On what interdepartmental committees do officers of his Department serve?

Mr Swartz:
LP

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

Itis not the usual practice to disclose the composition of interdepartmental committees and consequently it is not proposed to list all such committees on which officers of my Department serve.

Police (Question No. 2821)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Minister for the Interior, upon notice:

Which of Colonel Sir Eric St Johnston’s recommendations on the Victoria Police Force are considered relevant to the Australian Capital Territory Police Force?

Mr Hunt:
Minister for the Interior · GWYDIR, NEW SOUTH WALES · CP

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

Taking account of differences in procedures, practices and conditions of employment in the Australian Capital Territory, the following recommendations have some relevance to the Australian Capital Territory Police Force:

Encouragement to undertake courses at Universities or Colleges of Advanced Education. (Recommendation 41.)

Foreign languages allowances. (Recommendation 65.)

The provision of personal radio and transmitters. (Recommendation 97.)

The establishment of a task force. (Recommendation 99.)

Refresher and advanced courses for detectives. (Recommendation 120.)

The use of public service personnel for laboratory work. (Recommendation 121.)

Police (Question No. 2823)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Minister for the Interior, upon notice:

Which of Colonel Sir Eric St Johnston’s recommendations on the Victoria Police Force are considered relevant to the Northern Territory Police Force?

Mr Hunt:
CP

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

Many of Colonel Sir Eric St Johnston’s recommendations on the Victoria Police Force are of interest to the Northern Territory Police Force. Those recommendations of relevance are:

Designation and classification of officers of the Police Force. (Recommendations 2-8.)

Need for periodical refresher courses for certain officers. (Recommendations 36 and 120.)

Desirability of police officers attending courses in another State, (Recommendation 39.)

Conditions of posting of police officers. (Recommendations 46-47.)

Need for medical examination before promotion in certain cases. (Recommendation 49.)

Need for educational allowances, trade allowances and foreign language allowances. (Recommendations 63-65.)

Need for part-time matrons at country police stations. (Recommendation 78.)

Need for air conditioning in buildings and residences in certain areas. (Recommendation 79.)

Need for new, modern police communications system. (Recommendation 88.)

Future need for aircraft for police purposes. (Recommendation 95.)

Modernisation of books and forms used by police. (Recommendation 96.)

Radius and transmitters needed for use in metropolitan area. (Recommendation 97.)

Appointment of policewomen to specialised branches of police Force. (Recommendation 102.)

Use of public service personnel for laboratory work. (Recommendation 121.)

Service of civil process, execution of warrants, registration of motor vehicles should not be responsibility of police. (Recommendations 155-157.)

Legal aid when prosecuting. (Recommendation 179.)

Television (Question No. 2920)

Mr Grassby:

asked the PostmasterGeneral, upon notice:

  1. Has his attention been drawn to reports on an announcement by television stations of their intention to stock-pile first release episodes of Australian productions to provide for an increase in repeat programmes to meet the new Australian quota content.
  2. If so, does this proposal violate the object of these quotas which was to secure increased local production.
  3. Will he direct the Broadcasting Control Board to investigate the situation.
Sir Alan Hulme:
Postmaster-General · PETRIE, QUEENSLAND · LP

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

  1. to (3)I am not aware of any such announcement by television stations. However, I did receive representations from several quarters on behalf of an organisation called the TV Make it Australian Committee, which claimed that stockpiling of the Australian drama programmes Division 4’ and ‘Homicide’ was taking place. The Australian Broadcasting Control Board has informed me that the ‘Homicide’ and ‘Division 4’ programmes are televised in two series each week by the Melbourne stations originating these programmes. One presentation comprises, designedly, repeated episodes only; the intention to do this was made clear in publicity when the presentation commenced. I presume the question refers to the other presentation. The Australian Broadcasting Control Board informs me that it has been the regular practice since the inception of the programmes in question to include some repeat episodes. The programmes are thus available to a much wider audience than would be the case if they were presented only on a single occasion and accords with overseas practices. The Board’s inquiries indicate that for the time being approximately one in every 4 episodes of ‘Division 4’ is a repeat of an episode first televised at least 12 months beforehand. A similar proportion of episodes of ‘Homicide’ televised so far this year have been repeats. It is to be noted that it is the common practice, all over the world, for repeats to be included in what might be described as ‘first run’ series, since it has nowhere been found possible to produce such programmes on a 52-week basis. Production of new episodes of ‘Homicide’ and ‘Division 4’ is proceeding at the same rate as in past years. The present practice does not amount to any violation of the aims of the Board’s requirements in regard to Australian drama programmes.

Telephones (Question No. 3062)

Dr Patterson:

asked the Postmaster-

General, upon notice:

  1. Can he say whether the lack of public telephone facilities on the lonely main highway of approximately 150 miles between Marlborough and Sarina causes numerous delays in contacting ambulances after road accidents?
  2. What would be the approximate cost of providing two suitably located public telephone outlets on the highway?
Sir Alan Hulme:
LP

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

  1. On only a few occasions over a period of several years has the Post Office been made aware of delays in contacting ambulances along the highway. However, there is no doubt that the lack of public telephone facilities along the highway between Marlborough and Sarina could contribute to delay in obtaining ambulance service following road accidents.
  2. The most suitable locations for two public telephones on the highway would appear to be at the road houses near Stockyard Creek and Lotus Creek, having regard to the need to minimise the possibility of vandalism. The total cost of providing public telephone facilities at those locations would be approximately $100,000. I regret that, at this stage, such an expenditure could not be justified. However, the position is being kept under review and, when general development in the area is sufficient to warrant the extension of departmental telephone facilities to the area, the provision of public telephones will not be overlooked.

Australian Embassies (Question No. 2880)

Dr Klugman:

asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice:

What was the (a) total expenditure incurred by and (b) number of staff employed at the Australian Embassies in (i) Washington, (ii) Tokyo, (iii) Paris, (iv) Rome and (v) Pretoria during 1969-70?

Mr N H Bowen:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

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

The figures for total expenditure are made up of (a) salaries and payments in the nature of salaries and (b) administrative expenses. The expenditure figures for Washington, Paris and Tokyo are in part estimates only because the accounting arrangements of some of the Departments with staff based at those posts do not provide for division between expenditure on Embassy salaries and administration, and other costs incurred. The figures given for Pretoria also include staff employed at and expenditure incurred by the office of the Australian Government in Capetown, where the Embassy is situated for part of each year. Like all foreign missions in South Africa, the Australian Embassy follows that country’s government, which moves from Pretoria to Capetown when the Parliament is in session in Capetown. It is not possible to give separate expenditure figures for Pretoria because the Department of Foreign Affairs’ accounting arrangements do not provide for a division of expenditure between the two offices. At 31st December 1969 the Embassy was situated in Pretoria with a staff of thirteen, while the Capetown office retained a staff of three.

Water Conservation (Question No. 3101)

Dr Patterson:

asked the Minister for National Development, upon notice:

  1. When can the Parliament expect progress reports on the (a) Ord River project (b) Fairbairn Dam (c) Burnett-Kolan project (d) Burdekin Dam investigations (e) Urannah Dam investigations (f) Brigalow Areas I, II andIII, and (g) Beef roads programme.
  2. What is the total amount of Commonwealth funds committed to these projects.
Mr Swartz:
LP

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

  1. It has not been normal practice to submit progress reports to Parliament on the many State projects for which Commonwealth financial assistance is being provided. My Department and I keep informed, of course, about progress on projects which fall within our area of responsibility and on particular aspects where our endorsement is necessary. As the Commonwealth funds are provided to the States for projects within the respective States and the responsibility for the implementation lies with the State authorities concerned, it would seem more appropriate that such information as desiredbe obtained directly from the State authorities concerned.

In the case of the Beef Roads Programme which covers the whole of northern Australia, involving the States of Queensland and Western Australia and the Northern Territory, a comprehensive report bringing together the whole Programme was recently issued by the Northern Division of my Department and has been widely circulated.

  1. The total amount of Commonwealth funds committed to the projects listed, is summarised in the following table.

Ord River Project Stage 2- $48.18m.

Fairbairn Dam - $20m.

Burnett/Kolan Project- $ 12.8m.

Burdekin Dam Investigations - No specific commitment of funds.

Urannah Dam Investigations - No Commonwealth funds involved (work by SMHEA at Queensland Government expense).

Brigalow Areas: (1 and 2)-$ 14.5m. (3) $8.5m.

Beef Roads-$ 109.1 2m.

Telephones (Question No. 3114)

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

asked the PostmasterGeneral, upon notice:

  1. Is the Sales Branch of his Department advocating the installation of Victa red telephones for people wishing to install public telephones on their premises.
  2. If so, is this in accordance with established Government policy.
  3. What is the annual rental and the cost per call for the (a) Victared telephones and (b) multi-coin telephones of the Department.
  4. What percentage of the cost per call on a Victa red telephone accrues to the (a) PostmasterGeneral’s Department, (b) subscriber and (c) V.T.C. Pty Ltd.
  5. What percentage of the cost per call of a postal multi-coin telephone accrues to the (a) Postmaster-General’s Department and (b) subscriber.
Sir Alan Hulme:
LP

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

  1. Since 1964, most of the requirements of telephone subscribers tor leased local call coin telephones have been met by private suppliers, namely, VTC Pry Ltd which markets the Victa Red telephone and GEC- Elliott Automation Pty Ltd which markets the Easiphone instrument. This arrangement conforms with the practice which has been followed by the Post Office for many years of allowing private suppliers to provide a variety of special facilities of an approved type with subscribers’ telephone services. This enables known as ‘permitted attachments’ to be associated the Post Office to conserve capital works funds and concentrate more resources on meeting the heavy demand for ordinary telephone services. However, the Post Office still provides leased multi-coin telephones in cases where the demand for trunk calls from the services concerned justifies such instruments. It also provides local call coin telephones for certain classes of subscribers, such as Government Departments, public hospitals, public institutions, etc. In other cases, persons requiring leased local call coin telephones are referred by the Department to VTC Pty Ltd and GEC- Elliott Automation Pty Ltd.
  2. See Answer to (1).
  3. (a) The annual rental for a Victa Red telephone applied by VTC Pty Ltd ranges from $40 to $120, depending primarily on the period for which the customer contracts to lease the instrument. Lessees have the choice between two types of Victa Red telephone, one adjusted for operation at the rate of 5 cents for a local call and the other for operation at 7 cents.

    1. The annual rental for a Departmental leased multi-coin telephone instrument is $60. A local call from a leased multicoin telephone costs 5 cents. Trunk calls from such instruments are charged in accordance with the rates prescribed by the Telephone Regulations.

Note: The rental mentioned in these answers is in addition to the annual charges made by the Department for exchange lines or any other associated facilities.

  1. (a) The Post Office receives 4 cents for each effective call made from a Victa Red telephone. This represents 57 per cent of the cost of making a call f rom a 7 cent Victa Red telephone and 80 per cent of the cost of a callfroma5 cent Victa Red instrument.

    1. The subscriber retains either 3 cents (43 per cent) or 1 cent (20 per cent) of the cost of a callfrom a Victa Red telephone depending on whether the instrument operates on 7 cents or 5 cents for a local call.
    2. VTC Pty Ltd does not receive any portion of the cost of calls originated from Victa Red telephones leased by its customers.
  2. (a) The Post Officereceives 4 cents (80 per cent) for each effective local call made from a leased multi-coin telephone and all of the standard fees payable for trunk calls originated from such instruments.

    1. The subscriberretains 1 cent (20 per cent) for each local call made from the leased multi-coin instrument on his service. Under the Telephone Regulation he may charge callers an additional fee of 2 cents for each trunk call made from bis service and retain this money.

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 18 August 1971, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1971/19710818_reps_27_hor73/>.