House of Representatives
28 September 1971

27th Parliament · 2nd Session

  1. House of Representatives
  2. 27th Parliament
  3. 1971

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

page 1519

PETITIONS

National Service

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

– I- present the following petition:

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned electors of the State of Victoria respectfully sheweth:

That Charles Martin, a 24-year-old graduate in Building Technology, and Geoffrey Mullen, a 24- year-old graduate in Political Science, are serving a 2-year gaol sentence for failure to comply with the National Service Act, an Act which offends the conscience of many electors who are not directly touched by its provisions;

That their failure to comply with the Act was done as a matter of conscience, and that their imprisonment must therefore cause concern to all electors who oppose the National Service Act, and the decision to send conscripted troops to Vietnam.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray:

That the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled will repeal the National Service Act, remove from the record all convictions made under it, and cause Charles Martin and Geoffrey, Mullen, and all others imprisoned under it, to be released and cease all further prosecutions under it.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received.

Commonwealth Land Holdings

Dr MACKAY:
Minister for the Navy · EVANS, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– I present the following petition:

To the Honourable the Speaker and the Members of the House of Representatives of the Commonwealth of Australia. The petition of the undersigned citizens of the electorate of Evan1;, Lowe and adjoining electorates respectfully sheweth: That whereas -

The pupils of Ashfield Boys’ High School are suffering under the disadvantage of overcrowded playground accommodation.

That the facilities in Ashfield Boys’ High School in regard to its playground, size and area per boy are inferior in size quality and attractiveness compared with other schools in the metropolitan area.

The playground is so dangerously small that often games have to be stopped in the interest of safety.

That the only possibility of expansion exists in the taking over of the area at present owned by the Commonwealth Government and occupied by the Citizen Military Forces (C.M.F.).

We your petitioners request that the Commonwealth Government relinquish ownership of this land to the State of New South Wales for the expansion of Ashfield Boys’ High School. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

Social Services

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 petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:

Thai a migrant who has been a member of the Australian workforce for many years, has paid taxes and acquired Australian citizenship, and seeks to live the last years of his life in his native land or, if an invalid, wishes to see his relatives, is denied pension transferability. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray:

That the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, seek to have Australia adopt the principle followed by Britain, Italy, Greece, Malta, The Netherlands. France. Germany, Turkey, Canada and the United States of America, who already transfer the social entitlement of their citizens wherever they may choose to live. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

Lake Pedder

Mr FOX:
HENTY, 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 of Australia respectfully showeth:

That Lake Pedder, situated in the Lake Pedder National Park in South-West Tasmania, is threatened with inundation as part of the Gordon River hydro-electric power scheme.

That an alternative scheme exists, which if implemented would avoid inundation of this lake.

That Lake Pedder and the surrounding wilderness area is of such beauty and scientific interest as to be of a value beyond monetary consideration.

And that some unique species of flora and fauna will be in danger of extinction if this area is inundated.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Federal Government take immediate steps to act on behalf of all Australian people to preserve Lake Pedder in its natural state. All present and particularly future Australians will . benefit by being able to escape from their usual environment to rebuild their physical and mental strength in this unspoilt wilderness area. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

Contraceptives

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 citizens of the Commonwealth of Australia respectfully showeth:

That the Sales Tax on all forms of contraceptive devices is 27) per cent. (Sales Tax Exemptions and Classifications Act 1935-1967). Also that there is Customs Duty of up to 47 J 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 and read.

Australian Capital Territory

Pharmacy Ordinance

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 citizens of the Division of the Australian Capital Territory respectfully showeth:

That the Australian Capital Territory Pharmacy Ordinances 1931-1959 Section 46, Sub-section (1) states that ‘A person shall not publish any statement, whether by way of advertisement or otherwise, to promote the sale of any article as a medicine, instrument or appliance . for preventing conception’.

And that this infringes upon each individual’s right as a human being to all available information about contraceptive devices in order to help prevent unwanted pregnancies.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the words ‘or for preventing conception’ be deleted from Sub-section (1) of Section 46 of the Australian Capital Territory Pharmacy Ordinances. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

Education

Mr ENDERBY:

– I present the following petition:

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assem bled. 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 decentralization 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 representatedrepresentated 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 underlie it, and its mode of operation and administration.

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

Petition received and read.

page 1520

MINISTERIAL ARRANGEMENTS

Mr MCMAHON:
Prime Minister · Lowe · LP

– I wish to inform the House that the Treasurer (Mr Snedden) left Australia on 17th September to attend a meeting of Commonwealth Finance Ministers in Nassau and also to attend the annual meeting of the Governors of the International Monetary Fund and the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development in Washington. Mr Snedden is expected to return to Australia on 21st October. During his absence I will act as Treasurer. Also, the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr N. H. Bowen) left Australia on 21st September to attend the 26th session of the General Assembly of the United Nations. He is expected to return to Australia on 15th October. During his absence, the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Sinclair) is Acting Minister for Foreign Affairs and will represent the Attorney-General in this House.

page 1520

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN TASK FORCE

Mr WHITLAM:
WERRIWA, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I address my question to the Prime Minister. In informing the Parliament of his Government’s intention to withdraw the Australian Task Force from Vietnam by December, on 18th August the right honourable gentleman said:

The security situation in Phuoc Tuy Province has markedly improved. The Vietnamese territorial forces have been steadily developing their capacity and in the last year have gradually expanded their own areas of operation.

I ask: What arrangements have been made with the Army of the Republic of South Vietnam’ to protect the rear of the Task Force as it withdraws? Has the Government secured an undertaking from the Government of South Vietnam that the ARVN will effectively protect the Fourth Battalion when it remains as the last and unsupported remnant of our forces and as it undertakes the most hazardous of all military operations - evacuation in the face of an active and undefeated enemy?

Mr McMahon:

– The Minister for Defence will answer the question.

Mr FAIRBAIRN:
Minister for Defence · FARRER, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– The statement that was made by the Prime Minister is, of course, perfectly true. There has been a considerable improvement in the security in most areas of South Vietnam. This, of course, also includes Phuoc Tuy Province where South Vietnamese territorial and other regional and popular forces have taken over a considerable proportion of this area. However, the Australian Task Force still maintains the security and operational requirements in some of the more remote areas. It was in one of these remote areas that it was recently engaged in action with elements of a North Vietnamese regiment which had moved in from another adjoining province. We do not know whether this was caused by American activity forcing it to move in or whether it was moving in because of the withdrawal of the Australians. In the very near future, the South Vietnamese will be taking over completely the security of Phuoc Tuy Province. Arrangements are in hand at the present moment. It is believed by the Leader of the Australian Task Force that there will not be any great threat to the remaining 4th Battalion. But naturally, every possible assistance will be sought and is being given in the evacuation by the South Vietnamese and by the United States Air Force.

page 1521

QUESTION

SECURITY OF NAVAL ESTABLISHMENTS

Mr GRAHAM:
NORTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I ask the Minister for the Navy: Having regard to the fascinating events now taking place in London involving the accredited representatives of a for eign power and what is termed ‘industrial espionage’, does the Minister assure the House of the security of naval establishments, dockyards and construction centres to design and build Australia’s new destroyers for our future defence at sea?

Dr MACKAY:
LP

– As will have been seen in the Press it has been announced that the preliminary design for our new light destroyer has been completed. I now have this design on my desk and the naval officers concerned are studying it. The destroyer will be an advanced and sophisticated ship. It will incorporate many improved and secret devices. However at times the situation in our dockyards where we are hoping the destroyer will be built - this is a decision yet to be made by the Government - is far from desirable in terms of security. I shall mention 2 matters in particular which stand out. Firstly, there is great resistance on the part of some trade unions to the most elementary form of identification cards for the identification of employees. I would think that this was an acceptable means of reasonable security in any establishment of this kind. Secondly some unions demand the right to put whom they will into a position of employment in our dockyards without the management of the dockyard having any right of scrutiny or say who is to be employed in the dockyard. To my mind this again is an unacceptable security risk. Tn relation to this matter negotiations will have to proceed with the unions concerned before we can risk the kind of operation which is involved in the construction of the light destroyers.

page 1521

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN TASK FORCE

Mr BARNARD:
BASS, TASMANIA

– I ask the Minister for Defence a question which is supplementary to the question asked by the Leader of the Opposition. When will responsibility for military operations in Phuoc Tuy Province be transferred from the Australian Task Force to the South Vietnamese army? When will the Third Battalion be withdrawn and, after its departure, what support units will remain in Vietnam to assist the Fourth Battalion? When will the withdrawal of the Fourth Battalion from Nui Dat to Vung Tau begin and when will it finish? Finally, what restrictions have been put on the operation of Australian units in Vietnam during the remaining months of the commitment?

Mr FAIRBAIRN:
LP

– I am sure the Deputy Leader of the Opposition will realise that an answer given with direct dates to his question would enable the enemy to make such dispositions as it felt were suitable in the light of those dates. Obviously I am not going to give the actual date of the withdrawal of the Third Battalion or of when the Fourth Battalion will move to Vung Tau. AH’ I say is that the Third Battalion will move out in mid-October. At about the same time the other battalion will start to move down to Vung Tau. Once again for security reasons, I will not give the actual date on which the Australian force is handing over to the South Vietnamese. But I assure the honourable member that adequate arrangements are being made to assure that Australians are supported fully in their withdrawal.

As I have pointed out already, about half the province is under the operational control of the regional forces and popular forces. Also there are the South Vietnamese self defence forces in that area. The other half of the province will be handed over in the fairly near future. In addition there will be American units in the near north. The Royal Australian Air Force will remain in the area and it will continue to give operational support. In the meantime no restriction has been placed upon the Australian task force while it is still in operational control of this area. Obviously it would be quite stupid to prevent it going into some of the more remote areas to stop a build-up by the enemy at a time when such a restriction could allow the enemy, to build up and then, when the Australian force moved out, be ready to attack whatever force was replacing the Australian force. I think that answers the honourable gentleman’s question.

page 1522

QUESTION

INTELLIGENCE OPERATIONS

Mr BROWN:
DIAMOND VALLEY, VICTORIA

– My question, which is directed to the Prime Minister, relates to reports of intelligence operations in the United Kingdom by the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Will the Prime Minister advise the House whether there are an consequences or implications for Australia in these revelations? If so, what are they?

Mr McMAHON:
LP

– Whilst our security people are in close, almost daily, contact with the security service of the United Kingdom we have not yet received a full report of the reasons why the 105 citizens of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics have been expelled from or prevented from coming back to the United Kingdom. What I can say is that as far as Australia is concerned the Government cannot at the moment see any direct relationship between operations of espionage and even sabotage in the United Kingdom by members of the Soviet diplomatic corps and Australia. It should also be pointed out to the House that under what were called the Casey-Firubin arrangements we limit the number of Soviet representatives in Canberra and also ensure that they cannot move more than 45 miles out of Canberra without proper approval. Secondly, in the case of personnel in the trade office in Sydney and the office of the Baltic Steamship Company we provide that they shall not have diplomatic status; consequently, they will be subject to the law in the same way as any other citizen and will not have the protection they would have if they were diplomatic representatives in Canberra. The other lesson which has to be remembered is that when we have relationships with Communist countries we have to be doubly, even trebly, certain that their representatives do npt - carry out espionage operations. This must be a constant preoccupation of the Government and a constant preoccupation of the Australian security service.

page 1522

QUESTION

VIETNAM SERVICE AWARDS

Mr NICHOLLS:
BONYTHON, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question is directed to the Minister for the Army. I draw attention to his statement circulated on Monday, 7th December 1970, headed Awards for Vietnam Service’. Listed as recepients of awards are one brigadier, one lieutenant-colonel, 12 majors, 5 captains, 6 lieutenants, 27 non-commissioned officers and 5 privates. In view of the latest casualty list which contains practically only the names of privates engaged in active confrontation with the enemy, will he agree that the awards show a distinct imbalance between officers and ordinary servicemen?

Mr PEACOCK:
Minister for the Army · KOOYONG, VICTORIA · LP

– I think the only suitable answer to this question is that the honourable member is quoting from one release in a series over the entire annual period in which awards are made. On other occasions awards will be made when the ratio of other ranks to officers will be completely different from that mentioned by the honourable member. Other than that I have nothing to say regarding the implications contained in the question.

page 1523

QUESTION

MAIL DELIVERIES

Mr CALDER:
NORTHERN TERRITORY

– I ask the PostmasterGeneral whether he can advise the House of the outcome of discussions between his Department and the Department of Civil Aviation concerning the reported build up of mail at the Darwin post office for delivery to Arnhem Land settlements and missions. Will he give consideration to making arrangements to shift by sea such would-be postal- items as saddles, cartons of beer and suitcases in order to sustain regular delivery of all classes of mail to these outlying parts if suitable arrangements cannot be made to shift them by air?

Sir ALAN HULME:
Postmaster-General · PETRIE, QUEENSLAND · LP

– Some difficulties have arisen recently in relation to the movement of mail in the Northern Territory, particularly out of Darwin. An arrangement was entered into by the Department of Civil Aviation, Connair Pty Ltd and the Post Office for parcels to be moved by air in the Northern Territory at surface rates. Under the arrangement the Government would pay a substantial subsidy to Connair. This means that the surface rate is lower than the air freight rate and many peope who used to send by air freight are now sending by mail. Articles similar to those mentioned by the honourable member are included in that category. There was a build up of 150 to 200 articles for these areas but it has been possible in the last few days to make arrangements for special aircraft to move this mail. At the moment there is no build up at the Darwin post office. I hope we will be able to undertake operations which will avoid build ups in the future.

page 1523

QUESTION

CIVIL AVIATION

Mr CHARLES JONES:
NEWCASTLE, VICTORIA

– I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Civil Aviation. I ask: Has agreement been reached between the Department of Civil Aviation and the American Civil Aeronautics Board which gives Qantas Airways Ltd the right to land Boeing 747 jets in the United States of America and additional weekly flights for the United States airlines? Why did the Minister for Civil Aviation treat the Parliament with contempt by delaying his announcement of this important and contentious agreement until immediately after the Parliament had adjourned for the normal week’s recess, even though the report had been in his possession for nearly 3 weeks? Can the Minister say what concessions were obtained by Qantas and what the American airline operators received? Can it truthfully be claimed that Qantas was completely and totally sold out by this Government?

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

– The answer to the last part of the question is no. I suspect that the honourable member has some argument about the agreement which exists between the United States and Australia in this field. I take it from his comments that he is not happy about the existing agreement. The position is that the present agreement was entered into by the previous Labor government back in 1946. If the honourable member is unhappy about it, he knows the background to it. But the point is that since that date the administration of the agreement has worked out quite satisfactorily from our point of view.

I think that in some of the reports which have appeared in the Press recently a very vital fact has been overlooked; it has not been brought out, although it appeared in the joint statement which was issued by the American Government and the Minister for Civil Aviation on behalf of the Australian Government. It was that in future the control of arrangements regarding capacity on the Pacific route will be in the hands of the two governments, not in the hands of the airlines or the American Civil Aeronautics Board. This, I think, is a very important achievement. Any proposal by the airlines for listings must go to the civil aviation authority in the United States and to the Department of Civil Aviation in Australia. It must be considered by the two governments before it is finally approved.

As far as capacity is concerned, it is a fact that application was made on behalf of two United States airlines for additional capacity or additional services on the Pacific route. This application was made last February and agreement has now been reached. It will come into effect as from 1st December this year. Agreement has been reached for Qantas to be allowed to fly additional 747 services into and across the United States at the same time. I think that this again is an achievement. By then there will have been no change in capacity on the Pacific route for 18 months, and that in itself indicates the present situation. As I say, the change will not take place until 1st December. By that time there will have been an 18 per cent increase in the traffic on the Pacific route since the application for additional services on the Pacific route was made in February. We believe that the capacity which is to be provided from 1st December will meet the traffic requirement at that time.

As to the question regarding the time at which the announcement was made by the Minister for Civil Aviation, I understand he made it at the first opportunity after he had a chance to study the report and to discuss it with the Government. As soon as that was done he made a public announcement regarding the matter.

page 1524

QUESTION

ILLEGAL BROADCASTING STATIONS

Mr JARMAN:
DEAKIN, VICTORIA

– What power does the Postmaster-General possess to take action against the establishment and operation of unlicensed and illegal broadcasting stations?

Sir ALAN HULME:
LP

– I presume the honourable member is making reference to articles which appeared in the newspapers that a pirate radio station either within or near one of the universities in Melbourne hoped to go on air, first, yesterday and then again today. This matter is covered by the Wireless Telegraphy Act and the Post Office has the authority to seize the equipment. I am sure the honourable member will appreciate that if the radio station is within the university some problems may arise. Those who are responsible for the operation of the station will be liable to a penalty of up to $1,000 or 5 years imprisonment. I hope that, if we can apprehend them, they will not get off with a bond.

page 1524

QUESTION

NATIONAL FRUIT MARKETING AUTHORITY

Mr SHERRY:
FRANKLIN, TASMANIA

– Has the Prime Minister received a communication from the Premier of Tasmania asking the Common wealth Government to establish a single national fruit marketing authority? If the Commonwealth is not prepared to establish such an authority will it give financial support so that such a scheme can be established by the Tasmanian Government? Finally, when does the Prime Minister expect to be in a position to indicate what the Commonwealth’s decision is likely to be?

Mr McMAHON:
LP

– To the best of my recollection, I have not received such a letter from the Premier of Tasmania. Nonetheless, as soon as I go back to my office I will make inquiries and go through the letters on my table and I will then let the honourable gentleman know whether I have received it.

Mr Sinclair:

– You have it.

Mr McMAHON:

– A letter has been received and it has been referred direct to the Minister for Primary Industry who will be reporting to me about it.

page 1524

QUESTION

MRS MARGARET BERMAN

Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

– I direct my question to the Minister representing the Attorney-General. I refer him to 26th August 1970 when in this House a former Attorney-General, referring to a major consideration in his decision not to prosecute Mrs Margaret Berman, of Victorian abortion inquiry fame, for her infringement of the Telephonic Communications (Interception) Act, said:

The lady concerned was suffering from the terminal stages of q fatal disease, and ] would not be the first Attorney-General to manifest some disinclination to prosecute a person in this condition.

Did the Minister see Mrs Berman on the television programme This Day Tonight’ last week being interviewed about her difficulties in obtaining and retaining employment? Did he witness her calculated evasiveness when asked about the condition of her health? Will the Minister ask the Attorney-General to review the Berman case to ascertain if this condition still exists?

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I suggest that the question be placed on the notice paper.

Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

-It is finished.

page 1525

QUESTION

RETRENCHMENTS

Mr JACOBI:
HAWKER, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question, which is directed to the’ Minister for Labour and National Service, relates to the retrenchments by General Motors-Holden’s Pty Ltd and Chrysler Aust. Ltd of 650 skilled employees at their South Australian plants. Is the Minister aware of, and what action does he intend to take following, the irresponsible attitude of both companies in failing to provide any adequate prior notice to either workers or unions - in the case of General Motors-Holden’s up to 10 minutes notice was given - or to initiate any constructive or meaningful discussions prior to such retrenchments becoming effective? ls the Minister aware that such workers have suffered up to $20 a week loss in pay? Further, is he aware that profits of General Motors-Holden’s and Chryslers for the year 1969-70 were S27.8m and $7.2m respectively. In view of this position will he initiate an immediate inquiry to ascertain why, despite the fact that the tooling component is the largest single cost factor in car production, both companies, in the face of the huge decrease in costs and increase in profits, have failed to pass the benefit, to the consumer by reducing the prices of their vehicles?

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member is now giving information. I suggest that he ask his question; otherwise I will have to request him to place it on notice.

Mr JACOBI:
HAWKER, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– I also ask: Why were tooling contracts given to Japan? Finally, will he undertake to speed up consideration by the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission of the unions’ log of claims, particularly the claim for implementation of the 35-hour week -

Mr SPEAKER:
Mr JACOBI:

– I am asking a question.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! It is a long and involved question that is not suitable for answering at question time. The honourable member is requesting statistics and 1 do not think Ministers should be required to have all statistics in their heads at question time. I request the honourable member to place his question on the notice paper.

page 1525

QUESTION

WOOL

Mr HALLETT:
CANNING, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– My question is addressed to the Minister for Primary Industry. Since the statement in the

Treasurer’s Budget Speech that the Government intends to introduce a deficiency payment for the Australian wool clip, the Minister for Primary Industry has stated that all wool, whether sold privately or by auction, would be eligible for such a payment. In view of the Minister’s most recent statement regardng proposals to exclude privately sold wool from this payment, will the Minister clarify the situation and confirm his original statement?

Mr SINCLAIR:
CP

– There has been no change in the Government’s policy concerning what wool is to be deemed eligible for subsidy. However, some concern has resulted from the fact that at auction sales in Western Australia there has been a far higher level of purchases by the Australian Wool Commission at rates ruling throughout Australia than at sales in the eastern States. For that reason, when I was in Western Australia recently 1 highlighted the wish of the Government that growers should receive ruling market values for their clips, It is of concern to the Government that individual wool growers, however they market their wool, be paid at what are at the moment barely satisfactory rates from the point of view of the profitability of wool growing. It appears that certain wool growers who are selling privately have been placed at a disadvantage since the opening of auction sales this year. I can assure the House that the position remains as set out in my statement to this House; wool sold either privately or at auction is eligible for support under the Commonwealth’s wool price support scheme.

page 1525

QUESTION

RESOURCES EXPORT POLICY

Mr WHITLAM:

– My question is directed to the Minister for National Development. Has his attention been drawn to reports of a document on Australian mineral resources released yesterday by the Japanese Foreign Ministry? Can he confirm that this document asserts that inflated labour costs, undue dependence on foreign capital and possible future gluts of supply are a consequence of haphazard and unrestricted resources development in Australia? Does it draw attention to excessive competition between the States for development capital at any cost and advocate the establishment of a national resources export policy? Has he discussed the document either with his colleagues or with representatives of the Japanese Government and, if so, with what result?

Mr SWARTZ:
LP

– I did see in one news* paper a report that came from an Australian journalist in Japan who is, I think, the only one who has reported the release of this alleged document. Therefore, having read only one newspaper report dealing with this matter I cannot vouch for its accuracy. However, having seen that report in the Press I have arranged for contact to be made with the Trade Commissioner (Minerals), an officer of my Department in Tokyo, so that he can inquire whether such a document was released and, if so, provide me with some information on it as soon as possible. If there is such a document I will’ get a copy of it as quickly as possible.

Mr Whitlam:

– Two copies?

Mr SWARTZ:

– If the document is available the honourable gentleman will be able to get copies of it. I certainly hope that if there is such a document I will have it here before long so that I may study the suggestions contained in it. If the statement by the honourable member is based on fact I would like to take this opportunity -to refute a number of contentions included in it, firstly, that there is no basic policy in relation to the development of our natural resources and secondly, that we have not had continuous and extensive discussions with the Ministers, the industry and authorities concerned in Japan. The. Leader of the Opposition will know that . last year and again this year I spent some time in Japan. All of that time was devoted principally to discussions with industry and commerce and authorities. The people who are directly concerned with the development of our natural resources in Australia and the utilisation of them for processing in Japan. In addition we have had almost constant contact with our opposite numbers in the Japanese Ministry and as the Leader of the Opposition knows, trade missions from Japan are constantly visiting Australia and there will in fact be another Japanese economic mission in Australia this week. We will be holding discussions with members of this mission on a variety of matters. Of course, there are a number of matters on which policy has to remain flexible.

We have given to the Japanese Government as clearly as possible an outline of the various guidelines on our policy as they exist at the present time. We have indicated to that Government a number of matters which require further attention. We have also indicated that a number of policies, which we have already pointed out are subject to variation, must be on a flexible basis and that changes can and will occur in the future. A tremendous amount of work has been done in this field and there is still another matter in relation to this which is before the Government for consideration. I merely mention these matters now to indicate that already a lot has been done in this field and that much more remains to be done. As soon as I have had an opportunity to study the document referred to, if it does exist, I will further advise the Leader of the Opposition in relation to this matter.

page 1526

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN WOOL COMMISSION

Mr IRWIN:
MITCHELL, NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is directed to the Minister for Primary Industry. Is the Minister aware that the Australian Wool Commission has departed from wool trade practice in its interim balance sheet by showing its wool stock at cost when the market value was well below cost? Can the Minister state why administration costs of $373,000 were not included in the operating loss of $1,355,000?

Mr SINCLAIR:
CP

– I am not aware of any discrepancy in accounting practice in the Australian Wool Commission’s report. I will look into the matters raised by the honourable member and reply to him when I have examined the balance sheet.

page 1526

QUESTION

SIMPSON DESERT

Dr EVERINGHAM:
CAPRICORNIA, QUEENSLAND

– My question is directed to the Minister for the Interior. What is the acreage of the Simpson Desert that is to be sold at 20c an acre? Is this an area which has unique and attractive fauna and flora? Will the Minister reserve for my wife and me 2 acres for which we have a higher bid of 50c? Will he set aside one acre for every other Australian who offers 25c in order to save the Simpson Desert from being turned into a cattle run for foreign exploiters and perhaps thereby into a dust bowl, which is the impending fate of much of the dry grazing areas of Australia?

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

– I thank the honourable member for a very good question. I think it might be a very good idea if the honourable member and I had a look at the Simpson Desert together on some occasion so as to make a real evaluation of its worth.

page 1527

QUESTION

NATIONAL SERVICE

Mr JESS:
LA TROBE, VICTORIA

– Has the Minister for Labour and National Service observed on his television set recently that certain young gentlemen for whom warrants were issued, I understand, some time ago, are shacked up at the Melbourne University? Can the Minister inform me what action he or his Department intends to take to prevent these gentlemen from coming into the homes of the people of Australia and from holding the law of this country in contempt? Is there a separate law for those who do not belong to universities and for those who do?

Mr Grassby:

– Will the Minister explain the expression ‘shacked up’?

Mr LYNCH:
Minister for Labour and National Service · FLINDERS, VICTORIA · LP

– I would hardly have thought that 1 would need to explain that term to the honourable gentleman. The honourable gentleman who asked this question referred to the fact that these men have held the law in contempt, and of course they have. I make it clear to the House that it is the firm intention of the Government that those who default from the law should, in fact, be punished by the law. Regarding the several gentlemen who have appeared on television recently, I believe that at present 12 warrants have been issued for some of them and for some other persons and it is the intention of the Attorney-General, who is primarily responsible in this matter, to make certain that the law is obeyed and that the warrants are executed at the earliest opportunity. I should say, on behalf of my colleague, that this matter is not as easy as sometimes it may appear. Of course the gentlemen concerned seek opportunities to propagate their views and to act in a propagandist manner. They deliberately call for imprisonment but the fact is that when a search is initiated they never intend to allow apprehension at the particular places at which they advertise their availability. The Government views this matter most seriously and I can say on behalf of myself and the AttorneyGeneral that every effort will be taken to ensure that those who default from the law are dealt with by the law, firstly, on the basis of the principle which is involved and, secondly, in fairness and in equity to the vast majority of young Australians who are prepared to honour their obligations.

page 1527

QUESTION

SHIPPING

Mr WEBB:
STIRLING, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– Has the Prime Minister refused to provide financial assistance to the Western Australian State Shipping Service to operate its service to Darwin? If so,has he ignored the fact that this is an important service to the Commonwealth territory of Darwin? Would he agree that it is a matter of national importance that the servicing of Darwin should not be surrendered to overseas suppliers? Would it not be in the interests of Western Australia and the Australian community generally for the present service to continue? Bearing this in mind, will he reconsider the matter of a subsidy to maintain the PerthDarwin shipping service?

Mr McMAHON:
LP

– Some time ago the Premier of Western Australia applied to the Commonwealth Government for a subsidy to permit the Western Australian State Shipping Service to continue its service to Darwin. This is an uneconomic shipping line which loses a considerable amount of money. Nonetheless, we believe that it is well within the capacity of the Western Australian Government, if it wishes to keep the shipping line going, to provide funds from its own resources. Recently, the Premier has again written to me asking whether I will have another look at the problem. I will do so and will advise the Premier when a decision has been reached.

page 1527

QUESTION

CIVIL AVIATION: PRIVATE LIGHT AIRCRAFT

Mr O’KEEFE:
PATERSON, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I direct my question to the Minister for National Development who is representing the Minister for Civil Aviation in this chamber. I ask: Under present Department of Civil Aviation regulations, is it illegal for owners of private light aircraft to accept payment for flights? Have prosecutions taken place over the years for infringements of this law? Is it necessary to alter the regulations to modernise an unjust situation? Can the Minister inform the House when legislation will be brought down to amend the law in this regard?

Mr SWARTZ:
LP

– I will have to draw on my memory in regard to the background of the issue of licences for specific purposes. I can recall that when I was Minister for Civil Aviation a few years ago it was a fact, and I think it still is, that a private licence holder was not permitted to carry passengers for profit. To the best of my knowledge that situation still , applies at present. This arrangement, of course, has been implemented for an obvious reason. Special licences are issued for commercial purposes and .people who are engaged in charter or airline operations do so at great cost to themselves for profit and they must have some protection in that field.

However, I do know that, marginal circumstances arise from time to time in relation to special cases. I do not know whether this matter is being considered on a special basis at present. I shall see that the honourable member’s : question is referred to my colleague in another place and that he is supplied with some information as soon as possible.

page 1528

QUESTION

SHIPPING SERVICE TO DARWIN

Mr WHITLAM:

– I ask the Prime Minister a question supplementary to that asked him by the honourable member for Stirling. I ask the’ right honourable gentleman why it is that the Commonwealth sees fit to pay a subsidy for the airline operations provided between Western Australia and Darwin by a subsidiary of a very large airline company but does not see- fit- to pay a subsidy for the sole shipping . service between those areas.

Mr McMAHON:
LP

– We were looking at the single problem of the inefficiency and the lack of transport that existed between Western Australia - that is Perth or Fremantle - and the Northern Territory ports, particularly Darwin. We felt that they were uneconomic and could not make a profit.

On the advice tendered to me, not by my own Department but by the relevant departments in the Commonwealth, we felt that if it was in the interests- of the Western Australian Government that the tran sport arrangements between Western Australia and the Northern Territory should continue, this should be at the expense of the Western Australian Government. So that is the answer. I did not at that time consider the relationship that might exist between the air transport industry and the shipping industry of Western Australia. Nonetheless, when looking at the matter on a second occasion I will take this into consideration.

page 1528

QUESTION

HEALTH: SUBSIDISED MEDICAL SCHEME

Mr KENNEDY:
BENDIGO, VICTORIA

– I address my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Health. The Minister will recall that about a fortnight ago I asked him a question about the subsidised medical scheme for lower income earners which he was not able to answer. Is he now able to explain the almost total failure of this scheme as shown by figures indicating that only 7 per cent, or 13,000 out of the estimated 184,000 families eligible for assistance under this scheme, have been approved by the Department of Social Services and that about only half of this number have been registered with a benefits organisation? What steps has he in train to ensure that all people who are eligible for assistance do so benefit especially as roughly 84,000 families earning between $46.50 and $52.50 must be in the scheme for 2 months to benefit? Finally, as the means test at present victimises large families who need a larger income to be above the poverty line than the means test allows, will he broaden the means test to take account of differing incomes needed for differing family sizes?

Dr FORBES:
Minister for Immigration · BARKER, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · LP

– The way in which the honourable gentleman made reference to the previous question he asked of me implied that I had the current responsibility for this matter. As he well knows, the Minister for Health is in another place. On that previous occasion I undertook to convey the context of his question to the Minister for Health and said that in due course the Minister for Health would provide him with the information direct. I am not aware of whether or not he has done so. However, I have had some interest in and some responsibility for this matter in the past and I have taken steps to check the situation as the honourable gentleman has described it. I have found out that the way in which the honourable gentleman has represented this matter, to imply that the low income or the subsidised health scheme has been a failure, has been completely misleading. In fact, although the scheme has not achieved everything one would have liked it to have achieved - for obvious reasons given the particular group to which it is directed - it has covered a very much larger proportion of low income earners in the Australian community than has been represented by the honourable member.

The reason for that is that the honourable gentleman has been selective in his figures. The figures provided to him about the number of people who had enrolled or who had received assistance under the scheme were in 3 categories: Firstly, low income earners; secondly, recipients of unemployment and sickness benefits; and thirdly, migrants within 2 months of arrival. The figures did show that under the category of low income families only 11,000 families were listed. He has blown up this figure to show that the scheme has been completely unsuccessful. In fact, the figures also show that 82,000 recipients of unemployment, sickness and special benefits were enrolled under the scheme up to 30th June 1971 and that 28,000 migrants became members of funds. As the honourable member should know, the fact is that a very large proportion of the recipients of unemployment and sickness benefits and, indeed, a proportion of migrants also, are in the low income category.

The information I have been given shows that the figure we should be looking at for an indication of the coverage of the scheme is not 11,000 low income families but in fact the 84,000 people who receive benefit which, as I think the honourable gentleman will agree, presents an entirely different picture. However, even in relation to this proportion of coverage my colleague has told me that he is not satisfied with coverage that has been achieved to date. He recently has taken steps to bring in a much simplified application form. He has taken steps to ensure that as well as the normal advertising and publicity that are undertaken in this matter, greater efforts are made by social workers, hospitals and people who have direct contact in this field. The main point I want to make is that the position taken by the honourable gentleman and picked up completely uncritically by all the Press around the country on the basis of what he says does not represent the true situation for the reasons I have given.

Mr Grassby:

– Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order in relation to 2 incidents which occurred at question time and seek your guidance.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member is out of order if he wants to raise a point of order in such a context. He should have raised it at the time.

Mr Grassby:

– I deferred as a matter of courtesy.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member is out of order. He will resume his seat.

page 1529

COMMONWEALTH BANKING CORPORATION

Mr SPEAKER:

– Pursuant to statute I present the report and financial statements of the Commonwealth Banking Corporation, Commonwealth Trading Bank of Australia, Commonwealth Savings Bank of Australia and Commonwealth Development Bank of Australia together with the Auditor-General’s reports thereon for the year ending 30th June 1971.

page 1529

AUSTRALIAN INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT GRANTS BOARD

Mr ANTHONY:
Minister for Trade and Industry · Richmond · CP

– Pursuant to Section 38 of the Industrial Research and Development Grants- Act 1967 I present the Fourth Annual Report of the Australian Industrial Research and Development Grants Board for the year ended 30th June 1971.

page 1529

AUSTRALIAN MEAT BOARD

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

– Pursuant to Section 41 of the Meat Industry Act 1964- 1969 1 present the Thirty-Sixth Annual Report of the Australian Meat Board for the year ended 30th June 1971, together with financial statements and the report of the Auditor-General on those statements.

page 1530

AUSTRALIAN CANNED FRUITS BOARD

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

– Pursuant to Section 36 of the Canned Fruits Export Marketing Act 1963-1970 1 present the FortyFifth Annual Report of the Australian Canned Fruits Board for the year ended 31st December 1970, together with financial statements and the report of the Auditor-General on those statements.

page 1530

AUSTRALIAN ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION

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

– Pursuant to Section 31 of the Atomic Energy Act 1953- 1966 I present the nineteenth annual report of the Australian Atomic Energy Commission for the year ended 30th June 1971 together with the financial statements and the Auditor-General’s report on those statements.

page 1530

COMMONWEALTH RAILWAYS

Mr NIXON (Gippsland - Minister for

Shipping and Transport) - For the information of honourable members I present the financial statements on Commonwealth Railways operations for the year ended 30th June 1971.

page 1530

SOCIAL SERVICES ACT

Mr WENTWORTH:
Minis ter for Social Services · Mackellar · LP

– Pursuant to section 148 of the Social Services Act 1947- 1971 I present the thirtieth annual report of the Director-General of Social Services for the year ended 30th June 1971. .

page 1530

GOLD MINING INDUSTRY ASSISTANCE ACT

Mr PEACOCK:
Minister for the Army · Kooyong · LP

– Pursuant to section 22 of the Gold-Mining Industry Assistance Act 1954- 1970 I present the seventeenth annual statement concerning the operation of the Act and the payment of subsidy during the year ended 30th June 1971.

page 1530

SCIENCE AND INDUSTRY ENDOWMENT FUND

Mr PEACOCK:
Minister for the Army · Kooyong · LP

– Pursuant to section 10 of the Science and Industry Endowment Act 1926-1949 I present the report of the

Auditor-General on the accounts of the Science and Industry Endowment Fund for the year ended 30th June 1971.

page 1530

SERVICES CANTEEN TRUST FUND

Mr PEACOCK:
Minister for the Army · Kooyong · LP

– Pursuant to section 34 of the Services Trust Funds Act 1947-1950 I present the twenty-third annual report of the trustees of the Services Canteens Trust Fund for the year ended 31st December 1970, together with the report of the Auditor-General on the books and accounts of the Fund as required by section 35 of the Act.

page 1530

NATIONAL CAPITAL DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION

Mr HUNT:
Minister for the Interior · Gwydir · CP

– Pursuant to section 24 of the National Capital Development Commission Act 1957-1960 I present the fourteenth annual report of the National Capital Development Commission for the year ended 30th June 1971 together with financial statements and the Auditor-General’s report on those statements.

page 1530

AUSTRALIAN TOURIST COMMISSION

Mr HOWSON:
Minister for the Environment, Aborigines and the Arts and Minister in Charge of Tourist Activities · Casey · LP

– Pursuant to section 29 of the Australian Tourist Commission Act 1967 I present the fourth annual report of the Australian Tourist Commission for the year ended 30th June 1971 together with financial statements and the Auditor-General’s report on those statements.

page 1530

DEVELOPMENT OF URBAN LAND AREAS

Discussion of Matter of Public Importance

Mr SPEAKER:

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

The need to create joint Commonwealth-State planning and development commissions in each State to acquire substantial tracts of land in urban areas, particularly on their fringe, to hold it in public ownership and to develop it on a leasehold basis.

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

Mr UREN:
Reid

– 1 do not think that I overstate the case, but I believe that all honourable members in this House are proud of Canberra. We may have our criticisms, but Canberra is one of Australia’s finest achievements. However, I question why we have not repeated our achievements in other parts of Australia. Why do we hide behind the pretence that it is a State responsibility to develop our cities - whether they be capital or provincial cities or country towns? Why is it in a land such as ours that young people are unable to acquire a block of land at a price within their economic means, to build a house and to raise a family? Why is land available in Canberra at a reasonable price, but at a prohibitive price elsewhere? Why is there a crisis in land prices? That crisis varies from city to city and from State to State but the price of land is at crisis level in Sydney. Perth and Melbourne, and it is moving upwards in other capital cities and in provincial and regional areas. lt is difficult to ascertain any official Government statistical data but I have been able to obtain from the research service of the Parliamentary Library a table showing movements in index numbers of the average cost of land on which houses have been financed under the War Services Homes Act compared with movements in index numbers of average weekly earnings. The table covers the period from 1949-50 to 1969-70. With the concurrence of honourable members I incorporate that table in Hansard.

  1. New series.
Compiled at request by the Commonwealth Parliamentary Library Legislative Research Service from ' information (i) obtained from the War Service Homes Division of the Department of Housing and (ii) contained in issues of the Labour Report and Average Weekly Earnings, published by the Commonwealth Bureau of Census and Statistics. An examination of the table shows that, using 100 in 1949-50 as the base, the average cost of land in New South Wales on which dwellings constructed and financed by the War Service Homes Division rose to 1,261 in 1969-70. The average weekly earnings in this period rose from a base of 100 to 392. The price of land in New South Wales rose 3 times as much as average weekly earnings rose. This is a conservative estimate, because land in the community generally averages much more in cost than land used by the War Service Homes Division. In Western Australia War Service Homes land rose from 1.00 to 1,028, which is 2£ times greater than the increase in earnings. Only one State, Tasmania, showed a similar rate of increase in land prices and average weekly earnings. Recently 2 private organisations have made a survey of land prices: The Economic Research Department of the Housing Industry Association, located in Melbourne, made a survey which it called: 'A Study of Land Costs in Australia'. Also the Australian Institute of Urban Studies, which is located in Canberra, recently held a seminar on the price of land. The Housing Industry Association report in August 1971 reveals* 'Broad acre prices in the Sydney area increased by 350 per cent between 1959 and 1969'. The report also reveals that the average selling price of land in Sydney rose from $3,200 in 1960 to $8,000 in 1970. That is an increase of 150 per cent. I might add that the average price of land in Sydney now is between $7,800 and $8,000 a block. In Melbourne the average price rose from $3,000 a block to $4,700. The report gives details of the increased price of land in suburbs of Sydney. In Penrith in 1969 a block of land cost $2,500 and in 1971 it had increased to $6,000, an increase in 3 years of 140 per cent. At Blacktown during the same period the price of a block of land rose from $3,300 to $6.500- an increase of 97 per cent. In Campbelltown during the same period it rose from $2,800 to S7.50O - an increase of 1 68 per cent. 1 speak now of my own experience. I acquired land 2 decades ago at Guildford, near Parramatta, where I still reside, for $224. It would cost at least $7,500 to purchase a block of land in the same suburb today. Let me now examine certain details revealed in the report of the Aus tralian Institute of Urban Studies in relation to land in Perth. Quoting from the Mccarrey *report, the* Instil Institute's report said: >Between 1956 and 1967 the average price of building lots in 4 diverse areas of Perth rose by 351 per cent (15 per cent per annum compound), 360 per cent (15 per cent), 443 per cent (17 per cent) and 402 per cent (16 per cent) respectively. Over the same period the minimum weekly award rate for adult males rose by 40 per cent (3 per cent compound). Members of the task force which compiled the report of the Australian Institute of Urban Studies had diverse interests. Of them the President of the Institute, **Sir John** Overall, said: >A group of responsible men from different States and diverse fields met on a pressing urban problem. **Sir John** commended their decision for careful attention. Members of the task force were Professor R. C. Gates of the University of Queensland, **Mr D.** P. Cartwright, Director of the Australian Institute of Urban Studies, **Mr C.** S. Dyson, past President of the Real Estate Institute of New South Wales, and **Mr V.** E. Jennings, Managing Director of A. V. Jennings Industries (Australia) Ltd of Melbourne. Two aspects of their findings relating to a programme of action and acquisition of land are worth quoting. The report stated: >The authority should acquire well in advance large areas of raw land suitable for future urban development. By acquiring well in advance the authorities would probably be able to get the land at prices not much greater than rural values and without having recourse to resumption. Land thus acquired would normally be held until ripe and then disposed of to private subdividers on suitable conditions; but if private subdividers are not satisfactory in price, *timing and quality, the* public authority should reserve the right to subdivide and sell the land. A further programme of action was proposed in these words: >To relieve the pressure on land prices, transportation systems and central facilities in all the capital cities, strategic planning should concentrate on the development of major new centres which are substantially or wholly self-contained. Some of these would be close to the existing cities, but others might be distant from existing cities. I ask the House to examine this programme of action and to compare it with Labor's proposals. Before setting out our proposals let me give honourable members some details of the great financial strain on young people, particularly in Sydney, although the interest burden is the same throughout Australia. If a young couple was able to acquire a block of land for $7,500 - I have already said that the average price of land in Sydney is nearly $8,000 - after paying 10 per cent deposit and paying the remaining $6,750 at an interest rate of 13 per cent over 7 years at monthly repayments of $122.81, the total repayment would be $10,316.04. In addition local government and water and sewerage rates over 7 years would amount to at least another §1,000 and then there are legal fees as well as the $750 deposit. As a result the cost would exceed $12,000 before they commenced building a home. Let me turn to Labor's proposals. Labor will work in co-operation with State and local authorities, lt will encourage those bodies wherever possible to retain all land now vested in their authority - retain it in public ownership. When the land is to be developed it would be developed on a leasehold basis. Labor would create a joint Commonwealth-State planning and development commission in each State to acquire substantial tracts of land, particularly on the fringes of all capital, provincial and regional areas. We do not accept the suburban sprawl of the capital cities, with poor service and no cultural or aesthetic living. We do not accept economic slavery for the young who purchase land financed through the fringe banking institutions at 13 per cent interest. I know conservative elements, as well as the establishments that are making huge profits, regard the centralised overgrowth as a natural, unavoidable, international phenomenon. That is nonsense. London for nearly 30 years, Stockholm and many other cities in Europe have limited central development and controlled suburban development and sprawl. Hugh Stretton in his book 'Ideas for Australian Cities', when speaking of Sydney said: >There would* be clear advantages in building the next city centre, for the next million or two, somewhere else. That won't happen 'naturally'. Nor can government simply regulate !he citizens to new directions; it has to entice them. It must buy land for new centres, design competitive attractions in them, build strategic parts of them, launch them with public employments, and offer all the private investors and home buyers some real city life, as well as cheaper, more attractive, more profitable, more various options of betterservice land than the 'natural' growth of congested old centres can offer them. I agree with Stretton. I agree with the distinguished members of the diverse group in their programme of action set out in the recent report of the Australian Institute of Urban Studies. Labor will build our BelconnensBelconnens of Canberra on the fringes of our capital cities, provincial and regional areas with all the cultural, educational, social, recreational, aesthetic, industrial and commercial aspects. A joint CommonwealthState development commission would also identify a number of sites for new cities and proceed with their development to provide effective decentralisation of development, to arrest the depopulation of the countryside and to slow up the growth of our major cities. During the parliamentary recess I was overseas, and I saw what has been achieved at Tapiola on the outskirts of Helsinki in Finland. I have seen what has been achieved in Stockholm. I saw what has been achieved by the New Towns Commission in England under both Conservative and Socialist governments. What has been achieved there can be achieved here. We have our blueprint; we have Canberra. We are proud of Canberra and we want to build other Canberras in other places of Australia. I now quote from a document headed 'Report on Selective Decentralisation' by the Development Corporation of New South Wales - a government organisation. Its report said: >The planning of urban growth: There is considerable evidence to suggest that, if the land were publicly acquired and retained in public ownership, the development of growth centres, whether by way of the expansion of ' existing provincial centres or the creation of new Cities in their own right, could be a not unattractive public investment. And this would be so on economic grounds alone, quite apart from considerations of public benefit and State development policy. In the few moments which I have left I will refer to a newspaper article which my colleague the honourable member for Robertson **(Mr Cohen)** has just made available to rae. It refers to the spiralling land costs on the central coast of New South Wales, which is in his electorate. The article appeared in the 'Gosford Star' of 15th September 1971. It points out that the price of land in that area has increased by 66 per cent in one year. The Commonwealth Government should, co-operate with the State Government and the local government authorities and create on the central coast of New South Wales the cultural and all the other aspects that are to be found in Canberra. We want more BelconnensBelconnens and if we create them we will make Australia a better place in which to live and people will be able to enjoy their lives - not merely exist. This is what a Labor government will do. It is long overdue under this Government. {: #subdebate-34-0-s2 .speaker-JTS} ##### Mr Kevin Cairns:
Minister for Housing · LILLEY, QUEENSLAND · LP -- One would almost have thought that the light on the hill had been spied once again by the honourable member for Reid **(Mr Uren).** Of course, it has been spied in the past but it has receded into the distance. The honourable member for Reid presumes to have discovered it. As I read once again the terms in which the matter of public importance has been framed it is intriguing to recollect the principles which have guided the formulation of these terms. There is no doubt that in matters of social content, if one rustles the pages once or twice the moths come rushing out. The pages have been rustled with respect to this matter of public importance and the moths which have rushed out deserve to be examined. The honourable member for Reid, on behalf of his Party, has proposed the formulation of a land policy on the fringes of the cities of Australia which would mean that three things would occur. Any market which was developed in relation to land in those areas would be a Canberra determined market; it would be determined in the central city here. The nature of the services which would be appropriate to such land would be determined in Canberra. The nature of the market which would be determined would have little relationship to the experience of those people who have bought land and who continue to buy land in the capital and provincial cities of Australia. If the honourable member for Reid had examined more closely two of the documents from which he quoted he would have seen that in fact they disprove his thesis. Both the report of the Housing Industry Association and the report of the Australian Institute of Urban Studies demonstrate one clear principle, that is, that local market conditions determine the market prices for land: so much so that the Australian Institute of Urban Studies was quite careful not to indicate that land ought to be acquired through determinations made in Canberra. The Institute, in its very quickly compiled report, illustrated a number of conditions which might be applied in order to make the local market freer. An examination of those conditions makes it perfectly clear that most of them- in fact all of them - are completely within the responsibility and power of those who have charge of land in local areas. If the honourable member for Reid had gone a little further he would have seen that this is demonstrated not merely through' the distribution of power in Australia but also through the fluctuations in costs. I refer him once again to the report of the Housing Industry Association. On page 4 of that report - and this was referred to indirectly - it is made clear that there has been a significant rise in land costs in most of the capital cities of Australia; in fact, in all of them. What the honourable member for Reid has failed to understand is that these variations in costs have occurred with respect to two principal determinants. The variations have been from city to city and within each city. Variations in costs have been different in respect of low, medium and high priced lands. A number of markets has been determined in each city, and it is in response to those markets that people have paid prices for land. The honourable member for Reid has put forward an urban land nationalisation project. If these matters were to be determined in Canberra and if his proposition were the one which was the most appropriate for Australia, let him explain, for example, how in Perth, where there was a very significant rise in land costs during the late 1960s, there was a variation in land prices and how, in some cases, there was an absolute decrease in land prices. Let him then ask the question: How was this engineered? How did it occur? Would it have occurred if the vital decision had been made here in Canberra? Would it have been determined by some Minister for Urban Affairs and Environment? The honourable member for Reid would love to have control of the whole of the environment and be advised, as he said, by a public servant here in Canberra. Common sense indicates that that would not have caused the variation in land prices which, for example, occurred in Perth. The variation in land prices occurred because a freer market was established and because the basic positions of supply and demand with respect to urban land were varied in that city by those who have the power and responsibility to do so. I am not one who would seek to impose upon that kind of situation a power which is determined, administered and calculated from the central capital city of Australia. I suggest that is centralism gone rather mad. 1 do not think that the honourable member for Reid has really read or understood the report of the Australian Institute of Urban Studies, because basically it was not a centralised document. From a reading of the summary of the proposals in the report he would realise that all the proposals made in relation to land were made in order to influence the local market to which the report referred. I refer to page 53 of the document which contains a series of 7 proposals. In not one of the proposals is it stated that Canberra, as the determinant capital city, should be predominant. I will reiterate the principles which guided the men who produced this task force report on land development. I refer to the summary, which is a fair summary of the conclusions of their investigations. {: .speaker-EE4} ##### Mr Uren: -- You want to read paragraphs (j) and (k) of the report which refer to Their Programme of Action'. {: #subdebate-34-0-s3 .speaker-KGA} ##### Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Hallett:
CANNING, WESTERN AUSTRALIA -- Order! Interjections are out of order. {: .speaker-JTS} ##### Mr Kevin Cairns:
LILLEY, QUEENSLAND · LP -- I can imagine why the honourable member for Reid is upset. When one looks at some of the land transactions which have occurred in a number of local authority areas in Sydney, in which his own Party and his friends have power, one can see that there is quite a deal that he might well wish to avoid; quite a number of questions which he hopes will never be answered. However, the report of the Australian Institute of Urban Studies asked, first of all, that there be a real demand determined at least 10 years in advance - not determined in Canberra. It asked for co-ordinated planning by the suppliers of utilities and amenities. It asked for significant variations in rezonings. It also asked that the distorting and disruptive influence ot artificial demand, the withholding of land and similar practices, be excluded. In this regard the report instanced a number of measures which might be considered and adopted. It referred to holding taxes, betterment levies and so on. It suggested that a continual campaign should be undertaken to reassure land seekers that plenty of serviced lots will be available. We have the experience of variations which have occurred in other capital cities. It asked that the private sector development should be facilitated. How different that is from the proposition made by the honourable member for Reid. It also asked that the integrity of the pattern of metropolitan growth be preserved by ensuring that the non-urban regions remain inviolate. I ask: Are all these matters to be determined in Canberra, or are they to be determined by those authorities which are elected locally and which know the conditions appropriate to each market? The philosophy of this study has been to influence and develop a completely free local market in respect of land. In some cases .in Australia it has sought to do that. Other matters ought to be discussed also. The honourable member for Reid has said that the Commonwealth Government is not interested in the problem of the high interest charges to borrowers. I do not think that the honourable member understands that the Commonwealth is at this moment in. the process of bringing into legislation a new Commonwealth-State housing agreement which will give far greater, assistance to State authorities, cooperative terminating societies and other organisations. A substantial proportion of these funds will be used by public authorities to buy land. The honourable member is upset, and he ought to be upset, because the benefits to be given by the Commonwealth Government to these societies in respect of these new arrangements are many times greater than any of the parsimonious assistance in respect of public authority housing through land acquisition which was ever contemplated by a Labor government. So, I repeat, the honourable member ought to be upset. After all, the performance of his own party in respect of these matters has been significantly below par. The proposition put by the honourable member for Reid amounts effectively to nationalisation of land. To buy the land at the fringes of the capital cities would require an amount of money and resources which he dare not contemplate. Even if that money were acquired for such purposes, even if it were to be subvented for such purposes, there is no indication that that would strike at the very heart of what would arise in regard to land prices. I refer to the very nature of the market itself. Let mc quote some rather selective passages from the Housing Industry Association report to which the honourable member referred. Page 10 of the report reads as follows: >Public acquisition could not achieve significant economies as holding charges would be heavy and any suitable land would already have a potential value built in which would have to be taken into account in any fair acquisition. Honourable members opposite seem to be blind to the substance and the soul of the document to which they refer. {: .speaker-EE4} ##### Mr Uren: -- Which report is that? {: .speaker-JTS} ##### Mr Kevin Cairns:
LILLEY, QUEENSLAND · LP -- I am referring to the Housing Industry Association report to which the honourable member referred. So I go to the very substance of the matter to which the honourable member referred, which is the philosophy behind those advisers which he would take unto himself. Let me refer to one final thing. In all of the matters concerning land prices there is a local market characteristic and an interest rate characteristic. The Commonwealth Government has directed itself to the latter factor. A third factor relates to the costs of supplying services in a continual and efficient manner for such an allotment. If the honourable member for Reid has a new environmental proposal by which he would like to control the whole of the environment - he said this - I ask him: Can his own Labor local authorities demonstrate that their servicing requirements are more equitable than those of other local authorities? I refer him to some of the local authorities in the west of Sydney and to a Labor local authority in Queensland which is the largest in Australia - the Brisbane City Council. At the present time protests in respect of land are being made against ordinances of that Labor local authority by both the Queensland Housing Commission and the Queensland branch of the Commonwealth Department of Housing. They are protesting because the servicing requirements will add very significantly to the costs people will have to pay for land in those areas. So where the honourable member's own party has significant authority and power to determine local markets, all is not well. I can well understand his moving this proposal for discussion. I suggest that it is an expression of no confidence in his own party which has significant power with respect to all of these areas. The honourable member for Reid referred to a number of other points which time will not allow me to reiterate. The nature of land which is supplied locally has to be understood. If the nature of the market is to be interfered with it ought to be interfered with to the advantage of purchasers of land. If the honourable member is going to criticise even indirectly, by means of this motion, his party's local authorities, which have power in the relevant fields, let him do that explicitly, but let him not do it by proposing a matter in this House which would amount to - I say this very sadly - an effective nationalisation of land in Australian cities. {: .speaker-KGA} ##### Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Hallett: -- Order! The honourable member's time has expired. {: #subdebate-34-0-s4 .speaker-KEI} ##### Mr KEOGH:
Bowman -- This afternoon we have listened to a typical address by the Minister for Housing **(Mr Kevin Cairns)** in reply to the motion of the honourable member for Reid **(Mr Uren).** I say 'a typical address' because over the years we have come to expect the old Red bogy tactics to become apparent immediately he gets on his feet to speak. This afternoon was no exception. Unfortunately, at the outset of the remarks of the honourable member for Reid the Minister for Housing heard what he could interpret only as an act of a socialistic government and, obsessed by this thought of socialism, and seeing again the old Red arrows coming down from Asia as they do when we talk about external policies, he became so possessed by this that he was not in a position to pay attention to the rest of the remarks made by the honourable member for Reid. The Minister was so far off the beam in his assertion that the Australian Labor Party proposed to control all land in the areas that we seek to develop and land in the cities mentioned in the motion this afternoon, that I must take up one of his points. All that the Labor Party seeks to do in the acquisition of large areas of land in the developing areas of the cities and towns is to provide for the needs of people requiring land in competition with the private developers - not sole control of the land availability in these areas at all, but in competition with people currently developing this land. We believe that the responsibility rests with the Federal Government, which alone has the means to make finance available to the States so that the States can acquire this land and, in turn, make it available for people to purchase for home building sites in terms of our suggestion for the setting up of a commission. But so much for the words of the Minister for Housing. The continuing interest and concern that the Opposition has shown in the problem of the complete lack of any joint CommonwealthState planning and development commissions that have been proposed are certainly not new. Our decision to sponsor the debate today was to highlight further the complete apathy of the Government to this problem which is nothing short of a national scandal. Even before the Leader of the Opposition **(Mr Whitlam)** assumed the leadership of the Labor Party he had commenced to work actively to' highlight the need for Commonwealth responsibility iti all matters associated with land development for residential purposes and its complementary problem of over-development in some of our capital cities. Our spokesman on urban affairs who opened the debate this afternoon, the honourable member for Reid has also taken up this matter on numerous occasions, such as today, and he has vigorously advocated a more realistic acceptance bv the Government of its ultimate responsibility to take the initiative and to seek co-operation and co-ordination in a national scheme for future land development in bur cities and towns. Probably, the first indication, of this Government's awareness that land COStS were a severe burden on so many and in so many areas of this nation was given soon . after the present Minister for Housing took over the portfolio. Tn Brisbane, on the occasion of the presentation of a housing grant cheque to mark the 200,000th payment under the Homes Savings Grant Act 1964-70, he said that the Federal Department of Housing would make a complete survey of land costs in all capital cities. He went on to explain, however, that this proposed survey would take 2 years to complete. He also said, and this may be taken as an indication of how appallingly out of touch with reality the Government is: >There is good reason to believe the price of residential land generally has risen substantially in recent years. When one considers a statement such as this, one appreciates the significance of the admission of the Prime Minister **(Mr Mc Mahon)** during question time in this House on Thursday 16th September, when he said: {: type="i" start="1"} 0. . this is an occasion when statesmanship is desperately needed in this country. When the Prime Minister realises that he is not in a position to provide statesmanship is it any wonder that the Minister for Housing, who occupies, I think, the lowly second last place on the list of Ministers of this Government, is unable to provide any leadership in solving the housing problems of this nation. No doubt the right honourable member for Higgins **(Mr Gorton)** was correct when he told students at the University of Queensland only last week: >It is about time Australia had a Liberal Party prepared to take on new policies. lt is all very well for the Prime Minister and his deputy to roam about the country talking in well sounding terms about the quality of life which their Government has developed for Australians. When it comes to any forthright Government action to provide for a genuine future quality of life, sadly they are always found' to be wanting. Of course, when the Opposition proposes that federal responsibility should be assumed for matters such as this the Government is ever ready to grasp the old argument and say that while it would be most anxious to take action this is really a State or local government responsibility, and as such must be left alone for fear of an infringement on States' rights. The Government will also quickly claim that there could be constitutional problems in our proposals. I agree that this argument has some merit. I do hot' intend to take time this afternoon to rebut it, but 1 simply say that there is a vast number of issues facing this nation's future prosperity and development that will sooner or later have to be overcome by a Federal Government progressive enough to sponsor a new constitutional convention between the States and the Commonwealth. The present arrangement of government responsibility and authority in land, as in many other matters, may have been ideally suited to the beginning of this century. It is totally unsuited to present day needs. The system of governmental organisation of our States, cities and local authorities, and the repertoire of roles available to the respective political leaders are designed for self maintenance, not change; for stagnation, not innovation. The structures and processes were designed for the attitudes and orientations of the slowly changing world of the 19th century. In today's world they are a blueprint for failure. I referred earlier to the announcement by the Minister for Housing of a Government sponsored survey of land costs in all capital cities. In his speech on that occasion he also made the statement that his Department estimated that between 1963 and 1969 the cost of residential land in Australian cities increased at an average of between 8 and 9 per cent a year. The Minister added, however, that the estimate was based on fragmentary data and had to be treated wilh reserve. Well, he was certainly correct in applying that qualification. His figures are far from correct. I have recently examined the report of the Housing Industry Association, prepared by its economic research department. This report was published in August this year and is titled 'A Study of Land Costs in Australia'. I submit that report is a reliable document and tells a totally different story from that told by the Minister. So much for the Minister's suggestion that land prices have increased at an average of between 8 and 9 per cent in recent years. The truth of the matter is that the report disclosed that the increase in land prices in Sydney over the decade from 1960 averaged 15 per cent a year and over the past 2 or 3 years the rises have been in excess of 20 per cent. In Melbourne over the last 10 years the average increase has been between 5 and 6 per cent, and more recently 10 per cent. In Brisbane, by comparison, in the same 10 year period the average increase was 5 per cent but this has recently risen to *12i* per cent a year. The report from which I have quoted also discloses that the relative increase has been greatest for low cost blocks in most areas because the cost of services is much the same whether the area is sought after or is of relative unimportance. The cost of services is the same for similar areas of land. The method of financing costs of services to residential land has in recent years undergone a gradual but important change. This has been due in no small regard to the changes that have been forced upon local, authorities by this Government. The Minister for Housing, representing the Government in this debate this afternoon, has sought to be critical of the Brisbane City Council and many other local authorities for passing on costs in the resale of their land to purchasers, but this has been forced upon them by the miserly attitude of this Government in refusing to permit local authorities to raise sufficient finance for the development of land areas. Whereas at one time they were dependent upon the Australian Loan Council for moneys for such undertakings, they have now had that avenue denied them. **Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Hallett)** Order! The honourable members time has expired. {: #subdebate-34-0-s5 .speaker-K7J} ##### Sir JOHN CRAMER:
Bennelong -- lt was really rather pitiful to hear the honourable member for Bowman **(Mr Keogh)** read his little prepared speech following on the information given by the honourable member for Reid **(Mr Uren),** but we have established here this afternoon one thing that I think is important to Australia, and certainly is important to this House. We have now a clear picture of what Labor Party policy is in relation to home ownership, housing and the development of land. The idea of the Labor Party is stated in the proposal for the discussion of this matter as one of public importance. I want to apply myself particularly to that because it is what members of the Opposition stand on. They all rose to support the proposal - even the Leader of the Opposition **(Mr Whitlam)** - so it is Labor Party policy. It reads: >The need tq create joint Commonwealth-State planning and development commissions in each State to acquire substantial tracts of land in urban areas, particularly on their fringe - I suppose they would take the lot if they could- to hold it in public ownership and to develop it on a leasehold basis. That is the idea of Labor members. What they want to do is set up more commissions in Australia - as if we have nol enough commissions. Labor wants to cure every problem by setting up a commission or an inquiry - anything that costs money. Have members of the Opposition any idea of how much these separate independent commissions in each State will cost to administer? Do they understand this at all? We already have a housing commission in every State but they want another commission. I have never heard anything so absurd and so ridiculous. The great pity about all this is that the honourable member for Reid - bless his soul, you know he is a very conscientious man - beieves what- he is saying, but he does not understand anything about it. That is the trouble; he just does not understand what it is all about. He believes he is right; he believes this is a cure for the problem, but this is the most absurd proposal I have ever heard presented to this House. Honourable members opposite do not seem to have any concept of the problem. I know that prices of land have gone up all over Australia and that they have gone up more in Sydney than in any other capital city. But I have not heard the honourable member for Reid offer any reason for this situation. I will tell the honourable member a few things about this. Honourable members opposite know that the Labor Party was continuously in power in New South Wales for 23 to 25 years. That Party set up the Cumberland County Council in New South Wales. It also established around Sydney a reservation ring called the green belt. This was supposed to be really good planning. Where is the green belt today? Does anybody know? When the Labor Party was in power in that State - and one cannot unscramble the eggs too quickly - it deprived the people of Sydney of the opportunity to develop and expand Sydney through the unavailability of land. When a few developers, the New South Wales Housing Commission, the War Service Homes Division and other bodies sought to build houses there was not a block of land left for the poor little citizen. There was not one block left. Those who had blocks could ask for any price they liked. The reason for high land prices in Sydney can be traced back to State Government interference in the first place and to the fact that there was insufficient land to meet demands. This is a very simple matter to cure. It could be cured by private enterprise without any government interference. Does the Opposition realise what it would cost to resume the land its members have referred to in every capital city of Australia? Does the Opposition know what it costs to develop land today? Do Opposition members know the difference between the cost of land a few years ago to the average person and the cost of land today? A few years ago councils and local government authorities got into this planning mood. In developing land they did not require the construction of roads in the way they are required today. They did not require kerbing and guttering, the extension of water supplies, the availability of sewerage or the provision of gas or electricity. The costs for all these things now have to be borne by the developer who subdivides the land. Therefore there has been a complete change in the cost of land per block compared with a few years ago. Although I could speak for a long time in relation to this matter my time is limited in this debate. Honourable members on the other side have asked: As the Government has imposed this leasehold system and has acquired all the land in Canberra why is it unable to do likewise in the other capital cities? Could anyone imagine a more idiotic suggestion? Originally the Canberra district was a completely barren area with no development whatsoever. The surrounding districts consisted of grazing land. The Government decided to set up the capital city of Australia on this land. This is where the taxpayers' money would be spent to the extent of thousands of millions of dollars in the development of this city. The Government set about in this primitive area to develop Australia's capital. The Government has to own the land in this area. It has to have a leasehold system so as to acquire the increment on the capital value of the land. This is the only way it can be done. This system could not be applied to the Sydney metropolitan area where it has taken over 2 centuries to develop the city and suburbs. Sydney has been developed by way of investment savings on the part of individuals and they are the people who own the land. Honourable members on the other side have said that the Government cannot impose a leasehold system on some land owned by the Government and not apply it to other capital cities. The Opposition's scheme will not work unless the people of Australia are prepared to turn this nation into a Socialist state, whereby the government of the day would own the lot and would acquire every asset held by every person. It would then be a matter of ladling out what the government thought the people should have, as is done in Russia. If the Opposition's scheme is adopted we will have a Socialist state. Here we have today a complete indictment of the Labor Party that it is in favour of socialising and nationalising the ownership of land in Australia. It is almost unbelievable that the Opposition would seriously put forward this proposal. We all know that land prices have gone up, particularly in Sydney, because, as I mentioned before, of so much government interference in the long time that the Labor Party was in power in New South Wales. There has not been the same percentage increase - the honourable member for Reid has already indicated this from his own figures - in the price of land in Melbourne or in any other capital city in Australia because there has not been so much interference in Victoria and other States. {: .speaker-EE4} ##### Mr Uren: -- What about Perth? {: .speaker-K7J} ##### Sir JOHN CRAMER: -- Land prices in Perth increased because of other conditions but recently the price of land in Perth fell and it is still falling. People do not understand the reason for the high cost of land. The whole question of the cost of land is its availability. Do not let anyone forget that no-one can own a block of land for a period of 10 years or more, having paid the rates and taxes on it, without the cost to the owner doubling because you have to add at least 10 per cent per annum to the cost of the land for rates and taxes and unearned interest on the capital invested. People do not seem to understand this. People who have land on their hands have to get rid of it to get their money back. The price of land is determined by the availability of land. We can never cure the problem of rising land prices simply by expending government money to acquire all land. This method would not relieve the position in the way that members of the Opposition have indicated in this debate. {: .speaker-KGA} ##### Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Hallett: -- Order! The honourable member's time has expired. {: #subdebate-34-0-s6 .speaker-L6X} ##### Mr GARRICK:
Batman -- I support the honourable member for Reid **(Mr Uren),** who has raised this matter of public importance, on the need to create a joint Commonwealth-State planning and development commission as an urgent and desperate need. I might add that it is quite obvious from the remarks of the honourable member for Bennelong **(Sir John Cramer)** that he has -some fear about Socialism. It is a typical fear expressed by a person who has been an estate agent for many years. It is obvious that there is no relationship or co-operation between States or between States and the Commonwealth in regard to housing requirements. It is impossible to consider housing fully without considering the question of the use and price of land. This demand for land arises from the basic human need for the family to have a decent place in which to live. It is a predictable and growing demand because the struggle for a house of his own is a peculiarly Australian characteristic which the Australian Labor Party fully endorses but which is something that this Government allows land developers ruthlessly to exploit. In the Melbourne Age' on 19th May 1970 **Sir Henry** Bolte, the redoubtable Premier of Victoria, in reply to a question said: >The quality of life! It's peace of mind based on the home and the garden.' There is no doubt that a house of one's own, on a piece of ground, is not an unreasonable ambition of most Australians. But what hope do today's young people have of realising that ambition? They have about as much hope as they might have had in Governor Phillip's day. He, honourable members might recall, in a famous dispatch sent to Lord Sydney proposed: The land will be granted with a clause that will ever prevent more than one house being built on the allotment, which will be 60 ft in front and 150 ft in depth*. As it happened this suggestion was ignored, just as the requests by our young workers for a bit of this vast continent on which to build a house are being ignored today. The young people of today have very little hope of enjoying a house and garden. We are told that the average income in the community is now about $4,000 per annum, but in truth the majority of wage earners - about 70 per cent or more - earn considerably less than this. But there are not many blocks of land around Melbourne which this sum of money could buy. There is, however, land available at Werribee, near a sewage farm, about 30 miles from Melbourne that can be bought at about this price. Building blocks, selling for about $8,000 may be purchased at Heathmont, Bundoora and Sunshine. They are priced at twice the annual average gross income, and three times1 the annual income of the vast majority of Australian wage earners. Land presently being sold at Strathmore Heights and Waverley at prices in the vicinity of $12,000 is probably being bought at great sacrifice to the purchasers unless, of course, like land purchase at Kew, they have virtually unlimited access to future incomes. The situation is the same throughout the rest of Australia. It can be seen, that a young married couple on an income of $60 or $70 weekly, can be demoralised completely by the outrageously high prices being paid for a bit of ground on which to build a house, and the dreams and. expectations so much a part of home ownership. The situation that the average struggling Australian faces today is that the lowest price he has to pay for a block of land in an urban area represents 1 year's gross income or more, if he wishes to enjoy the benefits of urban living in areas far removed from basic services. If he wishes to enjoy the benefits of urban living, combined with amenities and services considered basic by the general consensus, he has to pay 3 or 4 times his gross annual income. These prices do not include the high interest charges which are fixed by this Government and which are inevitably forced on the average land buyer because his income is not enough to enable him to -accumulate enough capital to have a house of his own in which to rear his family. Land prices can be, and are, affected by supply and demand, private ownership and public decisions. The supply of land for home construction for Australian families is not unlimited. The land must be serviced with transport, it must be serviced with electricity and gas, and it must have easy access to community services such as shops, schools and hospitals. But even these services are not enough today, if the areas to be opened up are to provide a standard of life comparable with Canberra, for example. As I said earlier on, the demand for land is predictable. It is predictable because nearly everyone in this country wants to have a home of his own on a block of land. It is a desire that the Australian Labor Party supports, but which this Government allows land developers to ruthlessly exploit. It does this by enabling land developers to take advantage of rural land dodges, whereby they can buy land in sufficiently large quantities and to hold it long enough to make a very rewarding profit on selling. The depredations made on the Australian public by the land boomers in the 1880s and 1890s make unsavoury reading. The fact that many of Australia's largest, wealthiest and best-known families established their fortunes in these deals is a constant reminder of the excesses of the developers of those days. Some events in Melbourne not so long ago revealed that the land boomers' practice of buying land soon to be acquired for Government purposes is still extant. One wonders whether the time to hold an inquiry into the land development industry is not overripe. The Opposition, of course, believes in the public ownership of land. There is no doubt that the Australian people would support a move by the Government to retain all land now in public ownership, to progressively acquire the land held in private ownership and to develop it on a leasehold basis. The only people who would be unduly perturbed by such a move would be the land boomers and the speculators in land. The average householder is satisfied to enjoy the use value of his land and ' the security it offers and,- in general, he cares little for its exchange value. The reason for this is simple. Since the war, so much land has been forcibly resumed for social reasons that the householder is well aware of the temporary nature of his possession. lt is becoming increasingly apparent that Government decisions put profits into the hands of the developers. My colleague, the honourable member for Reid **(Mr Uren),** tells us, in his Fabian pamphlet 'What We Can Do', that Government investment in transport, roads, sewers and schools makes land valuable. He tells us that we should follow the example of a number of other countries, where privately-owned raw land is purchased by public development corporations, similar to the National Capital Development Commission in Canberra, which then develop the land and lease it to home buyers. This practice ensures that the benefit of public investment is not reaped by rapacious speculators. This practice is, of course, better than the striking of betterment charges, favoured by some authorities, to recoup some of the unearned increment in property values as a result of public actions. The Australian people want to have their own houses in their own gardens. They want to enjoy the multitude of activities that houses and gardens make possible. They want the privacy and the community that is not possible in flat life, - in high density living - unless we equate loneliness with privacy, and being an anonymous face in the street/with community. If we are to satisfy this reasonable demand of the Australian people, as a first step we must acquire the land and develop it on a leasehold basis. The question is not whether the supply of land should be regulated - it is already regulated by public decision - rather the question is to whose advantage should it be regulated. This Government permits the supply of land to be regulated by public decision, to the advantage of the developer and to the cost of the average Australian. For the benefit of the Australian people the Commonwealth Government should undertake responsibility for national planning and development, and for this purpose should set up a Commonwealth planning and development authority. The Australian Labor Party would do so. {: #subdebate-34-0-s7 .speaker-GH4} ##### Mr HUNT:
Minister for the Interior · Gwydir · CP -- This matter of public importance, which has been raised by the honourable member for Reid **(Mr Uren),** casts a reflection upon the ability of State governments to handle their sovereign responsibilities. Indeed it casts a reflection on local government generally. Many councils in Sydney are run by the Australian Labor Party. Let us consider one such council area - Blacktown - where the cost of surveying and servicing a block with sewerage, water, underground power and roads is $3,500. This is apart from the cost of the land itself. So it is understandable that the honourable member has some concern for the problem that exists in that region. However, one point on which the honourable member for Reid and I agree is that we have every reason to be proud of Canberra as our national capital city. Canberra was established under the Seat of Government Act and it was a LiberalCountry Party government which, in 1957, passed legislation to establish a statutory body to be responsible for the planning and development of the Australian Capital Territory. This statutory body was to be known as the National Capital Development Commission. It became operative in 1958 under the chairmanship of **Sir John** Overall. I join with the honourable member for Reid in paying tribute to **Sir John** Overall, his associate commissioners and, indeed, the officers of the National Capital Development Commission for the splendid planning programme they have put into effect. Every Australian has reason to be proud of the efforts of the National Capital Development ' Commission and of the Government's orderly development in this, our national capital. Canberra is known not only as the national capital but also as an important example of decentralised urbanisation. Canberra is fast becoming recognised on the world scene as a city which is putting into bricks and mortar plans to cater for growth without the real problems that usually attend growth. It has set out to reverse the trends being experienced in other major cities in Australia and in the world by planned urban decentralisation. It already has 2 new towns being settled, catering between them for about 200,000 people, with another new city, Tuggeranong, due to accommodate an additional 174,000 in 1974. A study was made of the investment in building and construction works by public and private sectors in New South Wales, Victoria and the Australian Capital Territory over a 5-year period ending in 1968. The survey assessed the value of buildings, houses, flats and other constructions and the value of water supplies, sewerage and road works completed. This data was then related to the population increase in each place. It was found that for every one person added to the population of New South Wales, $12,078 was spent on houses, other buildings, water supply, sewerage and roads. In Victoria, the cost was $10,517 and in the Australian Capital Territory where a complete urban plan operates, the cost was $8,506. Canberra is a first-class example of decentralised urbanisation which has produced a good environment and a pleasant place in which to live. If the concept of the honourable member for Reid has any real value surely the initiative for this should come from the States. The suggestion contained in this smacks of the old Socialist dogma. Here is an attempt to ride roughshod over the States. It does not take into account the responsibilities of State planning authorities; it ignores the sovereign rights of the States. State governments would surely view this proposal with deep concern, suspicion and alarm. I think they would look upon it as the idea of a centralised bureaucratic regime - acquiring land and holding it in public ownership to be State owned. I think it was a former member of the Opposition who said on one occasion that we do not want a lot of little capitalists in this country. I shall just leave that thought with the honourable member. . . I am surprised that there is not a greater awareness on the Opposition benches and indeed throughout the country as a whole of the need to develop decentralisation policies and also of the need to support States with rural orientated decentralisation policies. There, is a need for joint CommonwealthState co-operation. But the initiative must come from the States because the question of decentralisation to provide incentives for the establishment of industry in country locations is their responsibility. The suggestion is, of course, to build satellite cities under this programme on the fringes of the . urban areas - the major cities. Surely the fundamental objective should be to spread our population across Australia as much as possible rather than to encourage the continued strangling growth of areas, even though they may be on the fringes of our major capital cities. Resources should be allocated and measures should be designed to ease the pressure on our main major capital cities. Why encourage greater growth, traffic bottlenecks and environmental problems, the high cost of servicing generally unhappy environments for families and for children? Let us use our sense and our resources to develop the rural towns and the provincial cities because this is a sure way of easing the demand for land and reversing the trend of higher prices of land in the cities. The simple fact is that as cities become bloated as the suburban sprawl spreads, our country towns are getting smaller. I believe that we will ultimately ruin our own way of life. I believe it is absolutely imperative that the question of decentralisation should loom large in the minds of all people in this country. {: .speaker-KGA} ##### Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Hallett: -Order! The discussion is now concluded. {: .page-start } page 1543 {:#debate-35} ### CONSTRUCTION OF BRUCELLA VACCINE TESTING STATION, CANBERRA {:#subdebate-35-0} #### Reference to Public Works Committee {: #subdebate-35-0-s0 .speaker-3V4} ##### Mr CHIPP:
Minister for Customs and Excise · Hotham · LP -- I move: >That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, the following proposed work be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for investigation and report: Construction of a brucella vaccine testing laboratory, Canberra, Australian Capital Territory. The laboratory is planned to be erected on the site of the future National Standards Laboratory for the purpose of testing the efficiency of brucella vaccine manufactured by private enterprise for use in the vaccination campaign to eradicate brucellosis in cattle. The estimated cost of the proposed work is $870,000. I table plans of the proposed work. Question resolved in the affirmative.' {: .page-start } page 1543 {:#debate-36} ### NATIONAL SERVICE BILL 1971 (No. 2) {:#subdebate-36-0} #### Second Reading Debate resumed from 9th September (vide page 1007), on motion by **Mr Lynch:** >That the Bill be now read a second time. {: #subdebate-36-0-s0 .speaker-JO8} ##### Mr BARNARD:
Bass -- This is a machinery measure designed to reduce the period of national service from 2 years to 18 months. The substance of the Bill is contained in 2 sentences of the second reading address of the Minister for Labour and National Service **(Mr Lynch).** He went on to outline changes in the national service scheme which did not require legislation. The rest of his speech is padded out with a rambling discourse on the philosophy of national service and the Government's conception of the role of the Army. Not content with confining himself to the administrative matters within the ken of his Department, the Minister ranged broadly over issues of defence policy which surely fall within the jurisdiction of the Minister for Defence **(Mr Fairbairn)** who, of course, is absent from this debate this afternoon. Apparently the Minister does not see himself in the nuts-and-bolts cum jailor role which strictly speaking is all he and his Department are supposed to administer in national service. His speech was in many ways the speech of a de facto Defence Minister. All sense of demarcation and continuity of responsibility seems to have been lost in a Government which chops and changes its senior personnel so relentlessly and ruthlessly. At any rate the Minister made a series of sweeping assertions which warrant examination before I pass to the more pressing task of foreshadowing amendments the Opposition will move to this legislation in the Committee stage. He devoted much time to the national service and defence policies . of the Australian Labor Party. In the main he stated them accurately enough although one could cavil at the absence of context. But some of the comments the Minister passed oh these quite explicitly stated policies were most extraordinary. He said that Government and the Opposition both accepted compulsory military service in principle; neither was opposed to compulsion as such. However the Labor Party had adopted an approach to conscription which was rigid and dogmatic while the Government had adopted a flexible policy. Apparently it is rigid and dogmatic to oppose conscription except where Australian security is threatened; I would have thought this was neither rigid nor dogmatic because it allowed graduated response based on the degree and nature of the threat. However, according to the Minister, the Government was flexible in its approach because it wants conscription at all times and in all circumstances. How this can be interpreted as a flexibe approach beggars, I believe, the imagination; it seems to me to be both dogmatic and inflexible. The most charitable explanation for the Minister's confused terminology is that he got his parties back to front when writing his speech. He concluded this garbled analysis with the following remarkabe statement: >The Labor Party's attitude is one of rigidity; it is therefore inadequate and this is one of the lessons of history. He does not specify what is inadequate - the Labor Party, its attitude to conscription or its rigidity - nor is there any account of what lesson of history is referred to by the Minister. One would hope that he is not referring to the period when the last government of his own colour was in power during the Second World War. If be was referring to that period of history he will be quite familiar with the state of the defences of this country when the Curtin Government came to power. The Minister went on to say: it- That is the Labor Party - would use a force in the national interest only under threat of defence emergency. On the face of his words the Minister is saying that the Government would use the defence forces in the national interest in circumstances other than a threat to defence emergency. If I read the Minister rightly, he is criticising the Labor Party because it would use defence forces in the national interest only when Australia is threatened by a defence emergency. The Minister went on to say that this is because of 'dogma imposed on the Party from outside'. However, the Government's more flexibe approach would allow it to use the defence forces in the national interest in other circumstances, and for this reason conscripts are always needed. Perhaps the Minister did not intend these sinister overtones; perhaps he can explain this fuzzy thinking in his reply. If not, he ought to exercise this sore of pretentious and meaningless wordage from his speeches and concentrate on the bare bones of the legislation he is presenting to the House. The Minister went on to make the bland assertion that conscription was necessary because we could not get enough volunteers, even if we paid them more money. Again, this argument was put forward without a jot of evidence to support it, except that it did not work in 1964. He did state one concrete fact, that even in the difficult military market of the late 1960s it had been possible to increase the volunteer component by a thousand a year. This was achieved even though pay and conditions were inferior and in a period when the labour market was light and high selection standards were applied. It is worth while to look at the figures on Army manpower put by the Minister. In 1964 when conscription was introduced we had an all-volunteer army of 23,000 men. Now we have 44,000 men made up of 28,000 volunteers and 16,000 conscripts. However, with Vietnam over, the Government finds it can cut the Army by 9 per cent to 40,000. The Minister says that conscription was not introduced for Vietnam; however with Vietnam over, we do not need as big an Army. With an Army of 40,000 it has been possible to cut the term of conscription by 6 months; that is, the number of conscripts serving at any one time will be only 12,000. According to the Minister it was necessary for defence preparedness that Army strength be maintained at 40,000. Anything less would put our defence interests in jeopardy. There are aspects of the crude manpower analysis put by the Minister that cry out for clarification. He said that the volunteer element of the Army had been increasing in round terms at around 1,000 a year. This had produced a strength of some 28,000 men at 30th June this year. There seems no reason why, even under present Government policies, net recruitment should not continue al this rate or even higher. At the rate projected by the Minister it would take 12 years - that is, until 1983 - to bring the Army up to the level considered by the Minister as essential for defence preparedness. At present recruitment rates, which have many deficiencies, the need for conscripts would be progressively eliminated over 12 years. That is to say, without any positive initiative by the Government or action beyond what it is doing now, the conscript element would fade away. Even this target figure of 40,000 is rather illusory, because a substan tial percentage of it depends on conscription. These are the men who are absorbed in the administration and training of the conscript element of the Army. I do not know what percentage of the present force is absorbed in this way but any reasonable assessment would be at least 5 per cent. On this basis at least 2,000 of this 40,000 force would be in non-effective roles because of the need to train the conscript component. An all-volunteer army of 37,000 to 38,000 men would have the same effective fighting strength' as a mixed force of 40,000 volunteers and conscripts. On another projection, in 4 years time, in 1975 the volunteer strength of the Army would be 32,000 if present recruiting rates are maintained. The target level on present figures when discounted for the elimination of conscripts would be 37,000 to 38,000. Under these conditions if conscription were abolished the strength of an all-volunteer army would not be significantly below the target strength defined by the Minister as constituting defence preparedness. However, the Minister made much of the fact that 4,000 fewer men were needed now because of the changed situation from that which existed in 1964, when national service was introduced. To quote the Minister's jargon: "That the overall framework within which defence manpower requirements are determined should change is inexorable'. If this is the case, then there is no reason why these requirements should hot change again in the next few years. Accordingly, there is no reason why, once the dust settles from Vietnam, a peak requirement of 36,000 or even 32,000 may not be the norm of Army manpower requirements. On the figures I have quoted, it would be possible to form an all-volunteer Army by 1975 not significantly different from the terms of defence preparedness set out by the Minister. This could be done even with the present unsatisfactory rate of voluntary recruitment. If the present manpower patterns changed or Army standards' of selection were varied, it could be done even more quickly. Even on the Government terms, conscription will dwindle year by year - it must do so if the Government considers an army of 40,000 to be adequate - and the volunteer element is increasing at a rate of 1,000 a year from a base of 28,000. By the logic of the Government's policy the term of conscription should fall as the number of conscripts needed to fill the 40,000 ranks falls from 12,000 to 10,000 to 6,000 and ultimately withers away. This sort of examination exposes the falseness of the Government's argument that not enough volunteers can be found and that this country automatically is doomed if we do not have an army of 40,000 in 1972, 1975 or 1980. The point is that the Government has never seriously tried to form and maintain a volunteer army since 1964 when the imminent Vietnam commitment prompted a hasty resort to conscription. This has thrown the emphasis from the volunteer component of the Army where it should properly lie to the induction and training of conscripts. Regular soldiers have suffered from this distortion of priorities. Pay and conditions of members of the Army deteriorated at a quite alarming rate until the Government was coerced into appointing the Kerr Committee, not by regard for the military, but by a threatened revolt of a substantial section of its back bench. The honourable member for La Trobe **(Mr Jess)** who is keen to interject will remember only too well that I raised this matter in the terms of a motion before the Parliament to appoint a joint select committee of the Parliament to look into the pay and allowances of serving members of the Forces and other matters related to their conditions including housing for serving members of the forces, education and scholarships for the children of- those who are serving in the forces and the rehabilitation of ex-servicemen. The honourable member for La Trobe will remember very well that although the Government was not prepared to accept my motion, because of the attitude of those who at that time showed in this House that they were not prepared to tolerate these circumstances any longer and threatened a revolt, the Government introduced its own motion several days later. But the fact remains that the Government even had to be coerced into this. It was prepared to allow these conditions to apply, even though they had prevented proper recruiting. The Minister for Labour and National Service who has accepted the role of the Minister for Defence, as I pointed out when I commenced to speak on this matter, remains silent on these matters. And well he should, as should other members of the Government, because it is no credit to them that they have allowed the conditions of serving members of the forces to deteriorate and that, together with the question of the Defence Forces Retirement Benefits Fund, they have refused to accept their responsibility. The honourable member for La Trobe is very well versed in this matter. He knows that this was a matter of complaint and dissatisfaction among those already serving in the forces. We say emphatically that the Government has never really set out to provide for this country an army based on a system of voluntary enlistment. It is possible to obtain recruits for the Royal Australian Air Force and all the recruits needed for the Royal Australian Navy. Again the Minister for Labour and National Service, who has accepted the role of spokesman for the Minister for Defence in this matter, remains silent on the question of recruitment. One hopes that some of this hypocrisy which Government members indulge in when they speak in this House on the matter of conscription will be explained by those who refuse to accept their responsibility in relation to some of the more important aspects of recruitment of the defence forces of this country. One could speak at great length on this matter. Having had an opportunity to visit Army establishments or defence establishments in every State and to talk to those who are in a position of responsibility in relation to these matters I believe that a great deal of dissatisfaction exists within the Services. The responsibility for that dissatisfaction can be placed fairly and squarely at the door of this Government. Again I emphasise that since 1964 this Government has never seriously tried to form and maintain a volunteer army. Regular soldiers have suffered from this distortion of priorities to which I have referred. The Government thought it could let the pay and conditions of the Army drag behind the civilian workforce because it had the tool of conscription; it could make up any shortfall in volunteers by exploitation of the machinery of selective conscription. In short it made the conscript element the most important in the Army. This was dangerous folly in more ways than one. As I have pointed out it alienated volunteer soldiers. It introduced a large element of waste into the training of soldiers. It produced heavy social costs which do not show up in conventional accounting of defence spending; for example the cost of detecting and punishing offenders under the Act. Above all it induced Government lethargy in the need to stimulate a greater flow of volunteers to the Army. Instead of tackling the question of recruitment in a sensible way, the attraction of more volunteers was shuffled into the too hard basket. The Minister made a great deal of the statement of the Gates Commission in relation to an allvolunteer Army for the United States. He said that this had greaty influenced members of the Labor Party in their cry for an all-volunteer Army. The Minister went on to discount the significance of the Gates Commission report for Australia. Of course our manpower and employment patterns are vastly different from the. United States. The United States has a much larger pool of unemployment to draw on, though it must be conceded that the Government is doing its best at the moment to make up the leeway. Of course different situations exist in Australia and America and the conclusions of the Gates Commission cannot be automatically applied to Australian conditions. But the Commission's report has relevance to Australia nonetheless, not least because of its scathing account of this Government's failure to tackle the recruiting problem in the early 1960s. There is a very great lesson for Australia in what the Gates Commission has done; that is, analyse future manpower trends in the United States to see how the draft can be ended and what would need to be spent to form an all-volunteer army. It is remarkable that the Minister should have to refer to an American report for a comparative study of wage and labour conditions. This is the sort of manpower analysis using mathematical techniques and models which should be assayed by his own Department. We had no information on future population and workforce trends from the Minister beyond a vague reference to current research indicating that elasticity of supply of volunteers to our Army was lower than the United States. It is shameful that this should be the level of analysis the Minister brings to this problem, bearing in mind the statistical information and other resources available to his Department. In his concentration on the Gates Commission the Minister ignored the volume of research on military manpower research done in Australia. Two examples are the work done by **Mr A.** D. MacGuarr, a former systems analyst in the Department of Defence and **Mr Glen** Withers of Latrobe University. It is a blot on this Government that studies of this sort should be left to outsiders and that the Minister should have to use the Gates Commission as a yardstick. At the moment we just do not know what impact higher pay and better conditions would have on the flow of volunteers to the Army. We do know on figures used by both the Prime Minister **(Mr McMahon)** and the Minister for Labour, and National Service that in the difficult period from 1964 to 1970, net recruitment to the Army was at the rate of 1,000 a . year. Even in a period of relative affluence and high employment, even with a rejection rate of 2 in 3, even with Government discouragement of volunteers, it was possible to increase the strength of the volunteer component from 23,000 to 28,000 men. In the next few years we are unlikely to have the same prosperity and the same tight labour market. Moreover traditional patterns of labour and employment are changing and contracting. Recently the Minister introduced a scheme for rural retraining. This made the point that employment prospects on the land are diminishing. There is no reason why the Army with its emphasis on out-door life should not be appealing to workers who are forced off the land, particularly as better pay and conditions flow from the recommendations of the Kerr Committee. There seems, also, to be a real need for re-assessment of selection standards; the Army may no longer be able to enjoy the luxury of the high rejection rate it now applies. Remedial treatment of potential recruits whose literacy is not sufficiently high or who possess othe disabilities which could be corrected would produce more recruits. These techniques have been applied effectively in the United Kingdom and there is no reason why they should not be used here to increase acceptance rate of applicants for the Army. There is no reason why the present net rate of recruitment should not be expanded, perhaps even doubled to 2,000 or more recruits to the permanent strength of the Army each year. For the past few years the Government has wanted an Army strength of 44,000 to sustain a three-battalion task force in Vietnam. Its present pre-occupation is to maintain an army of 40,000, presumably to maintain one battalion or more in Malaysia and Singapore in accordance with its stubborn adherence to the discredited forward defence policy. It also clings to the conscript system on the very dubious ground that it provides defence preparedness. It is difficult to see how a mixed force of 40,000 volunteers and conscripts, with all the waste and effectiveness inherent in the conscript system, provides greater defence preparedness than an all-volunteer army of 34,000 which could be raised in 2 or 3 years. In terms of effective fighting manpower the 2 forces would be much the same. In terms of economic efficiency and elimination of wasteful spending and hidden social costs, the all-volunteer army would be vastly superior. The Minister made much of the need for a strong army which could be developed in adequate time should more immediate threats arise. It is -difficult to see what the Government means by an immediate threat; any immediate threat would arise from an outbreak of nuclear warfare which would be beyond the capacity of the Australian Army to influence. Any direct threat to Australia based on conventional weapons would have an intelligence leadtime of at least 2 years before it could be considered immediate. In any case the reconnaissance capability of the Air Force and the reconnaissance and protective shield of the Navy would be of much more crucial importance than the Army, whether volunteer or mixed, in the early stages of such a threat. There would be time to see the threat coming, assess it and prepare for it; it is not like the 50s and 60s of the last century when the eastern seaboard of Australia waited helplessly for the Russian Navy to appear off the coast. Any rapid expansion of the Army would depend on the permanent forces, that is, the volunteer component of the Army. If large numbers of men were to be trained quickly in response to such a threat it would matter very little that there were a few thousand conscripts in the ranks. Nor would it be of vital significance that there were men on the reserve who had been trained as conscripts some years earlier. The existence of the reserve and the Citizen Military Forces would not be of great significance in forming and training a major army to repell a threat of this size. I make no disparaging remarks about the CMF at all. I would like to deal with that in much greater detail at some time when it is more opportune to do so. I have great faith in the CMF to provide a cadre of trained NCO's in a time of national emergency. So the exitence of the reserve and the CMF is of no great significance. They would be swamped in the general mobilisation. In any case even with trained men who had served 2 years as conscripts the rate of retention of military training would not be particularly high. An example are the veterans of the previous national service scheme which ended in the late 1950s. I do not think anyone would seriously suggest that these men, now in their early and mid-thirties, could be recalled now in response to a threat and turned into effective fighting units in anything less than a year. Veterans of the present scheme would be in a better position because of the length and intensity of their training, but even so considerable retraining would be needed. The same would apply to the CMF; quite obviously it would need several months training to bring it to effective standards. For any major threat to Australia what the Minister calls the defence preparedness provided by a few thousand conscripts in the Army and the pool of trained men on the reserves would not be a decisive factor. For these and other reasons we will move in the Committee stages for an end to the operation of the Act from 1st January 1972. It seems it is not possible to repeal the Act earlier because of machinery provisions, otherwise we would try to end it immediately. Consequent on the acceptance or rejection of this fundamental amendment the Opposition will move 4 other amendments. The first is designed to provide exemption for conscientious objection on the basis of objection to a particular war. This has been put to the House by the Opposition on several occasions and there is no need for me to elaborate it here. The second amendment is designed to incorporate a new section into the Act which would establish a new procedure for dealing with conscientious objection cases. In short it would establish a uniform framework for hearing these cases throughout the whole of the Commonwealth. This proposal has been put by the Opposition on 2 previous occasions. The third amendment relates to the paroling of perons serving terms of imprisonment under the National Service Act either now or in the future. At present young men gaoled under the National Service Act are denied the provisions for parole given offenders against federal law by the Commonwealth Prisoners Act of 1967. This amendment would enable these young men to be considered for parole according to the law in the State in which they are imprisoned. Right to parole is at present denied to young men imprisoned for offences against sections 51 and 51 a of the National Service Act. The final amendment is designed to secure the release of the 3 men at present in prison under the Act - Charles Martin in Adelaide, Gary Cook in Perth, and Geoff Mullen in Sydney. If carried the amendment will end their terms of imprisonment from the implementation of the Act. These basically are the amendments that will be moved by the Opposition if the first amendment fails, that is, the amendment the Opposition believes should be carried to repeal this Act by 1st January 1972. {: #subdebate-36-0-s1 .speaker-K5L} ##### Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Cope:
SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES -- Order! The honourable member's time has expired. {: #subdebate-36-0-s2 .speaker-KKB} ##### Mr JESS:
La Trobe -- I endeavoured at the commencement of the speech by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition **(Mr Barnard)** to take some notes. He started off by stating that the Minister for Labour and National Service **(Mr Lynch)** when he introduced the Bill had given, in addition to details of the machinery involved in the Bill, a coverage of the strategic position and had taken over the role of the Minister for Defence **(Mr Fairbairn).** It would have been an extraordinary thing if the Minister when introducing the Bill had not given the reasons why the Bill was being introduced. But the Deputy Leader of the Opposition then went on to take 28 minutes in doing exactly the same thing and allowed 2 minutes to discuss the important amendments which the Opposition intends to move. There are certain points of his address I would like to mention. He made reference to me and to the inadequacy of the Government's treatment of the Defence forces. He stated that it was the Australian Labor Party, and he is right, which moved for a joint select committee into pay and conditions in the Services. He did not suggest that it had moved for that in conjunction with a joint select committee of inquiry into the Defence Forces Retirements Benefits Fund. {: .speaker-JO8} ##### Mr Barnard: -- I had moved for a joint select committee. {: .speaker-KKB} ##### Mr JESS: -- That is correct. I voted against it because as chairman of the Joint Select Committee on the Defence Forces Retirement Benefits Fund I have seen just how much is involved in inquiring into that matter alone and 1 would have thought a joint select committee into pay and conditions in the Services would not have had a chance of bringing down a report for a considerable number of years if it did the job that is necessary. I think the Government is quite correct in setting up an independent outside committee to inquire into this matter. I support it and welcome it. I do not want to go in detail into the other matters the Deputy Leader of the Opposition mentioned. He suggested that in view of the failure of the primary industry areas perhaps people in these areas could join the Army. I do not know whether this is now the policy propounded by the Labor Party for the rural areas hut it is an interesting one. He made mention of the Minister for Labour and National Service making some comments about Labor policy. The Minister was referring to the Launceston conference at which the Labor Party agreed that in the case of a national emergency it may introduce conscription. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition then said: 'Do not let him dare refer to the time when the Labor Party came into office at the commencement of the last war'. We got the old story about the death and glory boys, the fighters who fought for Australia's defence, those who in the 1930s had never opposed a Defence vote, those who bad . encouraged the defence of this country. These are furphies that should be clearly understood by the new generation of Australians who were not here then. Until 1939 it was the Labor Party which on all occasions had opposed expenditure on defence and if this country was in a parlous state it was because the Labor Party would not support defence expenditure. Let me refresh the mind of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition; perhaps he can remember. I quote from Hansard of 3rd November 1938 at page 1215 - let it be remembered that war was declared in September 1939 - when **Mr Holloway,** later a Minister in the Labor Government, said: 1 do not charge the Government with not expending enough money on defence; I make it clear at the outset that I think it is expending too much. When a government begins to expend on defence money which should be used for the internal development of the country, then, in my opinion, it is doing wrong. There is no need to sacrifice the living standards of the people for the sake of this panicky defence scheme. That was in 1938; we had general war in 1939 and how much did that cost us? He went on: >The Government is expending much too rapidly on defence. It is making plans for more than the adequate defence of Australia. I make no excuse for saying that That was said by one member of the then in-coming Labor government. I now turn to page 1095 on 2nd November 1938 when **Mr Curtin,** whom we have heard referred to, said: >Defence expenditure must depend entirely upon the conditions which prevail in the world from time to time. Obviously that must be the position. I say that any increase of defence expenditure after the Munich Pact so far as Australia is concerned appears to me to be an utterly unjustifiable and hysterical piece of panic propaganda. That was a magnificent speech given for the Labor Party in relation to recruiting and defence expenditure in 1938. Further, at page 1096 **Mr Curtin** is reported as saying: >That is so; they marked their own ticket, but they have now discarded that ticket in order to write a new ticket, much larger in volume, and I venture to say, not sufficiently justified to this Parliament or to the people. I believe that the greater part of this hysteria is based merely on a desire to provide a background for political maneouvring. At that time he was talking about defence expenditure. Further at page 1149, **Mr** Ward, another member of the Labor Party speaking less than one year before general war was declared, is reported to have said: >It is amusing to hear people say that we shall not give up New Guinea. To those people I would say that if it should become necessary to defend our Mandated Territory, they should defend it themselves. As far as I am concerned, all I can judge about the necessity for retaining New Guinea is that a handful of exploiters have got hold of the country, some interested in aerial transport, some in gold-mining, and some in the search for oil, which, according to reliable reports, has already been found. What magnificent speeches made by men who were looking after and at that stage debating the defence of Australia. A general war was declared in less than one year. 1 think that there is a great similarity here. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition is regarded by honourable members opposite - and I think by very few other people - as the Minister for Defence in a Labor government. Is he not saying *the* same thing, that there are no threats-., .nd no risks, that this is all make-believe, that there is no danger to this country, and that in any circumstances we will have 2 year's notice of any threat? Did we have 2 year's warning of Pearl Harbour? Did we have 2 year's warning of the situation when the Japanese came down? Has the Deputy Leader of the Opposition read the book published recently in which it was stated that it was only because the Emperor of Japan interfered that the Japanese did not come on to Australia. I wonder as to the sense of reality of members of the Labor Party in respect of defence. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition thinks that we can have an adequate army in the vicinity of 28,000 personnel, which is the level of the Regular Army at this stage. The Labor Party is saying that we do not need conscription; it proposes to move an amendment which states that conscription should be cut out in January of next year. Has the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, as a potential Minister for Defence, any idea how many effective fighting troops there would be out of an Army of 28,000 when there were deducted the logistic forces, the back-up forces, the reserves, the finance people, the ordnance people, the electrical and mechanical engineers and other technical branches of an army? He would be lucky to get 3 battalions, and possibly that would not cover the artillerymen, the signallers and the other forces which are necessary in a brigade group. If the Deputy Leader of the Opposition contends that this nation at this time should have an Army comprising this number of men, I think he is unaware of the situation which is confronting us. Although I may be accused of following the points made in the speech of the Minister for Labour and National Service I will refer to some of the threats and some of the problems which confront Australia. First, I refer to the Nixon Doctrine as stated at Guam in 1969, and its implications to East Asia and Australia. The Americans have said that they are pulling out of South East Asia. They have also said that they will honour their commitments and they will support the small nations in the area. We are in this area. It is an area of threat. 1 think that this is the area to which the threats of the world rr*:re moved; formerly they were in EuropeEurope The Nixon Doctrine said that the United States will help those nations which are prepared to help themselves. Are the Deputy Leader of the Opposition and the members of the Opposition, in the speeches they are now making, as a whole setting an example to the other small nations in South East Asia? ; Secondly, there is the developing military and nuclear power of China together wilh her history of helping subversion and insurgency movements throughout South East Asia. Perhaps now that the Labor Party has wooed China it is confident that there is no threat, that we can disband everything and that we now accept where our responsibilities and our friends are. I am not sure that the Australian people as a whole have yet accepted this proposition, and at some stage this may be something which will be put to the test. Then there is the problem of insurgency and turbulence which has characterised recent events and developments of South East Asia, extending as far afield as the Philippines and Indonesia. Does the Deputy Leader of the Opposition think that all the dangers, all the threats and all the problems in the small developing nations around us have been settled? Does he suggest that there could not be an incident or that there could not be a threat even from a second class power or a third class power? Does he think that we could meet that situation with 3 battalions? Does he think that we can call up members of the Citizen Military Forces and give them 3 months training or call up some volunteer army, when we have had no notice whatsoever, and that we can equip them and put them into the field to meet any force? I most certainly do not believe that. Then there is the future .development of Papua New Guinea as an independent nation. Does not the Deputy Leader of the Opposition think that there are some problems there? Does he not think that we may have to undertake some joint defence with Papua New Guinea? Does he not think that problems could erupt there and that we may even, in certain circumstances, have to play a part in which we may need forces to assist at that time? Then there is the intrusion of Russian naval units into the Indian Ocean. Does the Labor Party think that this is something which is good for the peace of Australia? Does the Deputy Leader of the Opposition think that these people will not and cannot interfere in the local politics of the smaller nations and that we in Australia should say: 'Well, there is nothing we can do about it; we have an Army of 28,000 and that is all we need'? I personally believe at this time that the Russians in this area will endeavour - they have endeavoured and will continue to endeavour - to create situations which might eventually bring danger to us. Does the Deputy Leader of the Opposition think that we will be given 2 years notice? I have never yet seen 2 years notice given of any war, and I think it is even less unlikely in today's circumstances. Then there is Australia's commitment to Malaysia and Singapore, and the validity of her policy of forward defence where nations wish the support which this can give. Are we to say to these nations: 'We are reducing our Army. We think that you have got to form a regional agreement, that you have to undertake your own defence. As far as we are concerned - one of the lucky countries - we are going to do less'? I think that the Labor Party is lacking in responsibility. I think it is thoroughly unaware of what is happening and of what could happen in this theatre of the world. There is a great similarity between the speeches being made by leading Labor men today and the speeches which were made back in 1938 when, as I said before, the Labor Party voted against and spoke against any form of preparedness and any improvement of the Army and the defences of this country. Thank God we were given 2 years notice. Have members of the Labor Party forgotten Singapore? Have they forgotten that recruits, with a few weeks training, were put into the front line? Is this their idea of defence? Is their idea, according to the Launceston Conference policy, that if an emergency occurs we certainly will have conscription? What will the Labor Party do? Will it send all the right wing unions up to the front and leave all the left wing unions back at the rear? That is all I can think at this time. Let us look at the position of Japan. Japan is moving throughout South East Asia. She is friendly with us at the moment and we wish to retain her friendship. But Japan is, without any doubt, starting to emerge as a military power. Politics in this field can change overnight. It may well be that because of trade or other circumstances the Japanese will decide on another role. Perhaps another political party may come into control in Japan. The Labor Party says: 'We see no need for concern. The war in Vietnam is over. The troops are coming home. Let us disband the Army and go into a volunteer force'. Returning to the question of a volunteer force, there may be some elements of truth in what has been said by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. If the Kerr Committee's report is as I think it should be, and if the report of the Joint Select Committee on the Defence Forces Retirement Benefits Legislation is as I think it should be and as I am hoping it will be, there may be an accelerated rate of recruitment into the Services. It may be possible, if threats do not occur and if the situation surrounding us does not deteriorate, that a volunteer army can be maintained in the vicinity of 40,000 members. But this is not possible overnight. At this stage the Labor Party is moving for the abolition of conscription by January of 1972. This is completely beyond reality. In my opinion those members of the Labor Party who apparently seem unconcerned about the defence of this country and unconcerned with the protection of our national heritage and our national responsibility are the ones who have moved for cutting out conscription. They are the ones who have moved that we should spend less on defence. They are the ones who say that we have no reason to care and no reason to be concerned. Yesterday or the day before the President of the Australian Labor Party in Victoria was involved with the Students for Democratic Society, who are against conscription and who appear to want only the complete wrecking of any defences in Australia. He was seemingly there awaiting a phone call to come when the Commonwealth police raided the headquarters in Carlton. What an example to the people of Australia! We have seen the situation where the Leader of the Opposition - in fairness, perhaps he was forced to do it - asked those people who had been conscripted to serve Australia, to mutiny, rebel and refuse to carry out orders. There is no doubt in my mind that the Australian Army, as far as its troops are concerned, has never been better served than it is today. Whatever the Deputy Leader of the Opposition says, there is no doubt in my mind that the Regular Army has not suffered through conscription. We have a one-army system. Both the national servicemen and the regular servicemen are happy and they have proved how effectively the system can work. If there bad been great concern about conscription there would have been a far greater response to the urgent national appeal by the Leader of the Opposition for mutiny in our troops. The national serviceman has been the finest type of serviceman this country has ever had. Tha regular serviceman has accepted him. At the present time we have an army of about 40,000 men. With conscription we have also behind us a reserve force of about 40,000 men who have done their 2 years service. Can the Deputy Leader of the Opposition tell me how in his man's army he is going to have gold rifles and gold spurs and everything except any force that could meet any situation? Can he tell me how he is going to obtain these. There are many things I would like to say about our requirements for defence. At the present time there is a need for us to face up to reality. To a certain extent we are on our own. We have said that we will support our national heritage and our national obligations. We have commitments under the Nixon doctrine to do more for our own defence. The days have gone when we could have an army of 28,000 men because we knew that any instant we could have the United States of America or the United Kingdom with us. Those days have gone. We hope and we feel confident that the United States will honour her commitments. We know that the United Kingdom may try to put a task force into this area. But these circumstances are all dependent on the situation at the time. I tremble at the thought of any situation that could arise in which perhaps there would be a delay in this aid coming to us and the whole continent of Australia and our other commitments were supported and defended by a brigade group of 3 battalions and an army of 28,000 men. 1 do hot support the amendments proposed by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. I think that being able to object to a specific war is ridiculous. It has never worked anywhere else and it will never work here. There is an obligation on the young men of this country to stand for the defence of this country and be prepared to play their part. I am sure that, if it comes to an election, whatever other failures the Government may have the people of Australia will respond to that one challenge. {: #subdebate-36-0-s3 .speaker-5J4} ##### Mr SCHOLES:
Corio -- We have heard an interesting, one-sided summary of history by the honourable member for La Trobe **(Mr Jess).** He quoted from some pre-war speeches by honourable members who were at that time on this side of the House. 1 remember one quote from a speech by the then Leader of the Opposition. **Mr Curtin,** in 1936 which was completely ridiculed by members of the Government of that day. The Minister for Defence in particular included references to the important need for Australia to develop air defences - that was not entirely backward thinking in 1936 - and to the fact that it was evident even at that time that Australia could not expect assistance from the United Kingdom in the event of any future war and would have to look elsewhere. The statements which we heard this afternoon from the honourable member for La Trobe in relation to the United States of America were very much like those of that day. The then Minister ridiculed the suggestion that the United Kingdom would not be able to come to our aid. The United Kingdom has always come to our aid and will always be there in the future, were the ringing words of confidence before this House. We now have the benefit of hindsight and we all know that that was not the fact. I think we all know in our hearts that the United States is going home from Asia and is going to stay home from Asia. It would be only in the event of a global war that we could expect the United States to come back into Asia in a military capacity. The events, in which Australia played a major part, involving the United States in the land war in Asia have cost us the future possible support of the United States in any defence situation. It is possibly significant that the present Prime Minister **(Mr Mc Mahon)** on Armistice Day in 1964, introduced national service in its present form. The night before in this Parliament the then Prime Minister, **Sir Robert** Menzies, had explained exactly why it was necessary and in fact critical for a 2-year period to be the minimum length of service. According to the Prime Minister, it took at least 6 months for recruit and corps training. Allowing for time for transfers, reassimilation and leave, it was necessary that a 2-year period be fixed in order that a minimum of 12 months effective service be provided to the Army by the national servicemen. If that was true in 1964 1 would be interested to know why it is not true today. It seems to me that if we are going to reduce the period by 6 months some real reasons should be given why and how this can be done without actually reducing the effective period of service of national servicemen. We are all aware of the real reason why the reduction is taking place, and this makes the speech of the honourable member for La Trobe the most cynical of speeches. The reason why the 6 months reduction is taking place is that the Government could not finance its defence expenditure with a 2-year period of national service and found that the cheapest and easiest way out was to reduce the period, by 6 months, to 18 months, lt is purely a budgetary reduction in the period of national service. That budgetary reduction, when 6 months can be cut off the period purely to satisfy the political requirements of drafting an annual Budget, shows just how seriously the Government treats the need for national service in our defence system. The honourable member for La Trobe made a number of other statements. He referred to the placing of forces in Singapore. He did not refer to the fact that in J 941 the forces were placed there without the benefit of air support and were placed there in a practically defenceless situation and, because of the manner in which they were supplied, were virtually in a suicidal position. We obtained no benefit whatsoever from that piece of forward defence, and if anyone can stand up in this House and suggest that that was in Australia's best interests I would like to hear him. The primary amendment moved by the Opposition would have the effect of concluding the national service scheme and I think it is fair to say that that is the major object of the Opposition in this debate. I believe it is academic to argue whether a professional army of 28,000 men is as effective as or more effective than an army consisting of 28,000 professional soldiers and 12,000 national servicemen who, if the former Prime Minister's words are to be believed, have an effective service life of 6 months. I would suggest that this changing of personnel must have the effect of diluting the effective strength of the service. The honourable member for La Trobe has suggested that China has the atomic bomb and therefore it is necessary to have 12,000 extra men. I am not exactly sure how 12,000 national servicemen will stop atomic weapons from being utilised or being effective in a war. I am quite sure that if we did face a situation in which China had the transport capacity to challenge Australia in a war 12,000 men would not make a great deal of difference. Transport capacity would be about the only real criterion involved. The other important matter which comes into this debate is that of conscientious objection and moral obligation. There appears to be on the Government side some suggestion that 20-year olds have a moral obligation to serve in the armed forces because the defence of the country is involved. There is no moral obligation placed on those persons who engage in business and commerce and there is no moral obligation placed on any section of the Australian community other than those male persons who are or will in the future reach the age of 20 - and possibly their wives, mothers and fathers. If morality is the question then where is the morality in choosing a significantly small proportion of the community to carry the entire burden of defence or, as the honourable member for La Trobe put it, effective defence because - if his speech means anything - we have ineffective defence' if we have only 28,000 men. It is necessary, according to the Government, that 12,000 young men should spend 18 months in the Army in order to provide us with effective defence. The fact is that this could destroy their future career opportunities. I recognise that there are provisions which require that they be given back their jobs after they return to civilian life. These provisions are not really effective and it is not very difficult for employers to get around them. In normal circumstances we can expect, especially with young men who are seeking promotion in the major companies and in fields of business, that other people who have not had to take up service will have had the opportunities during those 2 years and will have taken the advancement which should have been available to the national servicemen. In those fields opportunities are not lost for 2 years, they are lost forever. I have a case before me at the moment of a young man who has recently commenced operating a one-man business. He has been called up for national service, and irrespective of what deferments he obtains and how long they extend the penalty for serving will be the destruction of his business forever - not just for a few weeks, but forever - because there is no way in which he can serve 18 months and still carry on his business. There is also some serious lack of morality in a situation in which we call on young men to train to kill their fellow human beings, not in defence of their country but in defence of the political policies of the government of the day. Today we do not hear anyone, other than possibly members such as the honourable member for La Trobe, suggesting that the Vietnam war was in defence of Australia. It was in defence of the political judgments of the Government, but to suggest that it was in the actual defence of Australia is, I think, stretching the imagination a long way. It was fashionable in 1966 to suggest that the Chinese were coming. In fact, 1 remember those pamphlets portraying arrows pointing down to Australia. 1 remember one former member of this House saying that it was only 2 hours flying time from Saigon to Australia. That is most likely true, but completely irrelevant to the situation, lt was good hysterical stuff. But the fact of the matter is that no-one seriously suggests that Australian troops were or are in Vietnam in defence of Australia. If there is any reason at all they are there to meet the political commitments of the Government and no other reason could seriously be advanced. There are in the community people who have objections to serving in military forces. There are also people in the community who have objections to killing their fellow men, and the requirements which exist at this time for establishing conscientious objection are not only that a person must object to killing his fellow man but also that he must object to defending his country in any circumstances. I suggest that this is totally unreal. It is quite possible and understandable that a young man would defend his mother, for instance, if she was attacked and would defend his country if he felt it was in dire danger but would not be . prepared to take the same types of actions to maim and kill his fellow man in defence of political judgments with which he may or may not agree. It is totally unreal to suggest that there cannot be genuine conscientious objection to serving in a particular war or serving in a particular set of circumstances. Unfortunately we have had foisted upon us policies which have now proven not to have been in the best interests of Australia but which have created a situation which is one of the most divisive in Australia's political history, which have created extreme bitterness among large sections of the Australian community - I suggest needlessly - and which the Government now proposes to continue but with a reduction of the national service period by 6 months not because it believes that 2 years is not necessary, not because it believes that 13 months is the ideal period, but because its budgetary requirements demand that the period of 2 years becomes 18 months. For that completely cynical reason a large proportion of the Australian population will be forced to serve in the Australian Army and, if the position of the honourable member for La Trobe is to be accepted, they are to be forced to serve in order to provide cannon fodder for the Army. The honourable member for La Trobe suggested that the 28,000 regular soldiers would provide about 3,000 front line troops. So we can assume that we are in fact not calling men up to provide balanced sections of the Army but for the single purpose of providing the people who will do the shooting and be shot at. Apparently the Regular Army is the train-, ing, background and logistic support for national servicemen who, in the effective 6 months period which they will serve will be asked to carry any future defence of Australia. That is the import of what the honourable member for La Trobe said, and it is the only judgment which can be made of his statements. A very small number of conscientious objectors are serving terms of imprisonment because they happened to disagree with a political policy to the extent that they were not prepared to comply with what is a fairly restrictive and demanding law which applies to only a very small section of the community. These men have to face extremely unsympathetic courts. I suggest to some Government supporters who believe that it is easy to be a conscientious objector that they should see some of the treatment which it meted out to some of these men in the courts after they have refused to undergo national service. Brutality is the watchword. Where the judge is sympathetic the defendant is usually dealt with extremely well. Unfortunately a lot of people in the legal profession appear to have the old colonial attitude that a term in the Army will make a man out of a person. Where the predisposition of the court is to judge that a man is trying to avoid his responsibilities, or where the court fails to accept the fact that there are people who disagree with a point of view, a conscientious objector is in a totally hopeless position. We have heard this from Government supporters, one of whom was the honourable member for La Trobe who was most definite on this point. There is no way in which he can justify or prove his claim to he a conscientious objector because he will not be allowed by the court to do so unless he is so passive that he is prepared to stand and say that he would see his mother beaten to death by a hoodlum without objecting. This is not the test of conscientious objection. I believe this is merely a device to prevent people from using this type of plea in order to avoid national service. The clauses in the Bill relating to conscientious objection are important. Although there are in excess of 100 minor wars going on in the world at the moment, it is a time of relative peace. I believe that our laws could be framed in such a way as to ensure that justice is done and not only appears to be done. I do not believe thai the prime objective of any government should be to convict people for their beliefs or to make it impossible for people to practice their beliefs. I believe that the prime objective of any government should be to cater for these beliefs when they are genuinely held. Many of our conscientious objectors do hold genuine beliefs. It is also true that because of the operation of the conscientious objection provisions in this Bill there are numerous young men who will not even attempt to claim conscientious objection because they know the type of hearing they will get before the courts. This situation is wrong and I believe that this Government should deal with it in a far more sympathetic manner. It is my belief that in the preparation of its Budget the Government has proved beyond all doubt the lack of need for a continuation of the National Service Act. The provisions of this Act have had the effect of reducing the morale of the men in the Citizen Military Forces almost to nil because of the lack of opportunities and lack of importance given to that Service. This Act has bad the effect of reducing recruitment for the Regular Army. It has also had the effect of causing divisions within our community. The Government has said that it cannot raise a volunteer Army. The Government has failed to enlist two-thirds of persons seeking to enlist in the Army. Many of those who have been rejected for service in the Regular Army have subsequently been accepted for national service. No genuine explanation has been given for its anomaly. **Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Cope)** Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Sitting suspended from 5.55 to 8 p.m. {: #subdebate-36-0-s4 .speaker-KVM} ##### Mr STREET:
Assistant Minister assisting the Minister for Labour and National Service · Corangamite · LP -- The speaker who preceded me before the suspension of the sitting was the honourable member for Corio **(Mr Scholes)** and I should like to make some reference to his speech before making my own contribution to the debate. The honourable member for Corio questioned the Government's sincerity in its introduction and continuation of national service. I suggest that this legislation proves, firstly, that the Government still considers, as it has always considered, that national service is an essential and integral part of Australia's defence policy and, secondly, that it adopts a flexible attitude to the actual working of the national service scheme. On the other hand, the honourable member for Corio and the Australian Labor Party have made it completely clear that they adopt a totally inflexible attitude - that is, they are totally opposed to providing adequate, defence forces for Australia by means of national service. The honourable member for Corio referred to the small proportion of the community which is called upon to carry the burden of defence. He mentioned specifically the 12,000 national servicemen who are in the Army at any one time. He did not mention the large component which is serving in the Citizen Military Forces. He did not mention those on the active reserve or those who, although no longer actually on the reserve, have been fully trained since the introduction of the scheme. I intend to return to this aspect a little later in my speech*. I was somewhat shocked and rather surprised to hear the honourable member for Corio refer to the treatment of conscientious objector applicants as brutal. I consider that this is a gross reflection on the integrity of those who bear the appeals of conscientious objectors, approximately 80 per cent of which are successful. I think it is just as well in our national Parliament, depending as it does on the party system, that occasionally we should debate an issue on a piece of legislation which clearly delineates the differences between the parties. I do not think it is recognised that much of the legislation coming into this place is largely bipartisan in nature. Of course, there will be differences in emphasis and different degrees of support but, by and large, both sides of the House agree on the actual objectives of the legislation. However, occasionally an issue arises which shows clearly the difference between the two major parties and I think it is a good thing that this is so. Over the last several years, no issue has more clearly defined the differences between the sides of the House than the defence issue. 1 suggest that the attitude of members of the Australian Labor Party to the defence of Australia can be summed up in the phrase: 'They hope for the best'. This is illustrated clearly in the extraordinary tenet of the Labor Party's defence policy - that Australia's strategic frontiers are her natural boundaries. This is a head in the sand attitude. It refuses to take account of the fact that, whether we like it or not, things will happen beyond the low water mark of Australian shores which are of vital concern to this country - things in which we will be concerned. But members of the Opposition say: 'We refuse to take account of these outside influences and we hope for the best.' The attitude of the Government has always been to face realities. Australia is in a potentially volatile and unstable area of the world. For that reason, since the major withdrawal of British forces from this area, Australia has entered into an agreement not only with the United Kingdom but also with other small countries of the region for our mutual security - the Five Power Agreement. To give the Leader of the Opposition **(Mr Whitlam)** his due, prior to the decision of the Australian Labor Party conference, he did say that he supported the concept of at least Australian naval and air forces being stationed outside Australia. But since the edict went forth that this is no longer acceptable to the Labor Party Federal Conference, of course the Leader of the Opposition has had to toe the line and oppose the stationing of any forces outside Australia. The next point I should like to mention is that concerned with the actual forming of the armed forces - the way we raise our armed forces. Members of the Australian Labor Party have always said, and have reiterated again during this debate, that they favour a completely voluntary system. However, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition **(Mr Barnard)** has admitted on previous occasions that it takes at least 6 months to train a man adequately and, at the present voluntary rate of engagement in the Australian armed services, it would take approximately 12 years to reach the number in the Army which our defence advisers consider essential for the adequate defence of this country. Again, this is a policy of hope for the best. The Labor Party hopes that nothing will happen in the intervening period, either in the sense of an emergency in raising and training armed men in 6 months, or, in the sense of the long term, the 12 years it will take to raise our forces to an adequate level. The Opposition hopes for the best that nothing will happen in this interim period. Members of the Opposition referred to the possibility of raising the required number of men quickly. On many occasions they have mentioned the report of the Gates Commission in America relating to relying on a higher rate of pay to attract more men into the services. As the Minister for Labour and National Service **(Mr Lynch)** has reminded us, the unemployment situation in America is very different to our own. However, 1 do not think that it is generally recognised that the rate of pay of the Australian private in his initial period of service is a good deal higher than that of his American counterpart. One of the points made in the Gates Commission report was that an effort should be made to raise the service pay to a level commensurate with civilian equivalents. Of course, this has already been done in Australia. We are a long way ahead of America in that respect. The Opposition always seems to denigrate the fact that Australia has an army of 8 or 9 battalions. Members of the Opposition say: 'What use is that in time of national emergency'? This illustrates, as few other things could do, the hopeless inability of the Australian Labor Party to understand the problems of defence and the role of national service in defence. I suggest that those who are actually serving in the Army at any one time are merely the tip of the iceberg. The reserves, which, I regret, have been referred to in somewhat disparaging terms, constitute another 20,000 men who have been recently fully trained and who are able to be called up immediately. Since the inception of the national service scheme a further 30,000 men have returned to the community, having passed completely through the training system. They would be available as trained men who would need' very little refresher training. These men are all of military age. They have all been trained under the national service scheme during the last 7 years. In the Australian community we have a reservoir of approximately 50,000 men who are fully trained and able to serve this country in time of national emergency. This is not a policy of hope for the best. We all hope that there will be no sudden emergency, but, in contrast to the Australian Labor Party, this Government has been prepared to institute policies which will not make Australia rely on pious hopes. As a result of the national service scheme there are 50,000 fully trained men in the Australian community. This, I suggest, is a lot better than pious hopes. I think it was the honourable member for Wills **(Mr Bryant)** who expressed this perhaps in another way in a debate on defence in this place some years ago when he said that what we want is that all troops on foreign soil should go home and stay home. I do not think there is a member in this House who would not agree with that statement. But I think we would be stretching our credibility to the utmost if we believed that in fact would happen. We would be delighted if all the North Vietnamese troops went home from South Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia. We all would be delighted if Chinese troops had stayed at home and had not gone into South Korea, Tibet and India, and if Russian troops had stayed at home and bad not gone into Hungary and Czechoslovakia. No-one doubts the sincerity of those who wish that all troops would go home and stay home. The plain fact is that they will not. If one is not to neglect the very security of one's country one has to take into account the actual realities of the situ ation and not as one would wish them to be. National service was not introduced as a sudden capricious act. It was introduced on the advice of our own expert military advisers. I would like to stress the point to the House that if there should be a change of government the military advisers will still be the same; they will still be giving the same advice to the Opposition as they gave to this Government. The Australian Labor Party has made it abundantly clear that if it came to power it would not accept advice coming from men having the highest standards of professional military competence that we have in this country. It would neglect and it would ignore this advice and go its own way. This advice is given in the most important policy area in this country. The defence policies are the central pillar around which all of our domestic policies must be built. It is no good having the most gold plated social services policy, health policy, education policy or any other domestic policies if in our anxiety to improve these fields we neglect the very foundation of the country's security. Yet that is exactly what the Australian Labor Party has indicated that it would do. It would put at risk all that we have achieved and all that we hope to achieve. Vietnam and national service have always been confused. But national service was introduced before Vietnam and it will be continued after our withdrawal from Vietnam for exactly the same reasons as it was introduced. Until now this issue has been clouded by the Vietnam war. However, I think that now it should become clear. What are the real motives of those who until now and from now on are refusing to accept their obligations under the national service scheme? So far they have been able to shelter under the clouded issue of the Vietnam war. But this is no longer possible. Now that we are withdrawing from Vietnam this excuse will be removed from them. I suggest that these people will be shown up as not merely opposing the Vietnam war, because Australia's involvement there, as I said, is about to come to an end. It is not that they are conscientious objectors - conscientious objection has always been a legitimate cause for exemption from military service. But it is finally becoming quite evident, I suggest, that this microscopic proportion - approximately 0.2 per cent - of the population is in the true sense of the phrase 'anti Australian'. They are not prepared to serve in the Regular Army; they are not prepared to avail themselves of the CMF alternative; and they are not conscientious objectors. Above all, they do not represent the overwhelming majority of the youth of Australia. They are dedicated to the overthrow of parliamentary democracy in this country. They are unwilling to accept any obligation to the country which has given them more privileges and more opportunities than practically any other country in the world has to offer. So I suggest: Let us put the full glare of publicity on these people and expose them for what they are - a tiny, unrepresentative sample of our young people who are prepared to avail themselves of all the privileges of Australian citizenship but who are not prepared to accept any of the obligations. I think the time has come when the people of this country will find out for themselves that the alleged motives of this tiny proportion of people are far from their real motives and their real motives are inimical to the very survival of the parliamentary system of government in this country. We on our side of the House make no apology for continuing this system of national service. We make no apology for having in the community 50,000 trained men whom we otherwise would not have. I have much pleasure in supporting the Bill. {: #subdebate-36-0-s5 .speaker-YF4} ##### Mr CROSS:
Brisbane -- The Bill before the House is like any piece of legislation that affects national service, which is an emotional issue in a community because there are wide differences of opinion in our society as to what level of threat Australia faces at the moment or will face in the near future and how Australia ought to respond. It is of the nature of things in a political forum like this chamber that honourable members will make party political points - real or imagined - that suit their own advantage. But I think that thoughtful members of the Parliament will agree when they sit back that every member in this place wants to see Australia well protected by well equipped and properly trained armed forces. None of us wants to see young Australians thrown into battle without proper training or equipment whenever a threat might occur at some time in the future. The debate on this Bill really revolves around how these competent well trained and well equipped armed forces are to be developed and whether they should be brought together, partly by people who volunteer and partly by a system of national service. Only time will prove - and, of course, only circumstances will prove - whether it is possible to raise an armed force consisting entirely of volunteers. I think one ought to say in fairness to all our compatriots in Australia that whenever a threat has been obvious and whenever a war has been on our threshhold and Australia seemed to be threatened, young Australians and indeed perhaps even middle aged or old Australians have rallied to the colours. Australians rallied in the Boer War and the First World War. 1 make the point here that I did not see this but I have heard about it. However, I certainly saw how Australians rallied to the colours during the Second World War. I believe that young Australians are not lacking in patriotism or loyalty to their country. I believe that they would rally again should any threat to this Australian nation of ours develop in the future. But happily we have no threat at this time. All of us have fresh in our memories statements by Ministers and former members of the Government, not least of them the previous Prime Minister and the recent Minister for Defence who stated in several speeches which were circulated to honourable members that Australia faced no challenge in the next 10 years, that happily we were in a situation where it seemed that we would not be threatened in what one might almost say the foreseeable future. This is no reason for anyone to be complacent because it is of the nature of things that it is a fundamental responsibility of every government to ensure the survival of the nation, the society to which we belong. So whatever the threat or lack of threat may be, it is a responsibility of any government to ensure that the armed forces of this country are maintained at such a level that they could respond to any challenge which may arise and would be capable of being expanded to meet any challenge which may develop. This is what we are debating tonight. In the circumstances of a withdrawal from Vietnam - that means a great reduction in the Australian commitment overseas - and in the realisation that the people in time of peace will be more reluctant to accept sacrifices in their own personal lives, in their association with other members of the family, and in their business interests and the like, than they would be in time of war, the Government has decided to reduce the term of national service from 2 years to IS months and is proposing to make certain other adjustments to the National Service Act. I would like to talk for a few moments about some of the things that have been said about this legislation by the two previous speakers from the Government parties. The honourable member for La Trobe **(Mr Jess)** suggested that the Labor Party would sell Australia out. He referred to Pearl Harbour and Singapore and he gove us a count down of the years before World War II. He quoted to us speeches made by various Labor members of the Parliament at that time who suggested that wc in Australia ought not to be carried away by emotionalism and devote too much of our resources to defence. In reply to this, I would like to say that at any time that this country has been involved in a major war - there have been only two of them; World War I and World War II - the people of Australia have in their wisdom called a Labor government to the Treasury bench because they have realised that a Labor government, better than any other government, will ensure that the resources of the country are mobilised behind a war effort. It is true that if honourable members go through the Hansard record they can single out speeches made by Labor members before World War II who suggested that it was undesirable to devote too much of the resources of this country to a defence effort. But those members were typical of their day, and incidentally, they were in opposition. The Government which governed Australia from 1932 until 1941 was a government of the same complexion as the present Goverment. While one may point to speeches made by Labor members, they are in most ways typical. In some ways they are not as extreme in view as were speeches made by honourable members on the Government side. We all remember the late **Mr Hughes,** a former Prime Minister and member for Bendigo and later North Sydney. He was one of the few people on the Government side of the Parliament who saw the threat posed by the Second World War. While some things have been said about our very highly esteemed former leader, **Mr John** Curtin, it is true to say, if one analyses the Hansard record, that for several years before the war, **Mr Curtin** called for a massive investment of money in the Air Force and the Navy in order that Australia should be protected against the threat that he saw as Leader of the Opposition and as leader of the Australian Labor Party at that time. I think it is completely dishonest to suggest that the Labor Party would sell Australia out because the record is entirely to the contrary. If one looks at the book that recently was published to celebrate the fiftieth anniversary of the Royal Australian Air Force one will see that it is divided into 3 sections. The middle section relates the tremendous build-up of the Royal Australian Air Force in the situation of the Second World War. I am not taking any credit away from the Menzies Government of that time because with the Empire Air Training Scheme the Menzies Government laid the basis on which later development occurred. But it is equally true to say that great development took place under a Labor government. I do not think we should try to make party political capital out of some of these things because my Party, the Australian Labor Party, has nothing to be ashamed of in the attention that it has devoted to the defence of Australia at any time that this country has been threatened. My friend, the honourable member for Corangamite **(Mr Street),** said that the Labor Party hoped for the best. He said that members of this Party had said that Australia's frontiers lay at its natural boundaries, that the stationing of defence forces overseas was no longer acceptable and that we would not accept the advice of the chiefs of staff or the senior people in our defence forces. He said that we took a position which was anti-Australian and he suggested that many of the young people who object to national service today have as their purpose the overthrowing of parliamentary democracy. He rather suggested that we had some sympathy or association with these young people. Of course, it is realistic to say that Australia's frontiers are its natural boundaries. But no nation is an island and this country has commitments. It has international commitments to the United Nations. It has close associations with the Commonwealth of Nations and certain treaties with the United Stales of America and with New Zealand all of which are accepted and acceded to by the Labor Party in its policy. Whilst our attitude to some of these situations may be different from that of the Government parties, no member of this House can say that the Labor Party has ever deserted its responsibilities in regard to any of our treaty commitments. It is not true to say that the Labor Party hopes for the best and is prepared to gamble on Australia's future. The Labor Party believes that by giving members of our armed forces decent pay and conditions and a challenging role, many more young people will join the armed forces than at present. One of the criticisms that we make of the present Government is that in its commitment to Vietnam - quite frankly, we have never agreed with the commitment to Vietnam in the way in which the Government members have spelt it out - no young person in this country has ever been given the opportunity to volunteer to serve in Vietnam. In the early 1950s young men were invited to enlist to serve in Korea. They served in an Australian component of a United Nations and British Commonwealth force in Korea. {: .speaker-JO8} ##### Mr Barnard: -- They were all volunteers. {: .speaker-YF4} ##### Mr CROSS: -- Yes, they were all volunteers. This Party supported that commitment. But no young man was even given the opportunity to volunteer to serve in Vietnam. He could join the Army but he could well end up peeling spuds in a camp anywhere in Australia. There was no way in which he could specifically enlist to serve in a task force in Vietnam. That just was not on. The Government introduced national service. Of course, it introduced national service against a background of confrontation with Indonesia in Malaysia. No member of this House would deny . that this was a situation of great concern to Australia. We all know that we were fortunate in that changes in the administration in Indonesia took place late in 1965. We have all been heartened by the improved economic position in Indonesia and the continued good relations with Australia. I think that every member of this House is heartened by the fact that over recent years good relations with Indonesia have been maintained. This probably has been the high water mark of Australian diplomacy. But given that national service was introduced in those circumstances and that it was continued in the situation of a Government commitment to the war in Vietnam, the question now arises whether national service is the most effective way to maintain Australia's armed forces in the future. The hard, cold facts of life are that this Government is not prepared to trust the young people of Australia. The right honourable member for Higgins **(Mr Gorton)** has said that Australia faces no threat in the next 10 years. Is not this the time that the Government, given the fact that it has appointed 2 committees to look at Service pay and the Defence Forces Retirement Benefits Fund, should try out its own policies and see whether it can develop responsible policies which would encourage decent young Australians, physically fit young Australians, to join the armed forces and serve their country in this way? But the Government does not trust young Australians. It does not believe that it can persuasively present a case or that it can provide the incentives to encourage young people to join the Army. So it continues this system of national service. One then comes to the position: Is this the most effective way to use our manpower? I think that anybody who looks at the situation will say that it is not. The current Labor Party policy as found at page 33 of "The Australian Labor Party Platform, Constitution and Rules' states: >All forces should be made up of volunteers and conscription as such shall be abolished. In the national interest however, the right must be retained to raise a° national service force should the security of Australia be threatened. In other words the Labor Party does not reject national service if ' the security of Australia is threatened. But it does not accept national service as being the ordinary state of affairs. The Labor Party believes that service in the armed forces should be so well rewarded in terms of pay,, allowances, training opportunities and the like that young people might select serving in the armed forces as being an appropriate way to make a career and an appropriate way to pay their service to the Australian nation. {: .speaker-IIS} ##### Mr Hughes: -- Can you give us some idea about the level of pay you advocate? {: .speaker-YF4} ##### Mr CROSS: -- Yes. I am happy to see that the Government has responded to an Opposition initiative to look at some of these matters of pay and defence forces retirement benefits. It is not only a matter of pay, of course. It is also a matter of housing allowances for the dislocation of a family because people are travelling from place to place or may be sent interstate or overseas to South East Asia. But whatever the difficulties, the Labor Party believes they should be faced. It is a coward's way out to attempt to gain by a system of national service the armed forces which this country needs. Let us . look at the national service system. With the exception of a number of rare people who comply with the requirements of the present Act and the alarmingly high proportion of young Australians who are not physically fit - again that is an indictment of programmes carried out by the present Government - the national service scheme under a system of ballot calls up people across the board. We all know the situation. Every honourable member in this place knows of young people who have qualified in medicine, engineering, veterinary science, pure science or some other discipline and who are then required to carry out national service when they could probably make a much more realistic and rewarding contribution to Australian society in some field of private employment. National service is the easy way out. It is the way in which the numbers can be made up without paying decent salaries and wages to people and without giving them decent conditions. In time of war any government can successfully get away with this sort of programme. The future will show whether this Government can get away with it in time of peace. There is no argument from the Labor Party side of the House about the defence of Australia. Every man in this House wants to see Australia well defended. He wants to see Australia's armed forces properly trained and equipped. The Labor Party wishes to see Australia's armed forces at what might be termed the take-off point; that is, sustained at a level which would enable our forces to be expanded quickly if there were any threat to Australia in the future. Again I make the point that the previous Minister for Defence and other honourable members on the Government side have said that they can see no threat to Australia in the next 10 years. So we are not lacking in patriotism. We are not lacking in any desire to see that Australia's forces are properly maintained. What we do say is that there are great iniquities and great injustices in the system of national service in which young people are obliged to serve whether or not they agree that this is an efficient way to use Australia's manpower. If this nation were threatened national service might be necessary. But it should not be the easy way out. It should be something that is turned to only in the last resort. In other words the Labor Party in no way apologises for its desire to see Australia's fighting forces strengthened, manned and well equipped. The Labor Party believes that this situation should be brought about by paying decent wages and by giving decent conditions. Consequently the Deputy Leader of the Opposition **(Mr Barnard)** who leads in this area of responsibility will be moving amendments in this House to bring about such changes in the National Service Act as we seek. Whatever decisions might be made in this Parliament in the next few days, the fact still remains that we think that whatever national service might do this Government has not yet solved the problem of the Citizen Military Forces which has been destroyed by the national service system. The CMF is an important part of Labor Party policy but it has lost a great deal of its prestige because under legislation introduced by this Government it has become the refuge of people who wish to avoid national service responsibility. The Labor Party not only stands for improving the situation of those people in the regular forces but also, by abandoning national service and by giving these incentives, we would restore the CMF to the prestige position it occupied in the past. It is not sufficient to have well paid and well equipped regular forces. It is also necessary to have citizen forces to back up the regular Army. The citizen forces should be capable of being expanded in the event of any threat in the future. Although the situation might be that there does not seem to be any obvious threat in the immediate future it is the responsibility of every government to make sure that Australia is ready to face such a threat should it occur. {: #subdebate-36-0-s6 .speaker-K5O} ##### Mr CORBETT:
Maranoa -- The National Service Bill which is before the House is necessary to implement the Government's decision to reduce the period of national service training from 24 months to 18 months. National service was introduced to ensure that the level of Army manpower was maintained at a strength consistent with our defence requirements and, of course, with the population of this country. While the Bill provides for a reduction in the time to be served in the Army by a national serviceman it will not reduce the reserve of over 20,000 trained men whom national service has made possible and who are available in the event of an emergency arising in the defence of this country. The honourable member for Brisbane **(Mr Cross)** has made some points. He said - and I agree - that there is a wide difference of opinion as to what dangers Australia may happen to face. I think I understood him correctly. He said that the Australian Labor Party wanted to see Australia well protected. That is the very reason why we have introduced national service - so that the numbers will be brought up to a figure which will ensure that Australia is well protected. He also said that we did not want to throw young Australians into battle untrained. Again this is the reason for our national service requirements. We want to have an effective and sufficiently strong force operating and to have trained men in reserve so that at a time when they might be required - we hope the situation will not arise - they will be available. As has been pointed out the national service scheme has provided more than 50,000 trained men. The honourable member for Brisbane referred to the Citizen Military Forces and said that it has been adversely affected by national service training. That is a matter of opinion. At 30th June last 12,000 men were serving part time in the CMF as an alternative to national service. In addition to that number some 2,000 had already completed their CMF obligation. The Minister for Labour and National Service **(Mr Lynch)** said in his second reading speech: >Notwithstanding that fewer national service registrants have been opting for Citizen Force service, optees stilt comprised 35 per cent of the CMF at 30th June Inst. So it is not correct to say that national service has had an adverse effect on our Citizen Military Forces. I recognise, and I think the Government recognises, that it is desirable that Army manpower should be obtained by voluntary enlistment if it is available to us. If we had sufficient volunteers in our Army it would not be necessary to have national service call-ups. As I mentioned earlier, at the same time it does provide that reserve which is an added strength to the ordinary serving forces of the Army. To that extent it is an additional benefit. But if there are insufficient volunteers to maintain the Army at the required strength, the numbers have to be brought up in some way and national service is designed to do just that. There is no doubt that in a country where good opportunities are readily available for the future of the young men of that country there is less attraction to an army career. So one of the reasons why there has not been the number of volunteers going into the Army in Australia has been the great opportunities that are available to young men in this country and this has been brought about by the sound and progressive policies that have been constantly followed by this Government. This situation is in contrast to what has happened in some other countries. The Government has had a policy of full employment and when one compares Australia with other countries where perhaps a greater number of volunteers are available it will be seen that the reasons why they are available are because of the unemployment level and because the opportunities for them were not there to the same extent as they have been in this country. I suppose it would be possible that if a Labor government was returned to the treasury bench - I hope this will not happen - it could get sufficient volunteers in time because its policies would not provide the employment opportunities that exist now. This may be one way a Labor government could increase the number of volunteers. The Government has adopted this measure as a means by which the numbers can be provided and because the experts who have considered it felt it was the fairest way of providing the number of young men required to keep the Army manpower up to the desired level. The Government does not desire to disrupt the careers of young men any more than is absolutely essential to maintain adequate numbers in our defence forces. It has made provision for young men to continue their studies until they reach degree standard. It has deferred the obligation to enter national service training for reasons that I need not enumerate in full but those seeking exemption have to prove that their reasons are sound and that hardship will result if they were to be called up at a particular time. A great deal of consideration has been given to avoiding any unnecessary disruption to careers or any undue hardship for the young people of this country. In addition to that the Government now recognises that present circumstances allow a reduction in the period of service from 24 months to 18 months and this is what this Bill is designed to bring about. The honourable member for Corio **(Mr Scholes)** said it was simply a matter of the Government not being able to finance the present national service programme. That is an absurd suggestion because there would be no doubt that this Government on its record down the years has ensured that priority in expenditure was given to maintaining an adequate defence for this country. The honourable member also said that a professional Army of 28,000 men - I think that was the number he mentioned - would be more effective than the Army under the system that is operating now but he entirely overlooks the great value of the reserves that are provided under this system. He overlooks the ' fact which was mentioned by the honourable member for Brisbane that we do not want to tend young men into Army service who are untrained. 1 might mention that although the term of service has been reduced from 24 months to 18 months, the period on active reserve has been increased from 3 years to 3i years. So the numbers are still available if required. It is not a reduction in numbers but a reduction in the time of training. These men are still available if required in any emergency. . I have heard it suggested at times that we could compare the attitudes of some other countries towards volunteer armies with our own. 1 know that Great Britain and Canada have been mentioned as countries with full volunteer armies. In looking at this question it has to be remembered that the Government of Great Britain has reduced its commitments in overseas service very considerably and has the protection of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation which is still active in that area. Great Britain may feel that the reduction that has been brought about in the numbers of servicemen may not affect very greatly its capacity to defend itself in the circumstances in which it finds itself at the moment. With regard to Canada, it is obvious, of course, that she is geographically situated in a most advantageous position adjoining one of the great powers in the world today. Canada is protected on 2 sides by the United States and protected by great distance although distance is being overcome as the years go by. However, it still forms a very substantial protection for Canada. It is no wonder that a country so situated would be able to reduce its numbers to a level which it feels it requires. There is a protection available to it by being part of the North American continent and in addition to that Canada has the protection of being well situated as far as distance is concerned in relation to countries from which there might be some military threat. This is very different from the situation in which Australia finds itself. Australia is situated as an outpost of the European community in a South East Asian environment and its associations are quite different. We are a long way from the people with whom we have been traditionally associated although we do have the protection of the South East Asia Treaty Organisation. But this is not sufficient to justify any lessening of the strength that is required to maintain an adequate defence force in this country. One only has to imagine some flare-up in that area to see that Australia would be in a position where it would have to strengthen its defences fairly quickly and by having reserves available in our trained national servicemen Australia could get these people into service and be ready to protect this country in times of national emergency. Also a country is respected much more if the numbers of its defence forces are consistent with what is reasonably regarded as adequate. Prevention is always belter than cure. If we have the forces to defend this country adequately we may not have to use them as we might if we allowed the strength of our forces to deteriorate, which could happen unless we use the forces which are available to us and which the world knows are available to us. Turning again to the Citizen Military Forces, it is a very effective and very essential part of our defence forces and does provide an alternative for those young men who do not want to serve in a ?articular war and who do not want to undertake ordinary national service training and perhaps be sent overseas. It provides this avenue particularly for young men in rural industries at a time when the engagement of labour is not economically possible in rural areas. They can remain on their properties doing very worthwhile work for Australia and at the same time be trained so that they too, if necessary, can be called up and can play their part in times of national emergency. Many young people in Australia today particularly in the rural areas, have accepted this form of alternative to national service and it has been to their own benefit and to the benefit of Australia. I believe that the reduction in the period of service in the Citizen Military Forces from 6 to 5 years in conjunction with the reduction in the period of national service training from 2 years to 18 months will still allow people who have chosen to serve in the Citizen Military Forces to continue with that type of service in Australia. I believe that one of the great weaknesses of the Labor Party down the years has been its attitude to defence. One of the things which the Australian people have refused to accept over the years has been the Labor Party's defence policy. The people do not regard the Labor Party's defence policy as having the strength that has always been provided since this Government came into office. Of course, the Australian people are not warlike at all. All that we and I think the great majority of Australians want is a satisfactory defence force, and the numbers which the Labor Party proposes should be in the Army - whether they are professional soldiers or not - are not consistent with what might reasonably be expected that the Australian nation should provide in its own defence. Unless we have this strength in the Army we are asking for possible encroachment on Australia by another country, and we would not be able to offer any ally that might be prepared to come to our assistance the kind of help which it could require in a time of emergency. Australia has a national responsibility to provide an army and a defence force at a level consistent with what Australia can reasonably be expected to provide. If we are to expect other countries, as I believe we will, to come to our aid in time of need, then we should show our willingness and determination to have in this country a defence force of a strength which we should reasonably be expected to provide. We should be prepared to do as much as and perhaps even more than similar sized countries in the geographical situation in which we find ourselves in Australia. I believe that it is very much in the interest of the Australian people that we should keep our defence forces at least at their present level. If I were to have any criticism of the Government's policy in this field, it would be that we do not have as strong an army or as strong a defence force as we should have. I believe that Australia's economy justifies even greater strength in our defence forces than exists today, but certainly the position is a long way better than what is proposed by the Labor Party in its amendment to this Bill. However, I believe that the Australian people should have the opportunity to show, as they have done in the past very clearly and decisively, that they require a government to keep our defence forces up to the level which this country can reasonably carry. If I had any criticism at all of the Government's policy it would be along the lines that the strength of our defence forces is not as great as it should be. This is vitally important. We do not get any warning, as was pointed out earlier in the debate. How do we get a warning? The right honourable member for Higgins **(Mr Gorton)** said that we would not be under threat for 10 years. Who can accept that? Who can be sure that we will not be under threat within 10 years, or within a shorter period of time? We cannot afford to take a risk, so the strength of our defence forces is of vital importance to Australia. What do we have if we do not retain our freedom? Can we expect to have the support that we believe we are entitled to receive if we do not do as much as this country reasonably can afford? That is the basis upon which the strength of our defence forces should be fixed. That is the criterion to be used to decide whether Australia is doing as much as she can in her own defence. I believe that if Australia does that she can confidently expect to get help in a time of emergency. 1 commend the Bill. I warmly support it and I oppose the amendment moved by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. {: #subdebate-36-0-s7 .speaker-K9J} ##### Mr Keith Johnson:
BURKE, VICTORIA · ALP -- When we are dealing with questions involving servicemen, as we are doing this evening, I think it is always sad to listen to the speeches of honourable members opposite who are obviously armchair generals. They fight the wars all over again, they beat the tubs, they play the bugles and they call to arms those men who will have no say in what is to happen to them. The honourable member for Maranoa **(Mr Corbett)** made a comment about the right honourable member for Higgins **(Mr Gorton)** who made the statement that there was no immediate threat of danger to Australia for at least 10 years. The honourable member for Maranoa said: 'How would he know this?' Perhaps the honourable member has forgotten - so many things have happened in a short space of time - that the right honourable member for Higgins was Prime Minister of Australia and for a period was Minister for Defence and, as such. I believe would have expert knowledge of the defence situation. The honourable member for La Trobe **(Mr Jess)** did not disappoint us. Once again he beat the dram and called men to arms, lt seems that this same honourable gentleman is always calling on people to serve their country, to .join the armed forces, but he never makes much of a showing when it comes to what might be called after sales service; when those who have served their country and have been through the agonies of war return. When the time comes to discuss what repatriation benefits these people should receive I have never known the honourable member for La Trobe to cross the floor and vote for any proposal put by the Opposition. Apparently all he is concerned with is getting them to the war; he is not greatly concerned about what happens when they return. The honourable member for Corangamite **(Mr Street)** called for all troops in Vietnam to go home. In fact, he even called for the Vietnamese troops to go home. I. do not know where he suggests they should go. He lost me there; I could hot follow that one. The thought of enforced military service is, by its nature and according to all logic, abhorrent to those who will be affected by it. In his second reading speech the Minister for Labour and National Service **(Mr Lynch)** virtually made this point. He said: >Nonetheless, the majority of Australians continue to support it- He was referring to enforced military service - and this includes the vast majority of those affected directly by the requirement it imposes for compulsory military service. I am afraid that my logic must be very much at fault. If the Minister actually believes that statement, if young people believe in military service, then I cannot understand why they do not in fact volunteer and not wait to be conscripted. The relatively short history of Australia will show that those who are affected by enforced military training find it abhorrent. In the years of 1916 and 1917 a majority of the volunteers then serving with the First Australian Imperial Force - my father and my uncle were among them - overwhelmingly voted against the conscription of Australian youth for that war. Our history books tell us that the referenda held were defeated, and the main opposing force was the volunteers already in action in Europe. Wealthy capitalists, would-be capitalists, all others who live bv the sweat of others, armchair strategists, straight-out sabre rattlers, civilians convinced of the need for somebody else to die for the salvation of the Empire, society matrons and dowagers and people who were overawed by those who urged others to go and die for their country supported the referenda. However, those who were liable to go, those who had volunteered and were in the trenches with the mud and the stench, harassed by day and night with their lives at risk, voted against it and said in effect: 'Fair go, mate. If you can't convince him that he has something to die for and that he is not just being conscripted to protect the interests of those who sent him, leave him alone.' Time passed, and in 1941, for the first time since 1770, Australia was in danger of invasion by a foreign people. The invasions of 1770 and 1784 succeeded. Armed foreigners landed on the Australian continent and took control. By 1941 the descendants of the invaders of 1784 felt they had an obligation to protect from other invaders the continent they now occupied. The aggressor on this occasion was Japan. The Australian Labor Party Government at that time took the view that, as the nation was in danger of invasion and our way of life was threatened, all those who were fit enough to fight should fight. So for the first time we experienced conscription in Australia, an unpleasant course of action which seemed to be needed to be taken to protect our homeland. It would be more than fair to say that if Australia enjoyed a socialistic society whereby all the people had an equitable share of all the wealth and an even stake in the natural riches of this continent people would be less reluctant to defend with arms those things which are theirs. However, the historical position has always been that workers and the sons of workers are encouraged to go, and on occasions are sent off to risk their lives to protect and defend the wealth and property of those who encourage them or send them. Meanwhile the owners of property and wealth sit at home, relatively safe, making money and directing operations from the sanctity of the Melbourne Club and other sanctuaries which deny admittance to those who have been sent to fight. We move on swiftly now through a little over 2 decades and find, in 1964, the inevitable consequences of the capitalistic system happening again. In that year Australia was engaged in a dirty, immoral and abhorrent warlike operation - as it is nicely called - in Vietnam. This was an Executive decision taken by this guilty Government to commit others - not the Executive, mind you - to go and die for the cause. In the sixth decade of the 20th century young men had the temerity to ask: What cause? It is true that the weight of opinion then supported the action. But we must ask: Whose opinion? It was the opinion of those who would not be involved in the stinking swamps, the steaming jungles and the senseless killing that was Vietnam. Public opinion was ill informed, and the situation was deliberately misrepresented, as subsequent events and information have clearly shown. However, the young men of this country had become more knowledgable. They questioned the morality and the legality of the action taken by the LiberalCountry Party Government and stayed away from recruiting centres in droves. lt was not because they were afraid, not because they had no patriotism and certainly not because they lacked the desire to defend liberty, but simply because they could not be convinced that they were in fact going to defend anything at all, but rather were being used as expendable pawns in an international chess game which was clearly recognisable as a game of power politics. The intelligent action by these young men embarrassed the bloodthirsty men who had taken the action to commit them. An undertaking had been given to foreign powers that Australia would provide a given number of workers' sons to fight. When young men thought about the futility of the situation and refused to volunteer the men with bloodstained hands who called themselves the Government then decided to force men to go, and conscription for active service returned to Australia. But how different it was this time. In 1964 Australia was not under threat of invasion, even though the Darcy Meanswells of this country tried to convince us we were, and not all able-bodied men were conscripted. The lottery of death was imposed on Australian youth. Only those young men who were born on a day to be determined by lot were conscripted. Others were free to pursue a normal life. Conscientious objection was restricted to an objection to all wars and all violence. That is comparable to asking a man to answer yes or no to the question: Have you stopped beating your wife? Those young men, and those not so young, who would defend their country against an aggressor but who could not convince themselves that they should be involved in the rape of Indo-China were denied the reasonable and acceptable defence of a conscientious objection to immorality. They were forced to prove the unprovable - an objection to all war. Government members are convinced that they are taking a magnanimous attitude by reducing the period of service from 2 years to H years - still on a pot luck basis, still with the threat of imprisonment as the alternative and still with the lack of grounds for defence by draftees. It is with a great deal of sadness in my heart that I say this evening that my own son is one of those whose birth dates have been drawn from the barrel in the lottery of death conducted twice each year with much pomp and ceremony to give some sort of respectability to the most disgusting, degrading and revolting exercise to take place since public executions. If we care to look at the question of conscription and armed service on a basis of reason and not emotion we could come to no other conclusion than that a volunteer army is preferable to one of mixed volunteers and conscripts, and certainly more desirable than an army of conscripts. {: .speaker-JPJ} ##### Mr Birrell: -- And the Government knows that the Army believes in that too. {: .speaker-K9J} ##### Mr Keith Johnson:
BURKE, VICTORIA · ALP -- The honourable member for Port Adelaide and others who interjected are quite right in what they are saying. The Government is not prepared to give it a go. It must pose, the question: Are numbers altogether necessary? Are numbers the necessary criterion? This Government really astounds me by the way it is mesmerised by numbers and figures. Industrial action - we are told that industrial disputes cost us *2i* million man days a year when there are *5i* million man days worked each day - more and better immigration and the size of the armed forces always appear as numbers and statistics, but never are any background information and reasonably accurate reports by qualified inquirers given as to what the expected requirements are or will be. One hears much talk about the enemy. Apparently the enemy are the vague persons who appear in all Australian folklore known as 'They'. Always They.' Never identified. The Australian Labor Party is being berated by honourable members on the Government side of this House for not being realistic about the defence of this country and yet in the two great wars in which Australia has been involved - the 1914-18 war and the 1939-45 war- It was an Australian Labor Party government that carried the day. As I understand the situation, the Nationalist Government as it was then known, led by the then **Mr Robert** Menzies, collapsed in 1941 under its own weight and for the first time a Cabinet asked a Prime Minister to resign. At the following election the Labor Party had the support of the Australian people. It was recognised as having the strength and the courage to defend this country and was given, the job. The whole question whether we have one man in our Army or 28,000 is, I think, quite academic. Last year I was in Indonesia with a parliamentary delegation which included members of the Government parties and the other Party in the other place - I believe that is a nice way of referring to it. It seems to me that there is a certain arrogance expressed not only by the Government but on occasions by some Government supporters. Whilst we were in Indonesia we spoke to a general - I understand that there are more generals in Indonesia than there are corporals in Australia - and a question was put to him about Australian troops being posted to Indonesia. It seemed to me that the person who put the question was tending to indicate that we were adopting a patronising attitude towards Indonesia and that we would make available, should they require them, some of our Australian troops to defend Indonesia. When asked how many Australian troops we had the honourable member said we had 28,000. The Indonesian general -gently and kindly reminded us that they had 6 million men under arms and that they did not really require the services of the Australian army to defend Indonesia. This is the sort of numbers game that Government supporters play and this is the sort of arrogant attitude that the Government and Government supporters adopt towards this whole question of defence. lt seems to me that the question of sizeand type of the army has been debated long and loud. Every report that I have ever read has always suggested that a volunteer army is the more desirable. When we *in* the Labor Party speak of raising an Australian army we do not mean, as was suggested tonight, that we would try to encourage unemployed men - and the people who are unemployed are the sons of workers - to join the army and that if they did not join we would conscript them. Let us compare the conditions of members of the armed forces with those of civilians. This relates to the Royal Australian Air Force, but I am sure that th: circumstances in the Army are similar. At the end of a fortnight an RAAF corporal with his basic pay, allowances and so on receives $127.82. Civilian personnel doing exactly the same work and working beside the corporal take home $155.47 at the end of a fortnight. There is a difference of $30 a fortnight. Then we come to work done at weekends. When RAAF staff work at weekends they later receive 2 days off, but when the civilian works a weekend he receives his 2 days off plus overtime wages for the weekend worked. Travelling allowance is paid to civilians but not to RAAF staff. Free medical services are available to the serviceman. However he cannot insure only his wife and children for medical benefits but must pay for the family benefit. Free issues of overalls and safety shoes are common to both. - 1 merely give some indication of the differences that exist already between civilians and service personnel. Obviously this is one of the reasons why we do not have a volunteer army. The other reason, which I believe to be far more fundamental, is that not enough of the young people of this country own any of the natura! wealth of this country. If they had a stake in the natural wealth 1 am quite sure there would be no difficulties in encouraging them to defend it. But they know, as we know, that the natural wealth of this country is centered in the hands of a very few people. When we speak about defence we speak not only about those men who make up the numbers of the armed forces. This Government is very nggardly and very remiss on the whole question of defence and one of these days it will find the problem wrapped right round its neck. It has allowed the aircraft industry to fall to pieces. The roads that are necessary for national defence are a disgrace. Our transport system would not stand up under any sort of an attack. So while this Government and its supporters stand up and talk about how they are taking the initiative and using all of their resources to develop the armed forces which will protect Australia, they are leaving us in a position in which - God forbid that it should happen again - the next time a destroyer gets sunk half the Royal Australian Navy will go to the bottom of the sea. At the same time we will be left with aircraft which we do not own and which will not fly anyhow when we do own them. This is the sort of defence policy that this Government is obviously trying to prop up and the only purpose of national service training is to prop up a defence system that is badly calculated and quite wrong. For this reason young men are taken - {: #subdebate-36-0-s8 .speaker-KGA} ##### Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Hallett: -- Order! The honourable member's time has expired. {: #subdebate-36-0-s9 .speaker-KDT} ##### Mr FAIRBAIRN:
Minister for Defence · Farrer · LP -- I was sorry to hear the honourable member for Burke **(Mr Keith Johnson)** make some rather snide attacks on Government supporters. He made a snide attack on the honourable member for La Trobe **(Mr Jess).** He said that the honourable member was always advocating that people should go out and fight for their country but that he did not give after sales service and see that they were properly looked after. All I can say to the honourable member for Burke is that there is noone else in this House who has done as much for ex-servicemen as the honourable member for La Trobe. The honourable member is today chairing an all party committee inquiring into the Defence Forces Retirement Benefits Fund. He is chairman of the Government members defence committee. In one case he worked extremely hard for a naval officer whom he felt had been wronged and he did his best to right that wrong. He asks questions on defence matters. AH I can say to the honourable member for Burke is that if at the end of his parliamentary career which, I believe, will not be a very Jong one, he can say he has done one quarter as much for exservicemen as the honourable member for La Trobe he can be extremely pleased with himself. The honourable member for Burke also made a snide attack on the Melbourne Club. We cannot avoid this sort of thing. People talk of the Establishment and it is thought that members of the Melbourne Club sip their beer and send someone else off to fight for them. Of course, in actual fact - I do not know whether the honourable member knows but many other people would know it - an extremely high percentage of the members of the Melbourne Club fought and died for their country. {: .speaker-KEI} ##### Mr Keogh: -- Including you. {: .speaker-KDT} ##### Mr FAIRBAIRN: -- Yes, including me. I did not die, or at least I have not died yet. But anyway, this is a Bill relating to national service and not to Vietnam. The honourable member for Burke spent most of his time speaking about Vietnam and he showed his complete ignorance of the Services. He spoke about one ship in the Royal Australian Navy being sunk and half the Navy going to the bottom. Of course, he does not realise that we have 55 ships in the Navy. But never mind, this is a good laughable story. I suppose it goes over well with people who do not know anything. But let us get back to this topic of national service and not concentrate on Vietnam because that is another subject and we have already heard a debate on it. We know, of course, that members of the Opposition are opposed to national service. They have never made any secret of the fact even though they themselves had to use national service during the last World War. But they are opposed to a great many attempts made by the Government to try to improve Australia's defence. {: .speaker-KFO} ##### Mr Foster: -- That is a lot of rot, and you know it. {: .speaker-KDT} ##### Mr FAIRBAIRN: -- Let me quote a few of them. First of all, they are opposed to national service. If we oppose national service we immediately cut the size of the army by one third. Members of the Opposition are opposed to assisting any of our allies. This is an extraordinary thing, is it not? A small independent nation asks for help and the Labor Party says: 'Oh, no, we are not going outside. Let us stay at home. They can be overrun. What does it matter?' {: .speaker-JO8} ##### Mr Barnard: -- You know that is not true. What about Korea and the United Nations? {: .speaker-KDT} ##### Mr FAIRBAIRN: -- Of course this was so in Vietnam. The Labor Party has done this. The Opposition is opposed to American bases in Australia. We do not know why because the reason is ambiguous at the present time but the Opposition says that it is opposed to any bases in Australia. We know perfectly well that after the Second World War the Labor Party prevented the American Government from maintaining the magnificent base at Manus Island. We believe that the Opposition would prevent the American bases now established in Australia from carrying on. This is the contribution that the Labor Party makes to Australia's defence. The attitude of the Labor Party to service in our defence forces is that there should be complete volunteer service. That is very good because the present Australian Government believes that we should have a maximum number of volunteers. But the Labor Party has persuaded itself, with its head in the clouds, that all you have to do is to put up the salary a few dollars a week and we will get all the volunteers we want. This is completely against any experience that this Government has bad. In 1963 there was a 30 per cent increase in salaries for servicemen and we received a marginal increase in the number of people who volunteered. There was a slight increase in the re-engagement rate. Recently there has been another considerable increase in wages for servicemen. The first 2 reports of the Kerr Committee - and there are more to come - recommended an additional $30m a year for Service pay. What has been the result of this recommendation? Admittedly there has only been a short time in which judge the result but as far as we can see there has been no apparent increase in the recruitment rate but there has been a slight improvement in the re-engagement rate. However there is a limit to the number that can be re-engaged because of promotions within the Services and younger people moving into higher ranks. Naturally we are looking at every possible way to improve the attraction of the Services. We have been not unsuccessful. We have built the numbers up but there is a limit. We are looking at housing, retirement benefits, repatriation benefits and a reduction in excessive postings. There are many ways in which we hope to encourage more people to join. Under this Bill the period of full time national service will be shortened and the number of national servicemen in the Army will be reduced. The reasons which have allowed the Government to make these adjustments to the national service scheme were outlined broadly by the Prime Minister **(Mr McMahon)** in his speech to the House of Representatives on 18th August 1971 concerning the withdrawal of Australian forces from Vietnam. In 1964 when national service was introduced we had a Regular Army of less than 23,000. Hostilities were taking place in several areas in South East Asia and the situation was deteriorating. A comprehensive review of our strategic situation covering existing commitments and likely contingencies revealed a need to . increase the strength of the Army to some 40,000 in less than 2 years. The recruiting campaign, as I said, was stepped up, servicemen's pay was increased and moves already in train to improve conditions of service continued. These measures increased re-engagement rates to some extent, but the effects on recruiting were marginal. It was apparent that the required increase in Army strength could not be obtained by voluntary means alone in a time of full employment within the time scale dictated by the strategic review. It was decided reluctantly that there was no alternative to introducing selective national service. Remember that this decision was made 2 years before we made a decision to go into Vietnam. The Army had to be increased to meet our overall requirements. Only one-third of national servicemen called up have been sent to Vietnam, and the bulk of our servicemen deployed in that area have been members of the regular forces. Since 1964 when the national service scheme was introduced political stability >n South East Asia has improved and there have been other qualitative changes in the region which are encouraging. There are, however, developments within and without the area which complicate the strategic situation, particularly the withdrawal of American forces and the reduction of the number of British forces in that area, which point to the need to maintain our defence capability. This capability must be such that we could develop it in adequate time should more immediate threats to our security arise, and for these purposes the Government considers that the scheme as now adjusted is an important element in our defence preparedness. The fluid strategic situation in which we find ourselves demands flexibility in our strategic policies and the progressive development of selfreliant forces and an evident defence capability. The national service scheme is an important element in this capability and in the retention of a readiness for various situations which might require the involvement of our forces. Following withdrawal of our combat forces from South Vietnam we can reduce our full time Army from 44,000 to 40,000 men. The strength of our defence forces is not measured solely by the numbers actively serving. A secondary, but important, purpose of national service has been to insure against emergencies by building up a reservoir of trained soldiers. Every year since 1967 some 8,000 national servicement have been added to the Regular Army Reserve after 2 years service. This has meant already an increase of 40,000 in the numbers of fully trained and experienced men available. In addition, many people of military age joined the Citizen Military Forces and were trained there, having selected the CMF as an alternative to national service. The importance of this asset of skilled manpower is considerable. Defence services can not be turned on and off like a tap, as the honourable member for Brisbane seemed to imply. It takes time to train soldiers and to give them experience with formed units. We cannot wait until an attack on Australia is imminent before we do this. By providing Australia with fully trained and experienced reservists national service has had an impact on our defence potential far beyond increasing the strength of our full time Army. Alternatives to the national service programme range from abolition of the callup to universal service. The first would have been disastrous by preventing us meeting our commitments and depriving us of a steadily increasing strength of trained exservicemen. Universal service would be unnecessary and would not be practicable. It would require the call-up of men in excess of our needs. It would also be wasteful economically by diverting from their normal occupations many men for whom there would be no worthwhile military tasks. There must be a balance and the numbers called up each year have been assessed on the highest professional military judgment as those required to meet known military needs. National service as implemented has been an outstanding success in achieving its purpose. National servicemen have been integrated completely into the Army. They receive the same conditions of service as regular soldiers, their training is identical and national servicemen are indistinguishable from other members of the Army. They have acquitted themselves with credit on active operations and in general service in the highest traditions of the Australian serviceman. Many national servicemen have been trained as specialists in various fields, and every effort is made to make full use of civilian acquired skills where compatible with military needs. Despite the clamour against national service by an organised and vocal minority, opposition to the call-up has not been shown by those affected directly. As at 30th June 1971 6 men had been imprisoned for failure to report and render service and 96 others had failed to report and render service. Some of these latter cases had not been finalised. These minuscule figures compare with 51,000 young men called up and enlisted. There is the alternative of joining the Citizens Forces for those who do not wish to render full-time service. The Government has taken all reasonable steps to reduce disruption to the careers of national servicemen by deferring call-up until completion of studies or on family hardship grounds, and by guaranteeing restoration in civil employment on completion of service. Resettlement provisions include full-time training for up to 12 months or part-time training for 2 years. All fees, books and equipment are provided and a living allowance is paid to those undergoing full-time resettlement training. Loans for business or agricultural purposes are available where appropriate for resettlement. It has always been the Government's aim, as. I said earlier and as stated by the Prime Minister at the time national service was introduced, that as large a percentage as possible of our forces be volunteers. No service can be an effective force without those experienced officers and NCOs with the training and expertise that comes from long service. Our Navy and Air Force are entirely volunteer forces. So is the bulk - almost two thirds - of the Army. An allvolunteer Army is not possible at this stage. This has been found to be the case in many other countries. People sometimes talk as though Australia was the only country which had national service. I should like to quote a list of countries which have national service. In the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, there is conscription in the army or air force for 2 years and for navy border guards the period is 3 years. France has national service for 12 to 15 months on a selective basis and Denmark has it for a period of 12 months. West Germany has national service for 18 months. Switzerland has national service. In Israel, the period of national service is 36 months for males and 20 months for females. The United Arab Republic has such service for 3 years and South Africa has it for 9 to 12 months. In Taiwan, national service for the army is 2 years and, for the navy, 3 years. In North Korea the period is 3 to 4 years. New Zealand has a voluntary system which is supplemented by selected national service for the army. Singapore has national service for 2 years, North Vietnam for 3 years and South Vietnam for 3 years. Of course Australia is not the only country which has national service. As the Prime Minister said in the House on 18th August, 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. Comparisons have been made by some people with the United Kingdom and Canada which have no compulsory national service. The situations in these countries are not comparable. But are we seeking to have too many people in our armed services? I am sure we are not. It has been mentioned that Australia has a total of about 85,000 in the armed services, which is about 3.5 per cent of men of military age in Australia. This can be compared with France, which has 5.2 per cent of military aged men in the armed services, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics which has 6.9 per cent, the United States of America which has 8.5 per cent and Canada, which has 2.3 per cent. Canada's percentage is somewhat less than our percentage, but, as someone has already mentioned, Canada is in the shadow and umbrella of the United States and although it is a Pacific power, it does not seem to have made any attempt to take any active part with its services in the Pacific area. Comparisons are also made, as I mentioned, with the United States where the Gates Commission has proposed abolition of compulsory fulltime service by 1973. There is no guarantee that this aim will be achieved. The legislative power to call up men for service remains operative in the United States and has just been reconfirmed by Congress. The situation there is also not comparable with Australia. America is reducing her forces considerably - overall, by some 25 per cent. There are other differences. The level of unemployment in the United States over recent years has averaged' 4.4 per cent and has reached 6 per cent. This compares with the Australian average of 1.3 per cent. It is easy to see that there is a relatively larger pool of potential recruits for the services in the United States of America. Further, the main recommendation of the Gates Commission was that pay of recruits be increased from the existing level to about 60 per cent of comparable civilian pay up to civilian pay standards. This also must have some effect on voluntary recruiting. In Australia, servicemen's pay, including the pay of national, servicemen, is already aligned with civilian pay scales with a loading to compensate for the , particular conditions of service life/ The Government has taken all steps possible within reasonable limits to attract volunteers to the Services. Further substantial pay increases have been announced recently and these will have a positive effect on improving recruitment and reengagement rates. More married quarters are being built, or houses acquired, each year for servicemen. A total of 20,000 dwellings is now available. Living quarters for unmarried servicemen are being improved and those now being built are of a very high standard of design and comfort. Postings, particularly for men with families, are being reduced to a minimum necessary for service needs, and this situation will improve further when the unavoidable turbulence caused by unaccompanied service in Vietnam has gone. More attention is being paid to variety in diet, the irksome irritations of service life are being removed, and modern amenities are being provided at all bases. These measures have not been without success. Over the time span covered by national service the strength of the volunteer element of our Services has been increased by over 13,000, some 5,000 of this number being in the Army. Many of these are, or will become, long-term career servicemen. The Government is not complacent. Much needs to be done and will be done as time permits to make Services an attracticeattractice career. Servicemen and servicewomen rightly have a high standing in the community. We intend to improve that image further. It cannot be assumed however that there is a simple elasticity of supply of volunteers and that the numbers coming forward will increase in direct proportion to improvements in pay conditions. There are many alternative employments available for our young men, and in a peace situation there are not the strongest motives to join the Services. Although there is a steadily increasing strength of volunteers, national servicemen, even at the reduced number of 12,000, will still comprise some 30 per cent of the total Army manpower of 40,000! This is a gap that cannot now be bridged by voluntary recruitment. National Service must remain with us if we are to maintain an Army to meet all assessed military requirements. It will continue to be the success that it has been. I support the Bill. {: #subdebate-36-0-s10 .speaker-KDP} ##### Dr EVERINGHAM:
Capricornia -- The Minister for Defence **(Mr Fairbairn)** has his facts wrong and his heart in the wrong place. First of all, he made the false statement that the Australian Labor Party is opposed to having any bases in Australia. The Australian Labor Party is opposed to having foreigncontrolled bases in Australia. Members of the Opposition made this clear in this session of Parliament when they said that we want Australian control of bases that have been set up in this country by the United States of America. {: .speaker-JM9} ##### Mr Armitage: -- And we want to know what they are about. {: .speaker-KDP} ##### Dr EVERINGHAM: -- If we had control of the bases we would know what they were about. The Minister for Defence also said that the Opposition is opposed to national service. The Opposition is not opposed to national service if there is a threat to Australia. This was shown when the Australian people and the Government's own supporters in this House turned against the Parties represented in today's government, threw them out and put into .power a Labor government which did introduce national service even for service beyond Australian shores where there was a threat to Australia. {: .speaker-KJG} ##### Mr Irwin: -- It was too late then. {: .speaker-KDP} ##### Dr EVERINGHAM: -- It was not too late. We did not have the Japanese coming down to the Brisbane line, as the honourable member who has just interjected perhaps would have liked to see happen, and which no doubt would have happened if his Government had remained in power. The Labor Government managed conscription not only for the armed forces but also for everything else. There was more complete mobilisation in Australia than in any nation in history. One person in 7 of our population was under arms and in uniform. The Opposition is not opposed to national service. It is opposed to conscription for an immoral, illegal and unwarranted warlike action which the Government refuses to call a war because it knows that no legal war has been declared. The honourable member for Corio **(Mr Scholes)** reminds me that Prime Minister Menzies in 1941 bravely promised that Australia would defend Thailand. However, he did not say with what. There was nothing to defend Thailand with in Australia and within 2 months of that statement the Japanese attacked Thailand and, of course, Australia was not there. In 1951 or thereabouts, the same Prime Minister told us: 'We have to be ready for war in 5 years'. Of course, this was done in the context of an election campaign, where election fever had to be generated over some kind of issue and the issue was the downward thrust of China between the Pacific and Indian Oceans. The National Service Act, with which we are now concerned, was brought in in that year. So we had national service and we were told to be ready for war in 5 years. Now we have our war, we are getting out of Vietnam, and we are to reduce the numbers that we are conscripting. The Minister for Defence says that we must ensure against emergency and that we must have a reservoir of trained soldiers. Must we have a reservoir of people conscripted against their conscience? ls this necessary in peacetime? John Curtin waited until the islands encircling this continent were occupied by menacing forces and until the bombs and shells of the Japanese forces had fallen on this country before he adopted conscription. John Curtin went to his supporters who stood by him loyally in every State, every branch, and every wing. Every aspect of the Labor movement got behind him and said: 'Yes, we will support a change of Labor policy to allow conscription for service outside Australia up to the equator1. His conscription was urgent, imperative and effective. {: .speaker-KIW} ##### Dr Mackay: -- Who stabbed him in the back? {: .speaker-KDP} ##### Dr EVERINGHAM: -- The electors who had the wool pulled over their eyes by the capitalist Press at the end of the war and turfed Chifley out. The Minister for Defence has told us that we cannot turn our Services on and off like a tap. The government of the day certainly could not in 1941. Australia had to get John Curtin to do it. We on this side of the House have never opposed adequate defence for Australia. But we maintain that if we are the great democracy that we claim to be and if this is a land worth defending and fit for people to live in, we do not have to push people at the point of a bayonet to serve and defend this country. This country has proved in 2 world wars that it is ready to defend itself. The people of Australia have never been backward in volunteering to defend their friends, brothers and relations overseas. We had an excellent record in World War II. We had the best record of any nation of conscripting and volunteering men to serve in the defence of freedom. But one thing we did not do was to force people from every walk of life, if the marble rolled up, to go in and serve. This Government is doing this. {: .speaker-KB8} ##### Mr Giles: -- Would you prefer the American system? {: .speaker-KDP} ##### Dr EVERINGHAM: -- I would prefer the Curtin system. When I turned 18 years of age I happened to be a medical student. My fellow students and I were told that the government preferred us to stay in our course, which was speeded up to a 5-year course instead of one of 6 years. We undertook a few extra terms and we stayed there to complete our courses. The Minister for Defence has told us that students can get a deferment. Certainly they can get a deferment. But when they are through their courses and graduate as doctors or dentists or whatever they are, they then have to go and fight.. Some doctors in my electorate asked me what would be their chances of serving in a medical corps if they were conscripted and if they passed the medical test. I put this to the Minister and the Minister replied that it would depend on how many vacancies the Army had. This is not what John Curtin did. If he had men trained and with certain skills who would be useful in the defence of this country he knew what those skills were. But this Government says: 'One in all in', with one very curious exception which I will come to shortly. It is to do with the clergy. However, in the meantime I want to refer to the young men who were mentioned in the speech of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition **(Mr Barnard)** and whom our amendments have been designed to relieve. They are not being forced to fight at the point of a bayonet but they are enduring something equally as ruthless and barbarous to us - a 2-year gaol sentence. Their names are Charles Martin, Garry Cook and Geoff Mullen. I do not have time to read statements by all of them. However, honourable members opposite should listen to some of these people instead of making grand statements such as that made by the Minister for Defence who said that opposition to the call-up has not been shown by those affected directly. This is a direct quote from what was said by the Minister in this place tonight. It is all very well to quote statistics but the man who objects is more than a statistic. Geoff Mullen states: >Whenever 1 do something I like to think that I have a sufficient and rational reason for my action. Whenever I refuse to do something, it is most often simply because I see no reason to act. At this time 1 see no rational or sufficient reason why I should comply with the National Service Act Indeed, there would appear to be positive reasons why I should oppose conscription with all the energy that I can muster. > >The National Service Act is more than merely irrelevant to my or any other person's well-being, lt is in fact detrimental in every respect to those it affects. And it affects every Australian. It affects politicians in that its success breeds a greater arrogance and concomitantly a lesser regard for what might be regarded as the inalienable freedom of any man. > >It affects the average Australian to the extent that he becomes indifferent to the rights of others- Just as the Minister for Defence was when he made the stupid statement, that those directly affected do not oppose it - and thereby loses a precedent for respect of those rights he regards as his own. If the Government will not guarantee the freedom of 20-year-olds, why should they later be concerned about yours. You are no more important to them than any young man. But most of all the National Service Act corrupts young men (and it is no Socrates). The evil of conscription abides in the very nature of the system. Conscription in any form destroys what is finally the essential human faculty, the ability to make important decisions for oneself. Conscription will not build a greater Australia. It will merely obliterate the difference between an Australian's 'freedom' and that of a citizen in a totalitarian slate. To prevent our being enshackled by communism, we will enshackle ourselves, (or is this what democracy means - the prisoners running our gaols?) I could read a statement from Brian Ross who was gaoled but before I do I would like to read from page 292 of The Documents of Vatican II'. {: .speaker-KJG} ##### Mr Irwin: -- Look out. The Holy Father will be after you. {: .speaker-KDP} ##### Dr EVERINGHAM: -- I have every respect for the sentiments of the Holy Father. I am very indebted to my Lord Bishop Rush of Rockhampton, who gave me this publication because of his concern with these issues which I discussed with him. The publication states: >Moreover, it seems right that laws make humane provisions for the case of those who for reasons of conscience refuse to bear arms, provided, however, that they accept some other form of service to the human community. Many, many times in this Parliament 1 have heard the honourable member for Bass, who is the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, the honourable member for Wills **(Mr Bryant),** the honourable member for Lalor **(Dr J. F. Cairns)** and many others appealing to the Government and quoting these young men as asking to have some alternative to military service. The Government says that this is not a matter of conscience. It says that these young men can easily go into the Citizen Military Forces if they want to escape going to Vietnam. What an alternative for conscience! The Government, says the Minister for Defence, has taken all reasonable steps to make it possible for people to avoid service in Vietnam by deferring callup and by resettlement loans, etc. The curious exception I refer to is for the clerics. Why do they not have deferment and resettlement loans? Are they going to be less effective priests because they have seen service in the Army? If so, perhaps we should cast some doubts on the remarks that have been issuing from the other side of the chamber that service in the Army makes a man of you, that it gives you an insight into real life. Surely a priest, a minister or a teacher in a holy order would be glad of such experience. But no, they must be exempted. {: .speaker-KIW} ##### Dr Mackay: -- They do not have to accept it. {: .speaker-KDP} ##### Dr EVERINGHAM: -- They do not have to accept it. That is a subtle difference. Perhaps we should amend the National Service Act so that everybody else - all other students - do not have to accept it. Why should just theological students be exempt? Are medical students less valuable than theological students? Are agriculture students less valuable? Are apprentice electricians or ambulancemen. less valuable? Why are they, or all those providing the essential services, not exempt? We heard on today's news that the New South Wales Government is to make it illegal for anyone to strike if he is engaged in an essential service. One of the news commentators says that this takes in 55 per cent of the employees. We had better exempt the 55 per cent. I would be very glad to move an amendment - I will not because I know it would be an exercise in futility and the Government numbers would defeat it - but I would be happy to see the Government bring forward an amendment of that kind to change the exemption for the clergy and theological students to include all students and all those engaged in essential services. {: .speaker-JO8} ##### Mr Barnard: -- That one goes back to the Middle Ages. {: .speaker-KDP} ##### Dr EVERINGHAM: -- I see. It may be just a thoughtless tradition going back to the Middle Ages. But as far as I am concerned, it is an exercise in humbug and kow-towing to that part of the establishment represented by the established churches. I think that if that was not the position and if some of these clergy and students were serving members of the armed forces they would be searching their consciences a little more closely, as I have suggested the Minister for Defence should, and speaking to some of these young gentlemen who have objected to this Act. Perhaps they would be looking a little more thoughtfully at this document from which I read earlier entitled 'The Documents of Vatican II'. If it is true that the Government is quite happy for all these young men to go into the Citizen Military Forces and not to enter the serving forces overseas, why then is it necessary to have so many extra young men in the Army? The Minister for Defence suggested that it is because we must have a reserve of skill. I am a little perturbed by a statement made by the honourable member for Maranoa **(Mr Corbett)** who said . that this exemption provides for rural people because it allows them to fulfil their commitment under the Act while still working on the home territory, on the farm. The reason I am particularly disturbed - and I cannot give names in the Parliament because I have no documentary evidence - is that I have had reports from a rural area. I am not even prepared to state just where the electorate is, but if the Minister wants to inquire further 1 will give him details. The information is that at a Young Country Party meeting some of the young gentlemen were having quite a laugh about the barrel when their numbers came up because they knew that the local establishment would show them as having registered for CMF service before their numbers came up. {: .speaker-1V5} ##### Mr Katter: -- That is a pretty tough allegation. {: .speaker-KDP} ##### Dr EVERINGHAM: -- It is a very grave accusation. I am not accusing the Country Party and I am not accusing any person. I am quoting an allegation that I think should be looked into. If the Minister cares to follow up the particular area I will be very happy to tell him where it occurred. I think we should keep our eyes open for this sort of thing. It is a possible way in which the National Service Act could be abused and in which this loophole could be abused. My son has received a deferment because of his studies. I trust that when those studies are over our commitment in Vietnam will be over and he will not be called upon to prove the statement he wrote on his enrolment, that he would consider an order which could involve him in service in Vietnam as an illegal and unlawful order. I sincerely trust before that . time comes this stupid idea of conscription will long ago have been swept under the carpet where it belongs and forgotten in a country which claims to be democratic and which claims to be seeking in equality the good life for all its citizens. There is no excuse for the birthday ballot. In the short time left to me I will read a little of an actual transcript of a Crown Solicitor's questions which shows that some ot these people are not receiving a fair go. Conscientious Objector X completed his registration for national service in February 1968. Here are some of the questions he faced: . . 'How many days do you work? I'd suggest to you that you do not comply wilh the Tcn Commandments. The fourth Commandment says Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy. Do you comply with that Commandment? You know what day the Sabbath is. Well, I'd suggest to you the Sabbath is Saturday. Well, if it's Saturday, you don't keep it holy. What about killing animals? What about vegetables? What about mosquitoes? Why do you destroy them. Why can't you just shoo them out of the door? What about flies? What about snakes? What about things like alligators, crocodiles attacking you? You work for Y'? Y sells meat? You are helping them as much as a non-combatant would be helping someone to kill, aren't you? You cannot help what another person does, can you? Well, why can't you be a non-combatant? You wouldn't be telling someone to go and kill someone, would you? {: #subdebate-36-0-s11 .speaker-5J4} ##### Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Scholes:
CORIO, VICTORIA -- Order! The honourable member's time has expired. {: .speaker-6V4} ##### Mr Daly: -- I rise to a point of order. **Mr Deputy Speaker,** I would like to bring to your attention under the Standing Orders that on 28th September 1946 the honourable member for Wilmot **(Mr Duthie)** was elected to this House and he has been here 25 years today. {: #subdebate-36-0-s12 .speaker-10000} ##### Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: -Order! That is not a point of order. **Mr HUGHES** (Berowra) ' (10.57)- I regret to say that this debate has taken an altogether predictable and altogether melancholy course. I regret, but am bound to say, that on both sides of the House we have heard the tired old hobbyhorses brought out of the stable. We have heard this question which is posed by the National Service Bill discussed in terms of attacks upon , and defences of John Curtin. We have heard an attack upon the Melbourne Club, and we have heard a defence of the Melbourne Club. We have heard far too little about the very important questions that are raised by this Bill. What does the Bill do? In essence, it proposes a reduction in the size of the Australian Regular Army from 44,000 to 40.000 by means of reducing the period hereafter to be served by national servicemen from 2 years to 18 months. That is what the Bill is all about. One would hope that if the House collectively had applied its mind to the great question of principle involved in this Bill a more dispassionate debate and a more objective discussion would have taken place because there is need for dispassion and objectivity when one is considering such an important question as conscription. Nobody :an fail to regard the question as vitally important. *I* suppose it is a truism to say that no political party can view with any relish the idea of maintaining a system of conscription for the purpose of keeping any branch of the armed services up to a particular strength, being a strength advised by the Government's military advisers as a requisite strength to cope with contingent risks. It is not conducive to the popularity of any government to maintain a system of conscription either in wartime, peacetime or in the shadowy condition that may be said to lie between the full scale war and full scale peace. That is the condition in which we have been living for some years past. The point I make at the outset of my remarks is that it would have been a much better thing - if the Opposition will permit me to say so - if Opposition speakers had managed to address their minds to this subject without allowing their emotions, engendered as they are by the Vietnam commitment, to cloud every aspect of their judgment. I would be the first to concede the right of anyone to feel emotional about Vietnam if he is opposed on conscientious grounds to the principle of our commitment. I pay full tribute to everyone on the Opposition side who expresses strong views against Vietnam. I express strong views, and I have always expressed strong views, in favour of our commitment to Vietnam. I believe that on balance history will prove this Government and its predecessors to have been correct in resolving in the first place to go into Vietnam and to stay there until the job was done as well as it could be done. {: .speaker-KEI} ##### Mr Keogh: -- That is a good way to put it- **Mr** HUGHES- The honourable member may agree or disagree. I am trying to inject an element of rationality, I hope, into an important debate. I will be able the better to do that without rather irrelevant interjections, if the honourable member will permit me to say so. {: .speaker-KEI} ##### Mr Keogh: -- I am congratulating the honourable member. {: #subdebate-36-0-s13 .speaker-IIS} ##### Mr HUGHES: -- If the honourable member is congratulating me I thank him. But now, when the Vietnam commitment is terminating, why is it necessary to inject emotion almost to the point of prejudice into a debate upon a great national issue. What is the national issue? The national issue for the consideration of this House tonight is very pertinently pointed up by the principal amendment which is proposed by the Opposition to this Bill. The Opposition proposes to insert clause 3a by way of amendment in the Committee stage of the Bill. If passed by the House this clause will provide that the National Service Act as a whole shall cease to be in force as from the first day of January 1972. For a moment let us examine the full implications of that proposal. I think they are implications which, in fairness, should be examined and held up to the cold light of scrutiny and criticism. I am glad to say that I have heard no-one on the Opposition side of the House maintain the proposition in this debate that an army of 28,000 men is sufficient to cope with the potential risks which we as a nation ought to cope with or be prepared to cope with. During the course of this day I have heard no-one from the Opposition benches propose that it would be a safe or a good thing to reduce the Army from its present size of 44,000 men to only 28,000 men. I can well understand that good judgment would predispose members of the Opposition against advancing any such argument. Yet the indisputable fact is that if the amendment which is proposed as representing the cornerstone of the Opposition's attitude towards this great matter of national service were carried, the effect would be that whereas on the 31st December 1971 the size of the Australian Regular Army would be 44,000 men, on the 1st January 1972 it would be reduced to 28,000 men - a number of men which the Opposition, by concession, admits would be inadequate for our defence purposes. Where is the logic in this proposition? I ask the Opposition: Can it point to the logic of moving an amendment which would reduce the size of the Army overnight between New Year's Eve and New Year's Day? {: .speaker-KEI} ##### Mr Keogh: -- What about the better conditions of service we are proposing? {: .speaker-IIS} ##### Mr HUGHES: -- I will come to that in a minute, if you will give me a chance. I do not propose to shirk that issue, but I am going to say something about it by way of gentle criticism of you, if you will spare me a few more minutes. Where is the logic in the principal Opposition amendment? The attempt to introduce some logic is made by the interjection which has just come from the honourable member for Bowman. He said: 'What about our proposals for better conditions of service*. That is a very curious suggestion to come from the Opposition. I have listened in vain during this debate for any expression in a concrete, practical form from any member of the Opposition of what, in terms of precision, should be proposed by way of better conditions of service. We have heard lots of loose talk about the trends in the United States of America and suggestions which have been made there about moving towards a voluntary system. It has not been sufficiently well recognised by the Opposition that the United States has only relatively recently realised that it ought to improve the pay and conditions of service of American servicemen, including conscripts, to the level which is enjoyed by members of our armed services, including all conscipts I would think that if there were to be any real force in the suggestion by the Opposition that conscription will become unnecessary so long as we improve the pay and conditions of service of servicemen then the Opposition should at least come forward in this debate and say precisely what better conditions of service and of pay it proposes. But on this point we have heard nothing but a deafening silence. As far as I can see, on that we will hear a deafening silence from the Opposition during the rest of this debate. As I understand it no honourable member opposite has challenged the statement that pay and conditions of service of the Australian armed forces generally are more nearly comparable in a real and a practical sense to civilian conditions of pay and service than those in any other country. Let nobody on the other side of the House deny that. Honourable members opposite have not attempted to deny that situation and they cannot, because in all honesty they cannot. So what are these better conditions of pay and service to be? What are honourable members opposite suggesting? Are they suggesting that we should pay privates in the Army at the level of the top of a Second Division officer of the Commonwealth Public Service or at some other level of the Second Division or Third Division? I do not know. We have not been let into the confidence of the Opposition. It has no precision of thought or of ideas on what I would have thought were some basic practical problems. Until the Opposition can come good with some constructive suggestions on these points its arguments will continue to lack conviction. The plain fact is that it is the prime duty of any government, as is admitted on the other side of the House, to make proper provision for the defence of the country against external aggression and this matter of what is proper provision is not a matter of mere political judgment. Perhaps not many practising politicians aspire to statesmanship and if they do they do not often realise their aspirations. But this area of defence policy is, above all areas of policy, an area in which we on both sides of politics should try as hard as we can to be statesmen rather than mere party politicians. {: .speaker-KCQ} ##### Mr Graham: -- And for the monarch. {: .speaker-IIS} ##### Mr HUGHES: -- And indeed for the country and for ourselves. The question of what level is necessary to be maintained in the interests of the defence of the country is not just a question of political judgment. *lt is* a question of much more importance than merely political judgment. We should try to exercise the art of statesmanship and in this area of policy it is a good working rule that no government will ignore the advice of its military advisers except for the most weighty and powerful reasons and it is not a weighty and . powerful reason that a particular course of policy that military advisers say is requisite may be electorally unpopular. {: .speaker-SH4} ##### Dr Klugman: -- But they keep changing their advice. {: .speaker-IIS} ##### Mr HUGHES: -- With all due respect to the honourable member for Prospect I think that is a singularly unprospective remark. It may be fairly assumed as a matter of common sense that the decision that was taken by the Menzies Government in 1964 to introduce conscription was not taken by way of frolic. It was taken in a context of a serious character. The then rate of recruitment for the armed services was such that there was no reasonable prospect of the target then postulated as desirable or necessary by the military advisers being reached in time. Events over the last 7 years have shown that notwithstanding the most substantial improvements in pay and conditions of service we would not have now an Army of the size that our military advisers now say is necessary if we are to retain the necessary defence capability - the necessary capability to cope with the contingent risks that are in prospect. The Opposition has not told us how we are to get an Array of 40,000. It ignores the work of the Government in improving conditions of housing and conditions of service. It ignores the decision of the Government to appoint the Kerr Committee and the many major recommendations that have been implemented to improve pay and conditions of service in the Army, Navy and Air Force. 1 implore the House to look at this matter dispassionately and objectively. Let us take the situation to be as it obviously is. The defence advisers of the Government presumably go along with the idea - I have no doubt of this - that we can get by for the lime being with an Army of 40,000 men instead of an army of 44,000 men. This is a singularly fortunate thing. Four thousand mcn will be released for more productive employment in the national interest. Four thousand men will be released from the bondage of conscription, for it is a form of bondage but it is a form of bondage that the national interest unfortunately dictates should be imposed. Until the Opposition can present to the House and to the country alternative practical proposals in lieu of conscription it is the height of folly and, 1 would venture to say, something bordering on political irresponsibility for it to be proposing that overnight on 31st December 1971 conscription should be abolished and the Army reduced to a size that the Opposition admits would be inadequate to preserve a proper defence capability for this country. {: .speaker-JM9} ##### Mr Armitage: -- Do not worry; you will win your pre-selection {: .speaker-IIS} ##### Mr HUGHES: -- In this speech I am not interested whether I win pre-selection. I am trying to propound what I regard as self evident truths in what I see as the national interest. I do not care whether I hang or live. {: #subdebate-36-0-s14 .speaker-KJO} ##### Mr JAMES:
Hunter -- It is somewhat of an honour for me to be given the opportunity to follow a former AttorneyGeneral and a man who is sometimes referred to as the leading Queen's Counsel of the New South Wales Bar. Most Q.C.'s I have known have had enough astuteness to keep out of an argument which is indefensible. The Government's argument on this matter now before the Parliament - the National Service Bill - is indefensible and I hope to justify the Opposition's actions towards the present legislation. I want as briefly as possible to make some reference to the remarks of previous Government speakers. The honourable member for Berowra **(Mr Hughes)** is referred to by honourable member's on this side of the House as the batsman from Berowra. We all recall that he marched into his palatial garden at Bellevue Hill and swung a cricket bat at some demonstrators. He prosecuted them in Paddington Court and they were all acquitted. He was prosecuted himself and got the mercy of the Court and the case against him for assault was not proved. {: .speaker-6V4} ##### Mr Daly: -- It is rough when he cannot defend himself. {: .speaker-KJO} ##### Mr JAMES: -- Yes. He spoke too of Vietnam. It is true that anyone who debates Vietnam gets emotionally upset. I do myself. It. is very difficult to restrain one's emotions when one's fellow men and pregnant women are being stabbed and massacred, as was reluctantly shown by newspapers in the early stages of the Vietnam war. There were the shocking atrocities at My Lai and Hue. These incidents should touch the conscience of every man interested in public or national affairs in any nation. I say sincerely that the Government is ashamed of its conscription laws. It is ashamed of conscription and is trying gracefully to climb out of it. I suppose one can forgive the Government for trying. The great white father, Menzies, Ming the Merciless, in 1964 introduced conscription into this Parliament. He first of all sent 36 Army instructors to Vietnam. Army instructors they were supposed to be. When vigorously challenged by the then honourable member for Yarra, Menzies, our former Prime Minister, said it was only 36 Army instructors. Then we saw the number grow to 1 0,000. At about this time a very forthright senator in the United States, Wayne Morse, said that the American Government would regret its decision to involve itself in a land war in Asia. He said that when the bodies started to come back to San Francisco the American people would say: 'Why did we get involved in this land war in Asia?' I believe that Wayne Morse lost his seat in the Senate because he spoke ahead of public opinion, as the Australian Labor Party did in 1964. Gallup polls today show that the Australian people are opposed to our involvement in Vietnam and that it is only the war hawks who are in favour of it. It is to the shame and disgust of Australia that about 40 per cent of the Australian people, as shown in the gallup polls, support our involvement in Vietnam. The honourable member for Berowra theo said - and I commend him for his frankness but not his his insincerity - 'I have always expressed strong views in favour of Vietnam'. Everlasting shame on him. Where he stood on this question will be written in the history books of this nation for future generations to read, although I believe that when that happens probably the honourable member will be living on an isolated island with the wealth which he has accumulated from his legal practice and from being a Minister. Then the honourable member for Berowra omitted to refer to what Menzies, a former Prime Minister of this country, said in 1941. If I may interrupt myself at this point, I understand - and I am not disclosing any confidence - that the only thing that the former Prime Minister. Menzies was ever worried about was what history would write against him when he left this Parliament. What history will say about that man will be something that probably he will not be able to read. **Mr Menzies,** as he then was, once stated that he would not allow the Japanese to invade Thailand, but 2 months later the Japanese invaded Thailand. How impertinent it was for **Mr Menzies** to say that he would not allow the Japanese to invade Thailand. The honourable member for Berowra, the former Attorney-General, said that Labor could not impose better conditions of service and rates of pay. There is one thing that we would not impose, and that is conscription in a period of peace. I was amused at the remark of the honourable member for North Sydney **(Mr Graham)** who referred to the monarchy. I am not anti-monarchy, but an interesting article in the 'New Statesman' referred to the House of Commons and said that when the garbos went on strike in London the streets were full of garbage and the garbos were holding the country to ransom. At the same time Queen Elizabeth applied for an increase in salary and the House of Commons announced that it had received a most gracious message from Her Majesty. When a common man seeks an increase he is said to be holding the country to ransom, but when the hierarchy or the establishment seeks an increase it is said that a most gracious message is received. Then the honourable member for Berowra said: 'No Government will ignore the advice of its military advisers.' Fancy a former Attorney-General and a leading Queen's Counsel saying in this national Parliament - I thought he might say a thing like that in the gentlemen's toilet - that 'no government will ignore the advice of its military advisers'. **Mr Gorton,** when he was Prime Minister, said: 'We cannot withdraw one battalion unless we withdraw three.'. Yet we find that the military has withdrawn one battalion. **Major Young,** who is now in civilian life, said that this was a grievous error. Now that one battalion has been withdrawn we find the unusual massacre of Australian conscripts, in the main. The honourable member for Berowra also said that he welcomes the withdrawal of Australian troops because they will be made available for employment in the national interest. The honourable member for Port Adelaide **(Mr Birrell)** has told me that 240 retrenchments have been made in a motor car works in South Australia and that among these retrenchments there are former national servicemen. How can one reconcile these two statements? I would sooner place faith in the integrity of the honourable member for Port Adelaide than I would in the integrity of the honourable member for Berowra. The Minister for Defence **(Mr Fairbairn)** referred to the fact that the United Kingdom and Canada have no national service. That is to their great credit. This House has not yet been informed of the fact that during the long war in which the French Government was involved in Indo-China, never did the French Government see fit to introduce conscription, and it did not do so for two reasons. The Government did not think that it was justified and it believed that the French people would not support conscription for the colonies of Laos, Cambodia and Vietnam. France is a country which is more experienced in world affairs and world wars than Australia is. But the Australian Government saw fit to introduce conscription for a civil war in Vietnam. This Bill is designed to prolong the evils of conscription and, in my opinion, conscription is slavery. If the Australian people choose some of their fellow men and force them to become soldiers, then it does not matter whether this system is supported by a majority or a minority of the people. The plain fact is that conscripted soldiers are the slaves of the rest of the society, and therefore conscription is grossly and morally wrong. The Minister for Labour and National Service **(Mr Lynch)** in his second reading speech said: >National Service has been and continues to be a significant element of the effort expended to ensure the maintenance of an effective defence capability in this country. Adopted at the end of 1964, its immediate purpose was to increase within an acceptable time span the essential strength of our Army from its then low level of 23,000 men to a level that would be adequate to allow the Army to fulfil its role in national defence. It would have been more correct if the Minister had substituted for the words 'to fulfil its role in national defence' the words to fulfil its role in nationalistic offence'. The Vietnamese people have nothing against us, but we are forced by this Government through this tyrannical legislation, to go to Vietnam and to kill married and single people who are fighting for a better way of life in their own country. It is to the utter disgrace and shame forever of every member of the Government who supported this legislation which provides for conscription for Vietnam. In my view, the proper title for the Bill should not be conscription law; it should be Lynch law. The Minister for Labour and National Service who is at the table has marked himself down as Australia's No. 1 gaoler. He is the man who turns the key. With a smile on his face he strikes you down like a taipan. I would never trust him. The Minister has proclaimed himself to be the national gaoler of men who love freedom. The Government does not want men to have the freedom that they demand. It is not the Government's place to give people freedom; it has to guarantee that the people can retain their freedom. But this Government is concerned with protecting the money power in this nation - big business, the crooked stock exchange manipulations and share dealings and the fringe banking institutions which charge young home seekers exorbitant rates of interest. The H. G. Palmer and the Latec rackets were not given much prominence in the Press. {: .speaker-K5L} ##### Mr Cope: -- Outside of that they are all right. {: .speaker-KJO} ##### Mr JAMES: -- As the honourable member said, outside of that they are all right. The Government is led by a Prime Minister who governs the country in consultation with and for the benefit of the captains of industry. {: .speaker-SH4} ##### Dr Klugman: -- And **Sir Frank** Packer. {: .speaker-KJO} ##### Mr JAMES: -- And the likes of **Sir Frank** Packer, as the honourable member for Prospect reminds me. Conscription demoralises. The United States Army has been demoralised. Never again will the United States fight in foreign wars, despite ANZUS, because under the ANZUS treaty a resolution has to go through Congress - which includes the United States Senate. Let it become true in the minds of the people that, as the Chinese have said and as I say with great reluctance, the United States has become a paper tiger. It could never fight another war outside its own country because conscription is conscripting the wrong people. This is what has happened in Australia. It is a pragmatic argument against conscription that, if morally right, conscription does not work in practice. I shall have to omit part of the remarks that I would like to ha«re made in this debate because time will not permit me to make them. Who do individual members of the Government Parties think they are to fiddle with other people's lives? That is the issue and honourable members opposite know it. The issue is not the length of the period of enslavement. Naturally enough the Minister for Labour and National Service in his second reading speech was on the defensive. In a speech on a Bill which proposes to reduce the period of time of conscription he was continually defending the need for conscription. He said: >National service cannot be discontinued because we are withdrawing from Vietnam. It is vital thai it be maintained. Later he said: >In summary, in the present Australian context national service is an indispensable factor in maintaining the Australian Army at a size adequate for our defence obligations. He was on the defensive again. How typical. If a man has to introduce a little bit of human kindness he must say 'Sorry'. I would have admired him more if he had said to the Government: 'I am not going » deliver this rubbish. Get another Minister to do it. I am not going to peddle your rot any longer.' I nearly said something else. Later in his second reading speech the Minister said: >Nevertheless national service must be retained. The present Bill gives effect to his logic. He meant that national service must be reduced by 6 months. But he was defending the very existence of the national service scheme, and the Bill defends its existence. The sad and tragic thing about conscription to Vietnam from the American point of view and from the Australian point of view is revealed in the 'Far Eastern Economic Review' which is available to all honourable members in the Parliamentary Library. The article says: >No-one knows exactly how many addicts have returned to the US from Vietnam, but the number is enormous. Some US experts say 40,000. One survey indicates 2,400 of the 15,000 Vietnam veterans released every month into civilian life are addicts. No honourable member can laugh at that. The article continues: >About half as many have tried drugs and managed to break the habit before coming home. Of the 230,000 Americans still in Vietnam, it is estimated that 30,000-60,000 have turned on to smack' or 'skag', both 95 per cent pure heroin. The members of the Government ask us to divorce ourselves from emotions in a debate of this kind. Our wives go through childbirth and then at 20 years of age our sons are called up. There is the strong possibility of their coming home from Vietnam as heroin addicts. So far our Press has not published any figures showing how many Australian boys have come back addicts. This article goes on to say that it costs them $3 a week in Vietnam to buy adequate supplies of drugs but when they return home it costs them $100 a week, and they have to commit robberies to get the necessary drugs. When I came into this Parliament I vowed and declared one thing: As I see it, there are 2 great powers. There is the power of people's hearts and minds and there is the power of money. I will always come down on the side of the power of people's hearts and minds rather than the power of money. It is a filthy war. Conscription is filthy. This Government for ever and ever should be utterly ashamed of the legislation that has now been put before this Parliament. {: #subdebate-36-0-s15 .speaker-1V5} ##### Mr KATTER:
Kennedy -- Before commencing my remarks on the legislation before us, I would like to associate myself with the remarks of the honourable member for Grayndler **(Mr Daly)** in congratulating the honourable member for Wilmot **(Mr Duthie)** on his 25 years of service to this House. If my 5 years' experience with him is any indication I can well understand why he is one of the most respected men in the Opposition. I feel it is necessary - this interests you particularly, **Mr Deputy Speaker** - to refer to some comment which was made by the honourable member for Capricornia **(Dr Everingham).** He referred to a time when it was alleged that some members of the Young Country Party had discussed national service. The honourable member implied that the persons concerned did not have to worry very much because they knew someone who knew someone and hence would not be much worried about being subject to call-up. I strongly urge the honourable member for Capricornia to make known who these particular people are, because whoever gave him this information I would assume would be a damned liar. I make this comment for this reason. {: #subdebate-36-0-s16 .speaker-10000} ##### Mr SPEAKER: -Order! 1 heard the word liar' used by the honourable member for Kennedy as I came in to assume my duties in the Chair. 1 do not know exactly in what context it was being used, but if it was used in respect of another honourable member of this House it would be extremely out of order. {: .speaker-1V5} ##### Mr KATTER: -- It quite definitely was not used in that context. I want to reiterate that whoever gave that information to the honourable member for Capricornia is a damned liar. I think most honourable members from country areas would have had the same experience that I have had, that is, from time to time they receive representations in regard to someone who is employed on the land and are asked to approach the Minister for Labour and National Service about the possibility of his call-up being deferred or some such concession being granted. To my knowledge, on no occasion has this concession ever been granted. Any such request has been turned down flatly. This has been my experience and, I am sure, the experience of many honourable members. 1 think all people pf all the countries of the world would most earnestly hope that peace would exist for all time in their own country and in other countries. But any country with any sense of national security and any sense of responsibility, while hoping for peace, would most assuredly prepare for war. I regard almost the entire context of those amendments to be such that they would take the sting out of any preparations that we may make for any emergency which may occur in this part of the world. {: .speaker-JO8} ##### Mr Barnard: -- You have not read them all. {: .speaker-1V5} ##### Mr KATTER: -- I have read them in detail. It is interesting to note that there has been a constant barrage of propaganda to dissipate any stand that we may take on Communist intrusion into these areas. It has become most unpopular even to use that word. In 1964 **Mr Khrushchev** was asked whether the bitterness that existed between his country and- Peking was due to the fact that, he feared an invasion of Russia. His reply - and this can be checked and I have said it time and again in this House - was no. He said that if there -was a population explosion it would take place into Australia and not into South Vietnam or anywhere else. When the honourable member for Wills **(Mr Bryant)** visited the area and saw what was happening in Laos he wired back with absolute honesty and no doubt with a feeling of great urgency that there was indeed a Communist intrusion into that area. Would anyone be stupid enough to think that when we do move out of that area the countries will not be completely overrun and utterly Communist dominated? Of course they will. What then? Let us just hope that Indonesia maintains its present loyalties and its present allegiances. The proposal in the Bill is that the period of national service be reduced from 2 years to 18 months, l.do not know that this could not be further reduced. I have often thought that a period of 12 months would probably be quite sufficient. However, the substance of the Bill indicates that we will continue with national service. I do not know what the attitude of the Opposition is towards the security of this country. I do not know whether members of the Opposition have paid any honest and responsible attention to the lessons of history. I do not know whether they have read just one comment made by Lord Birkenhead in 1928 when he told the British Cabinet: 'We have 10 years to prepare for war'. Because of that statement the British dropped their aggressiveness and their preparedness. And what happened? We had the Battle of Britain in which a handful of men went up and were shot out of the sky. We saw a war prolonged and thousands of lives lost that would not have been lost had there been sufficient preparedness. The honourable member for the Northern Territory **(Mr Calder)** and myself are a little more aware than most people of this need for preparedness because we represent areas that are wide open to invasion or to any sort of aggression that may come from the north, the northeast or the northwest. No-one could suggest that even with tb ultimate in preparedness, even if we were to call up everyone possible into each of the Services, we would have reached a stage of preparedness that would be terribly effective against an aggressor. What about our obligations to and our ties with a country such as the United States, which is constantly criticised and berated by honourable members opposite?- I have never yet heard them get up and pay the United States any credit whatsoever. All they do is gloat and crow because the people of America have tired of the Vietnam commitment. It is all very well to talk of the people of the United States tiring of the war in Vietnam. After all, they are many, many thousands of miles away. They are not on the fringe of this area as we are. They are not the only European country in this great area of Asiatic countries! But even though the American people do not face the same situation as we do it would be pretty well fatal for us to sever our ties with and our dependence on this country. We have heard the slogan 'All the way with LET. Honourable members opposite spurned ali that. I would ask them to suggest who, if an emergency did occur - lel us look at the thing realistically - will come to our aid? Would Soviet Russia or Peking? Did the Leader of the Opposition **(Mr Whitlam)** come to an arrangement that Chou En-lai will come down and defend us if someone is threatening this country? I am utterly amazed that never at any time have honourable members opposite offered one word of criticism of the Vietcong or the absolute brutality that was perpetrated by those people. We have never heard one whisper about it. Their big objective is to have us reduce our effective defence It is all very well to say that we do not want to call up our young people. Of course we do not. If the system of voluntary service in the armed forces was effective we would not need conscription. It is interesting to ponder the reasons why our young people are not volunteering. There has been an infiltration of ideology and attitude into the western world which has caused many people no longer to think in terms of the defence of their country and of patriotism. ft is interesting to note that at least 2 speakers on the opposite side of the House commented that Britain and Canada do not have a system of compulsory military training. As has been pointed out by the honourable member . for Maranoa, there is not the same demand for such training in those countries. But there is another reason, and that is that the vitality of the western world is being dissipated. The destruction of patriotism as we once knew it has led to a lack of awareness in our young people of the need for defence. The new generation has not had a chance to understand what is demanded of it and the responsibilities it must assume if it is to defend the way of life it considers to be right and acceptable. This is not surprising when we see the alternative Prime Minister outside this Parliament addressing a public gathering under 2 Vietcong flags. He has not done this on only one occasion. I was in . the United States on the last occasion when this happened but J -read all about it. . {: .speaker-K5L} ##### Mr Cope: -- I take a point of order. I consider that remark to be a reflection on the Leader of the Opposition. As was pointed out in this House by the Leader of the Opposition, no such thing occurred but there was a falsification of a photograph. {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr SPEAKER: -Order! The Leader of the Opposition explained this matter to the House. There seemed in my mind at that time some doubt as to the authenticity of some photographs. I suggest that the honourable member withdraw the remark. {: .speaker-1V5} ##### Mr KATTER: -- May I refer to a previous occasion when I myself saw the Leader of the Opposition talking outside this Parliament under a Vietcong flag? {: .speaker-JO8} ##### Mr Barnard: -- I rise to a point of order. 1 want this statement, which is a reflection on the Leader of the Opposition, to be withdrawn categorically. If the honourable member does not withdraw it I will ask that he be dealt with. {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr SPEAKER: -Order! I ask the honourable member for Kennedy to withdraw the first statement he made. {: .speaker-1V5} ##### Mr KATTER: -- I will withdraw that comment, **Mr Speaker,** as requested by you. I reiterate that rather than the concept of patriotism being encouraged our young people are being led to believe that the defence of the country is no longer of any great importance. Australian soldiers in the past have earned the admiration of the world. All over the world the Australian soldier is held in the highest regard not only for his fighting prowess but for the fact that everywhere he goes he is regarded as a good fellow. Again I refer to the attempts by the Opposition to besmirch and destroy that reputation. Remember the occasion when it sanctimoniously defended a spy. who had been responsible for either the death or mutilation of 28 Australians, because it had been alleged that someone had poured a glass of water down her throat. There were other suggestions of what might have been done to her and they were not all related to execution. {: .speaker-2V4} ##### Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP -- Do you believe in water torture? {: .speaker-1V5} ##### Mr KATTER: -] am loyal to the Australian troops; I am not loyal to a spy for the Vietcong. If this woman was a spy. under the ordinary normal conditions of warfare she would have been executed. I wonder what the Vietcong would have done if an Australian girl had been caught spying on their troops? This is interesting to contemplate. There is not very much more I want to say except that I most sincerely hope that this Government respects the trust that has been placed in it. I represent a great industrial electorate, and as I move around the country I come in contact with the ordinary rank and file continuously. They commend this Government and they are proud of the attitudes we have adopted. I would say that the great betrayal by this side of the House would be if we succumbed one iota to any pressures to drop any action which would contribute to the defence of this country. If that happened we would be on the way out. The people of Australia want their defence to be watched, and if it means a system of national service we must have it The honourable member for Burke suggests that only the sons of workers went to war. Admittedly some of the greatest heroes who have defended this country came from the working class ranks. I would suggest that if honourable members opposite want to make sweeping statements that no-one from the other side of the fence ever gave distinguished service for their country they should visit the Australian War Memorial and have a look at the photographs of 2 Victoria Cross winners, men who were idolised by the rank and file of inland Queensland and men who I am proud to say - one of them is now dead - came from the electorate of Kennedy. One is **Major Tanner** and the other is Colonel Murray or 'Mad Murray' as he was affectionately called. Both those men were sheep breeders. They were graziers. We have to be fair about this. One of the great things about national service is that it produces fine men. I have seen evidence of this time and time again. I am sure that honourable members on both sides of the House, if they were honest about this, would confirm this view. National service brings all classes of people together. It breaks the class barrier that some people would solemnly wish to create, pitting Australian against Australian. The barriers come down and all people are equals when they go into the Army. It is a remarkable thing. If national service had nothing to do with defence but was purely a system of training it would pay handsomely. I have seen young men go away from my own home town of Cloncurry - young men who have been drifting along out of work and who looked as though they had a pretty poor future - and come back as proud young men, straight as a die, with this wonderful training behind them. Even if national service achieves nothing else it gets these young men off the streets and gives them a chance in life that they would not otherwise have. I support this Bill most strongly. I again say that if this Government were to abandon one iota of the firm stand it has taken in regard to the defence of Australia it would deserve to go put of office. {: #subdebate-36-0-s17 .speaker-KGN} ##### Mr KIRWAN:
Forrest -- We have been treated this evening to a talk on the importance of patriotism. We on this, side of the. House have been charged with having no regard or little regard for the men in the Services of this country. Indeed we have been lectured and treated to pontification, exceeded only by that of the honourable member for La Trobe **(Mr Jess),** by a gentleman who is known as the chameleon from Kennedy because he is a man who has moved from the extreme left of politics to the extreme right. I refer to. the honourable member for Kennedy **(Mr. Katter).** When he contested a seat for the Australian Democratic Labor Party and found that Party could not win a seat in this House, he changed his political beliefs for those of the Australian Country Party so that he might find his way into this place. The honourable member for Kennedy tries to adapt his colours to suit the' occasion in an effort to win over to himself the support of the people in his electorate. I want to say at the outset that I in common with my colleagues on this side of the House have nothing but the highest respect for the men who have fought for this country in the various wars in which it has been involved. In contrast to honourable members opposite we on this side believe that those men acquitted themselves' well in a war in which we should never have been involved. The question is not one of the conduct of our men in Vietnam. The question is the conduct of this Government in sending them there and maintaining them in Vietnam, and most especially the attitude of the Government in introducing conscription and allowing conscripts to be sent to that war, some to be injured and some to be killed. It is we who most strongly regret that; it is we who feel for the soldiers. 1 would hope that at the forthcoming election there will be somebody who will take up in the electorate of Kennedy the issue of Vietnam and conscription, and the other important issues that face this country at the present time, as 1 did in the electorate of Forrest in 1966 and again in 1969. It was mainly on those 2 issues that the Australian Labor Party won the seat of Forrest from the then Minister for External Affairs. 1 believe that conscription is morally unjustifiable except in circumstances such as those that prevailed in 1941. Only a repetition of those circumstances would justify the introduction and practice of national service in this country. We. have been told tonight that we must be prepared for an invasion. This country has a phobia in that we have been afraid of invasion ever since settlement in 1 788. Probably that fear springs from the fact that we are the southland and have a feeling that the laws of gravity will operate to cause people to fall down upon us, forgetting that there are oceans to be crossed and lines of communication to be maintained by any army invading these shores. I refer honourable members opposite who have used the fear of invasion as the basis of their argument for national service to a recent statement of their former leader, the right honourable member for Higgins **(Mr Gorton),** that he sees very little or almost no likelihood at all of Australia's being involved in war within the next 10 years. I also advise them to obtain from the Parliamentary Library, in their quieter and saner moments, a book on Australia's defence edited by Gelber in which they will find an article written by the honourable member for Isaacs **(Mr Hamer).** It is a reasoned and well informed argument by a man who was a professional sailor. He points out the reasons why Australia is in no danger of imminent invasion, or even invasion within the foreseeable future. I refer honourable members opposite to both those authorities, one a former Prime Minister and Minister for Defence and the other a former professional serviceman. I am opposed to conscription because it requires inequitable sacrifice. Members of a small section of the community are called upon to give up to 2 years of their lives in military service. Some are required to fight outside this country, while others spend their period of service in almost constant boredom. One of the main complaints I have had from national servicemen is that they have too little to do and must spend most of their time bored stiff, doing nothing because there is nothing for them to do in this country. One of the arguments I have heard from officers in the forces who wish to maintain the numbers in the Services is that their only hope of promotion is in a large army. They do not wish to remain in the lower ranks any longer than necessary. I believe there is no justification for national service now and that there was none when it was introduced. My authority for that statement is a former Minister for Health and former Minister for the Army. I do not know what portfolio he has at present because Ministers change so frequently that it is hard to keep up with them. About a fortnight before national service was introduced he said that the best military advice was against it. Yet this Government is supposed to be swayed by the best military advice, even when that advice leads to investment in Fill aircraft which were needed, it was said, to protect us from invasion that was to take place in 1963. I believe that national service is wasteful of talents. Most of the men who are inducted into the forces are tradesmen or professional men. They must be of such a standard to pass the educational examination, it seems. Apparently they must also be exceedingly fit, since 70 per cent of men called up are rejected on the ground that they are medically unfit. Young men called up for national service would be better employed in the teaching profession, medical profession or other professions and trades, rather than wasting their time in Australia, if they are not sent overseas, or being exposed to the risk of being maimed or killed in Vietnam in a war that is indefensible and in which we should never have been involved. I believe that national service is unjustifiable on the ground of the waste of the talents of the men involved in it. I believe that because the situation is as the right honourable member for Higgins and the honourable member for Isaccs said it to be, it is an ideal time for Australia, along with other nations, to be actively pursuing the means of bringing about a situation in which peace might prevail and in trying to bring calm in the. places where war is now taking place and where we are not involved and where, I believe, we ought not to become involved in the same way as we ought not to have become involved in Vietnam. Australia should be doing far more than it is now doing in trying to assuage the troubles in Pakistan and in bringing about a better understanding between the East and the West and in relieving the suffering and the anguish of people "Who have become refugees through the struggle that has taken place there. I believe that if we open this Parliament every day with prayers and if we adopt these trappings we . should apply more of the Christian spirit in our outlook and approach to life and' try to find how it can be practically applied to bring about" conditions in which peace will prevail and in which men will learn to live together. The Government has this responsibility and, because war is not imminent in the foreseeable future, now is an ideal time for us to be spending some of the money, which we are now spending on defence and wasting in other areas, to bring about conditions of peace. I hasten to add that my motivation is one that comes directly from the Scriptures and has nothing whatever to do with a lesser ideology that is holding sway in areas of this world because Christian people do not take seriously enough their own faith and do not try to apply it to this life. I believe that conscription is unjustifiable on moral and religious grounds. If we claim, as we sometimes do, to be a Christian nation, we should look at what that implies much more closely than we normally do. . The Christian has 3 attitudes to war and peace. Taking them in historical order they are the doctrine of outright . Christian pacificism, the doctrine . of Christian nonpacificism, which involves the doctrine of the just war, and the doctrine of the crusade. I do not think anyone would want me to argue for the crusade because noone believes in it any more. However, the other 2 attitudes are relevant. The doctrine of Christian pacificism is a doctrine that is founded upon the life, the teachings and the example of Christ. He showed in His life that the way to overcome was by loving one's enemy, by forgiveness and by self-sacrifice. He apparently was defeated at Calvary and yet, if the Christian faith is correct, He rose triumphant over the worst that could be done to Him and came back to make a new faith out of 11 men who had wilted and failed at the time of his arrest. We believe that the things that were achieved in the early church, the changes that were wrought and the good influence that the Church has had from that time to this are indications of what can be done if the Christian faith is taken seriously and applied in political and other areas. Many people in the community claim to be Christian and those who accept the doctrine of Christian pacificism can apply for exemption from national service on the grounds of conscientious' objection. The only other ground that is open to Christian people is that of Christian nonpacificism. The Christian non-pacificist says that he cannot take to himself the characteristics crf Christ - that Christ was unique and that he is human and therefore he must adopt a different approach. He says that war - by contrast with selfsacrifice, loving one's enemies and forgiveness - can be justified when it is fought to maintain justice and right, and only in those circumstances. In fact, the doctrine pf Christian non-pacificism has as one of its major tenets the doctrine of the just war. Some of the points that undergird that doctrine are these: >War 'must be just as to its intent - which is to restore peace. > >The object of war is to vindicate undoubted justice. > >The war must be undertaken by a lawful authority. > >The conduct of the war must be just. Methods and materials used must be consistent with man's nature as a rational being. Only combatants must be involved. > >The cause for which the war Is to be fought must undoubtedly warrant the possible cost of the war. I believe that as that is the doctrine which underlies the doctrine of Christian nonpacificism, there cannot be in the present world a just war. There is no longer a war in which only combatants are involved. There is no. longer the likelihood of a war being fought with full respect being granted to the Geneva Conventions. There is every possibility that such a war will become a nuclear war in which case the possible costs will certainly far outweigh the possible good for which the war is waged. In fact the whole world could be lost and whole peoples - most of them innocents - wiped out. I believe that many more Christian people ought to know that there are 2 grounds only open to them, in which case there would be far more people applying on conscientious objection grounds for exemption from war. Because they are the only 2 grounds, I believe that the practice of national service is morally and religiously unjustifiable. Before 1 resume my seat I wish to refer, on the same note, to something that has been referred to already by the honourable member for Capricornia **(Dr Everingham).** Provision exists within this Bill for the exemption from national service of theological students, ministers of religion and members of religious orders. I believe that that provision ought not be there. Somebody has said already that it dates back to medieval times - indeed, that is true - when the Church used to promote wars and the people who used to do most of the promoting were sacroscanct and able to stay home and to send others to fight for them on the assurance that their souls would be saved. Because of that provision being made in medieval times, it has been written into al) similar legislation through the years to the present time. I believe that if that provision were removed from the legislation far more ministers of religion and theological students would know what are the doctrines of war and peace of the Christain Church and would not only be seeking exemption on conscientious grounds for themselves but also be taking a far more active part in opposing wars and in trying to bring about the establishment of peace. One ground which all Christians - those who are pacifists and those who are nonpacifists - hold in common is the belief that peace is something that has to be pursued; that peace is not something that just happens; that- peace is not just an absence of war temporarily; but that peace is something which must be fought for and as much spent on fighting for it as is spent on defence so-called. I hope that, in the future, we shall see governments in this world spending as much on trying to bring about the conditions in which peace will prevail as they spend at present on preparations for war. I hope that we will see leadership given throughout the world by churches which are unique - or which ought to enjoy a unique position - in that they have within their membership people of all possible colours and of every nation. They ought to be able to have a feeling of patriotism that is above that of the nation and which will lead them to try to reach across barriers and understand instead of the patriotism of nationalism which builds up pride only in one's nation and a feeling of superiority over people of a different nation, because this is one of the causes of strife within the world. I believe in patriotism to something higher - patriotism to the world. 1 believe that patriotism which is born of the love of all men ought to be something to which we should aspire rather than that narrow patriotism of love of nation to which we are born. I believe that patriotism to one's nation is important but that it is secondary to our love of all men and our love to the world as a whole. Therefore I believe that the National Service Act has been, from its very beginnings, unjustifiable on many grounds. It is unjustifiable on economic grounds, on the ground of the suffering it causes to people, on the ground that it takes from our nation men who are in the position where they can use their newly attained skills in trades and professions and on the ground of the suffering it brings to the few families that are involved. I hope that our amendment will be accepted, or failing that, that within the next 12 months we will see supporters of the Liberal-Country Parties on the Opposition benches and members of the Opposition on the Government benches. When that stage is reached we will have sufficient numbers to wipe conscription legislation off the statute book and we will leave it off the statute book until a situation arises - if it ever does arise - such as that which arose in 1941, and only under such circumstances would we re-introduce legislation of this kind. Debate (on motion by **Mr Irwin)** adjourned. House adjourned at 11.12 p.m. {: .page-start } page 1590 {:#debate-37} ### ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS UPON NOTICE The following answers to questions upon notice were circulated: {:#subdebate-37-0} #### Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission (Question No. 2665) {: #subdebate-37-0-s0 .speaker-2V4} ##### Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP asked the Minister for Labour and National Service, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Is it the policy of the Registrar, when satisfied that Conciliation and Arbitration Regulation 138 applies, to remit filing fees and to pay the applicant's travelling and accommodation expenses to the hearing and not less than 75 per cent of his taxed costs.' 1. If so, what are the names of those persons who have received financial assistance in excess of the amounts referred to above. 2. If the position is not as stated, what are the names of those persons, if any, who have received financial assistance of lesser amounts than those referred to iti part (1). {: #subdebate-37-0-s1 .speaker-KIM} ##### Mr Lynch:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. I am advised that there is no fixed policy for Registrars in determining applications made under regulation 138 of the Conciliation and Arbitration Regulations and each application must be determined on its own merits. I am further advised that most applications determined in favour of the applicant would provide for reimbursement in full of any fares necessarily incurred by the applicant in attending the hearing of the application and of filing fees and other similar payments. When the application is heard at other than his home town, he would be reimbursed an amount assessed by the Registrar for reasonable accommodation expenses incurred. Each direction of financial assistance is made subject to specified conditions as appropriate to the case. 1. and (3) I am advised that since the revised Conciliation and Arbitration Act came into operation on 14th August 1956, and as at 3rd September 1971, 117 persons, have applied for financial assistance under regulation 138 of the Conciliation and Arbitration Regulations. Some of these have sought assistance on more than one occasion. Financial assistance has been afforded to the following 7 persons at a rate in excess of 75 per cent of taxed costs: {: type="A" start="F"} 0. Byrnes 1. Holmes (2 occasions) 2. Baker (2 occasions) 3. W. Meagher (2 occasions) 4. J. Costello 5. Hoolahan 6. G. McKay Financial assistance has been afforded to the following five persons at a rate less than 75 per cent of taxed costs: 7. McNamara 8. R. Wishart 9. H. Q. Griffiths 10. N. Lynch 11. M. Grove One person was assisted to the extent of a sum in specific money terms and assistance at (he rate of 75 per cent of taxed costs was afforded to 34 persons. No claims were received in the remainder of cases. Water: Lock-Kim ba Pipeline (Question No. 3866) {: #subdebate-37-0-s2 .speaker-KWZ} ##### Mr Wallis:
GREY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA asked the Minister for National Development, upon notice: >When is it anticipated that the South Australian Government will receive a reply, to its request for Commonwealth financial assistance to complete the Lock-Kimba pipeline on Eyre Peninsula in that State? {: #subdebate-37-0-s3 .speaker-KVR} ##### Mr Swartz:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: >The Premier of South Australia has now been informed that the Commonwealth is not prepared to consider financial assistance for the LockKimba scheme at this stage. Having regard to the uncertain situation in the wool industry it is deemed inappropriate to provide special assistance under the National Water Resources Development Programme to support an expansion in the industry in one area, at the same time as the Government is involved in measures to alleviate the economic problems of the industry generally. {:#subdebate-37-1} #### Means Test: Abolition (Question No. 3096) {: #subdebate-37-1-s0 .speaker-JM9} ##### Mr Armitage: asked the Minister for Social Services, upon notice: >What would it cost the Commonwealth to abolish the means test. {: #subdebate-37-1-s1 .speaker-DB6} ##### Mr Wentworth:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: >The estimated additional cost involved in paying age pension free of means test to women over 60 years and men over 65 years of age after the rates proposed in the Social Services Bill (No. 2) become operative is approximately $440m a year. {:#subdebate-37-2} #### Education Research Unit (Question No. 2275) {: #subdebate-37-2-s0 .speaker-RK4} ##### Mr Hayden:
OXLEY, QUEENSLAND asked the Minister for Education and Science, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Can he say which universities in Australia have established an educational research unit. 1. If so, when were those units established. 2. What has been their budget each year during their operation. 3. Can he give a general indication of the research undertaken during each year of operation. 4. Have any other universities indicated an Intention of establishing educational research units. {: #subdebate-37-2-s1 .speaker-QS4} ##### Mr Malcolm Fraser:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. and (2) The following universities in Australia have established educational research units or units which, although differing somewhat in title and objectives, perform some of the functions that are performed by educational research units: University of Sydney,, 1969 University of New South Wales, 1961 University of New England, 1960 Macquarie University, 1967 University of Melbourne, 1958-59 Monash University, 1969 University of Western Australia, 1969 Australian National University, 1968 {: type="1" start="3"} 0. Details of the budgets for all these units are not available but the budgets for the years 1969 and 1970 as supplied by some of the universities concerned are as follows: The University of New England expects that the activities of its educational research unit will cost approximately, $17,000 in 1971. No personnel have yet been appointed to the Educational Research Unit at the University of Sydney. {: type="1" start="4"} 0. One of the main purposes of educational research units is to improve the teaching effectiveness of academic staff. Apart from this, the research undertaken includes studies in the following: Equality of educational opportunity. Recruiting to the teaching profession. Medical Students: Efficiency of university education. Economics of Education. Problems of development in a system of higher education. Costs and benefits in Australian education. Research of University Entrance Examinations and entrants. Causal factors - personal, institutional and environmental - underlying student failure and wastage. Development of new teaching methods and teaching aids, e.g. closed circuit television, tape-slide combinations. Techniques of examining students. Study, of exclusion policies for unsatisfactory progress. {: type="1" start="5"} 0. Yes - several other universities are planning to introduce educational research units or teaching units within the next few years. {:#subdebate-37-3} #### Hospitals (Question No. 3350) {: #subdebate-37-3-s0 .speaker-RK4} ##### Mr Hayden: asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. To what extent does the Government collaborate with the States in the sharing of information on the construction and servicing of hospitals. 1. When was this collaboration begun and by what steps and at what dates were alterations made to the methods and extent of the collaboration. {: #subdebate-37-3-s1 .speaker-KFH} ##### Dr Forbes:
LP -- The Minister for Health has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. The 1970 Australian Health Ministers' Conference agreed to the formation of a Hospital and Allied Services Advisory Council to study such matters as the planning and equipping of hospitals, the application of computers and automatic methods to hospital activities, uniform costing in health services management and studies of hospital and allied services generally. 1. The Council held its inaugural meeting in November 1970. No alterations have been made to the Council's functions since its formation. {:#subdebate-37-4} #### Specialist Medical Practitioners: Recognition (Question No. 2785) {: #subdebate-37-4-s0 .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr Whitlam: asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. How many applications for recognition al a specialist- medical practitioner have been (a) received and (b) granted by the Specialists Recognition Advisory Committee in each State. 1. How many appeals against refusal 'of recognition as a specialist medical practitioner have been (a) received and (b) upheld by the Specialists Recognition Advisory Committee in each State. {: #subdebate-37-4-s1 .speaker-KFH} ##### Dr Forbes:
LP -- The Minister for Health has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. The Specialist Recognition Advisory Committees and the Specialist Recognition Appeal Committee were established following the enactment of the National Health Act 1970 which received the Royal Assent on 24 June 1970. In order to expedite the payment of appropriate medical benefits for services provided by specialists and consultant physicians from 1 July 1970, special action was taken, by authority of section 29D(7) of the National Health Act to recognise a number of medical practitioners as specialists or as consultant physicians for the purposes of the National Health Act during the period of some weeks after 24 June 1970 until the Committees were established. The number of specialists and consultant physicians recognised as at 30 June 1971 for the purposes of the Act, including those recognised by special action during the short period referred to, were: The numbers of applications for recognition as a specialist medical practitioner or as a consultant physician received to 30 June 1971 and referred to Specialist Recognition Advisory Committees and the numbers recognised in pursuance of recommendations by the Committees were - {: type="1" start="2"} 0. Details of the appeals lodged with the Specialist Recognition Appeal Committee to 30 June 1971 were as follows. There were no cases awaiting a decision at 30 June 1971. {:#subdebate-37-5} #### Notes on the News' Radio Programme (Question No. 3151) {: #subdebate-37-5-s0 .speaker-BV8} ##### Mr Calwell:
MELBOURNE, VICTORIA asked the PostmasterGeneral, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. What are the- names and the occupations of speakers engaged for the Australian Broadcasting Commission broadcast of Notes on the News. 1. On how many occasions was each person concerned employed on this programme in 1969, 1970 and in 1971 to date, and what amount was paid to each person. 2. Who decides which journalists shall be employed. 3. Is preference shown to people with antiLabor records. {: #subdebate-37-5-s1 .speaker-KIF} ##### Sir Alan Hulme:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. and (2) The names of the persons who contributed to 'Notes on the News', their qualifications and the number of times they broadcast between 1st January 1969, and 9th April 1971, are given in the attached list. Contributors to the programme are paid a standard fee which, since May 1970. has been $20 per broadcast. 1. The engagement of speakers for 'Notes on the News' is decided on a day-to-day basis by the ABC's Federal Supervisor. Current Affairs (Radio), in accordance with the Current Affairs policy laid down by the Commission. 2. No. {:#subdebate-37-6} #### Nursing Home Benefits (Question No. 3245) {: #subdebate-37-6-s0 .speaker-NH4} ##### Mr Keating:
BLAXLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES asked the Minister- representing the Minister for Health, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. How many occupied nursing home beds are at present attracting the $2 per day nursing home benefit in (a) the Commonwealth and (b) each of the States. 1. What are these figures expressed as a percentage of the total number of nursing home beds in (a) the Commonwealth and (b) each of the States. 2. How many occupied nursing home beds are at present attracting the S3 per day, intensive care subsidy in (a) the Commonwealth and (b) each of the States. 3. What are these figures expressed as a percentage of the total number of nursing home beds in (a) the Commonwealth and (b) each of the States. {: #subdebate-37-6-s1 .speaker-KFH} ##### Dr Forbes:
LP -- The Minister for Health has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1). (2), (3) and (4) Nursing home benefits are not payable according to bed classification but according to the classification of individual patients as requiring 'ordinary care' (in which case the rate of benefit is $2 a day) or 'intensive care' (in which case the total rate of benefit is S5 a day). The number of patients in each classification varies continually. However, in respect of nursing home benefits paid during the quarter ended 31st March 1971, the following figures provide a general indication of bed occupancy rates: {:#subdebate-37-7} #### Health Insurance Funds (Question No. 33S6) {: #subdebate-37-7-s0 .speaker-RK4} ##### Mr Hayden: asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Can the Minister furnish details of the number of (a) town and (b) conn i ry branches operated by each of the two biggest open health insurance funds operating in each of the States. 1. Has' there been any (a) reduction or (b) increase in the number of these branches in each State in each of the last 5 years; if so, what are the details. 2. Were these changes made at the request of the Government 3. What was the total amount spent on advertising in all forms by (a) all funds and (b) the two biggest open funds, in each State in each of the last 5 years. 4. What were these amounts expressed as percentages of operating costs. 5. What were the operating costs in aggregate and as a percentage of contributions. 6. What amounts were provided as agents commissions by (a) all funds and (b) the two big-, gest open funds, in each State in each of the last 5 years, and what were these amounts expressed as a percentage of operating costs. {: #subdebate-37-7-s1 .speaker-KFH} ##### Dr Forbes:
LP -- The Minister for Health has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. and (2) The number of (a) town (metropolitan area) and (b) country branches operated by each of the two biggest open health insurance funds operating in each of the States, is shown below together with details of reductions and increases in the number of these branches in each of the last 5 years: {: type="1" start="3"} 0. The Government has not given organisationsHowever, organisations are expected to keep tions directions in regard to their branch offices, overall expenses to reasonable levels. (4), (5), (6) and (7) The information sought is shown below for the 4 years 1966-67 to 1969-70. The details in respect of the 1970-71 period are not yet available. {:#subdebate-37-8} #### Medical Services Scheme (Question No. 3361) {: #subdebate-37-8-s0 .speaker-RK4} ##### Mr Hayden: asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. How many persons in each of the 3 low income groups did the Minister's Department estimate would be entitled to receive the benefits of totally and partially subsidised health insurance as a result of amendments to the National Health Act. 1. How many persons have applied for this benefit. {: #subdebate-37-8-s1 .speaker-KFH} ##### Dr Forbes:
LP -- The Minister for Health has provided the following answer to the honourable 'member's question: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Statistics issued by the Commonwealth Commissioner of Taxation prior to the commencement of the Subsidised Medical Services Scheme on 1st January 1970 indicated that about 100,000 families, comprising 300,000 people, could become eligible for assistance under the Scheme. Immediately prior to the extension from 1st July 1970 of the eligibility limits for assistance under the Scheme these statistics indicated that a further 84,000 families, comprising an additional 271,000 people could become eligible for partial subsidy. 1. This information is not available. However, the following information relates to the number of applications actually approved by ,he Department of Social Services for the 12 month period ended 31st December 1970. The income limits applying to each category of beneficiary are as follows: Class A - gross weekly family income does not exceed $46.50 or, if the applicant is of pensionable age, means as assessed do not exceed S2418. Class B - gross weekly family income does not exceed $49.50 or, if the applicant is of pensionable age, means as assessed do not exceed $2574. Class C - gross weekly family income does not exceed $52.50 or, if the applicant is of pensionable age, means as assessed do not exceed $2730. {:#subdebate-37-9} #### Ambulance Insurance Subscriptions (Question No. 3450) {: #subdebate-37-9-s0 .speaker-RK4} ##### Mr Hayden: asked the Treasurer, upon notice: >Does the Government intend to allow subscriptions to ambulance insurance as a tax deduction; if not, why not. {: #subdebate-37-9-s1 .speaker-DQF} ##### Mr Snedden:
Treasurer · BRUCE, VICTORIA · LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: lt is not the practice of the Government to reply to questions which involve matters of policy. Nevertheless, the question of allowing income tax deductions in respect of ambulance insurance subscriptions was considered during the preparation of the 1971-72 Budget but, in the light of the overall objective of the Budget, the Government took the view that it should not propose concessions going beyond those which 'I announced. Boeing 747 Aircraft (Question No: 3467) {: #subdebate-37-9-s2 .speaker-ZE4} ##### Mr Lionel Bowen:
KINGSFORD-SMITH, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP asked the Minister representing the Minister for Civil Aviation, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. What insurance cover has been arranged in respect of the 4 Boeing 747 aircraft purchased by the Commonwealth for Qantas on 10th December 1970. 1. What is the name of the insurance company and what premiums are payable. {: #subdebate-37-9-s3 .speaker-KVR} ##### Mr Swartz:
LP -- The Minister for Civil Aviation has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Qantas has arranged hull and third party insurance covers on its fleet of 4 Boeing 747 aircraft, two of which, have already been delivered. These covers embrace normal flight and ground risks and the extra perils of war, riots, strikes, civil commotion, hijacking, acts of sabotage, malicious acts, terrorist activities and similar risks. The sum insured, in $US25m for normal flight and ground risks on the hulls, and $US18m for the extra perils. Aircraft third party cover is $US80m. {: type="1" start="2"} 0. All policies are underwritten on the London aviation market, with Lloyds' European and American .underwriting groups participating. The insurances were handled through the Qantas brokers, Harvey Trinder (Northern) Pty Ltd. It is not considered that it would be appropriate to make public the premiums payable to the underwriters in respect of these insurances, as this is a normal confidential commercial arrangement. Select Committee on Aircraft Noise: Recommendations (Question No. 3474) {: #subdebate-37-9-s4 .speaker-JOU} ##### Mr Bennett:
SWAN, WESTERN AUSTRALIA asked the Minister representing the Minister for Civil Aviation, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Which of the recommendations of the House of Representatives Select Committee on Aircraft Noise, tabled in the House on 29th October 1970, have been adopted. 1. Have any recommendations not been adopted; if so, what recommendations and why. {: #subdebate-37-9-s5 .speaker-KVR} ##### Mr Swartz:
LP -- The Minister for Civil Aviation has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question. {: type="1" start="1"} 0. The following Recommendations have been adopted: I, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17(a), 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29. {: type="1" start="2"} 0. The following Recommendations are at present under consideration: 5, 8, 17(b), 17(c), 17(d). {:#subdebate-37-10} #### Education (Question No. 3500) {: #subdebate-37-10-s0 .speaker-NF4} ##### Mr Cohen:
ROBERTSON, NEW SOUTH WALES asked the Minister for Education and Science, upon notice: >What were the (a) numbers and (b) percentages of students who were (i) enrolled for the third i last year of secondary education, (ii) candidates for the Commonwealth secondary scholarships examination and (iii) awarded scholarships in each of the (A) Government, (B) Catholic and (C) other private schools in the electoral division of Robertson in each year since the Commonwealth Secondary Scholarship Scheme was introduced. {: #subdebate-37-10-s1 .speaker-QS4} ##### Mr Malcolm Fraser:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: >Statistical records covering schools in particular electoral divisions are not maintained by my Department. However, if the honourable member cares to provide me. with a list of the schools in which he is interested, then I will see what details are available for those schools. What information there is will relate only to the number of applicants and of scholarship winners since statistics of enrolments at particular schools are not kept by my Department. Australian Forces: Accommodation at Singapore (Question No. 3524). **Mr Morrison** asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. At what bases in Singapore are Australian forces accommodated. (2) -How far are these bases from each other. (3) On - what date did Australian forces occupy each base. 1. What arrangements have been entered into with the Government of Singapore for the occupation of these bases. 2. What is the annual rent paid by the Australian Government to the Government of Singapore for the use of the bases. {: #subdebate-37-10-s2 .speaker-KDT} ##### Mr Fairbairn:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. .The Australian Infantry Battalion is at present in Selarang Barracks, the Field Battery is in Nee Soon Barracks, and there are other Australian sub-units and detachments at Terror, Kranji, Suara, Tengah, Tyersall Park, the Naval Stores Basin and Changi. 1. Taking the Naval Stores Basin as a central point of measurement, the distances from there to the other locations are: The Battalion will be moved in a few months time from Selarang to Sembawang, which is 3 miles from the Naval Stores Basin. The headquarters unit at Tyersall Park will also be moved to the Naval Headquarters building, which is adjacent to the Naval Stores Basin. {: type="1" start="3"} 0. The Australian forces occupied the respective bases on the following dates: Selarang - February 1970 Nee Soon- February 1970 Terror - January 1971 Kranji November 1970 Suara - January 1971 Tengah- August 1971 Tyersall Park- August 1970 Naval Stores Basin - August 1970 Changi- August 1970 {: type="1" start="4"} 0. and S. An adequate allocation of real estate has been made to the Australian Forces as part of ANZUK. The actual basis of occupancy and financial arrangements applicable to barracks, married quarters and other installations has not yet been finalised. No rent is currently being paid to the Singapore Government in respect of real estate occupied by Australian forces. {:#subdebate-37-11} #### Papua New Guinea: Education (Question No. 3585) {: #subdebate-37-11-s0 .speaker-KUX} ##### Mr Stewart:
LANG, NEW SOUTH WALES asked the Minister for External Territories, upon notice: How many students are enrolled in : {: type="a" start="a"} 0. primary, 1. secondary, and 2. technical classes in 3. Mission and {: type="i" start="ii"} 0. Government schools in the Territory of Papua New Guinea. {: #subdebate-37-11-s1 .speaker-JOA} ##### 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 Ministerial Member for Education in the House of Assembly, for Papua New Guinea. The Administrator on the advice of the Ministerial Member for Education has provided the following information: The 1971 student enrolments are: {:#subdebate-37-12} #### Papua New Guinea: Education (Question No. 3587) {: #subdebate-37-12-s0 .speaker-KUX} ##### Mr Stewart: asked the Minister for External Territories, upon notice: How many children in the Territory of Papua New Guinea are unable to obtain: {: type="a" start="a"} 0. primary, and 1. secondary school education. {: #subdebate-37-12-s1 .speaker-JOA} ##### 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 Ministerial Member for Education in the House of Assembly for Papua New Guinea. The Administrator on the advice of the Ministerial Member for Education has provided the following information: (a) An estimated 359,800 children in Papua New Guinea are in the 7-12 age bracket. 223,091 children - are in primary schools that are members of the Papua New Guinea education system. There is a small number of schools which are not members. It is difficult to estimate how many of the 7-12 age group are not in primary schools for the age of students in the different types of primary schools varies from five years to sixteen plus. The proportion of school-aged children in primary schools varies from district to district. Current policy recognises these existing inequalities in educational provision and looks to holding current percentages by minimal enrolment increases in districts where there are currently over 50 per cent of the school-age population, with emphasis upon increasing enrolments as rapidly as possible in the districts where this figure has not as yet been, achieved. Pursuant to such policy, those districts with the lowest percentage enrolments have been allocated the majority of additional teachers becoming available, (b) Approximately 60 per cent of students completing a primary education are unable to obtain a place in secondary schools. {:#subdebate-37-13} #### Defence Orders: United States of America (Question No. 3635) {: #subdebate-37-13-s0 .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr Whitlam: asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice:. {: type="1" start="1"} 0. What was the (a), value and (b) general nature of the defence orders placed by the United States of America in Australia, and processed by his Department in 1970-71. 1. Does he know the (a) value and (b) general nature of any defence orders placed direct on industry in Australia by the. United States in that year. {: #subdebate-37-13-s1 .speaker-KDT} ##### Mr Fairbairn:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (la) The value of defence orders placed by the US in Australia and processed by the Department of Supply in 1970/71 was $7.100m. (lb) Trucks and sugar. {: type="1" start="2"} 0. Complete records are- not available of orders placed directly on Australian industry by overseas countries, however some information on known contracts placed by companies in the United States is available and the details are as follows: Hawker de Havilland Pty Ltd - aircraft components, S2.874m. John Lysaght - Galvanised iron sheet, $0.577m. Various firms - Meat, $0.270m. Australian Training Aids - Portable range systems, $0.237m. State Dockyards New South Wales- Ship overhaul, $0.1 42m. - Commonwealth Aircraft Corporation- Aircraft components, $0.137m. {:#subdebate-37-14} #### Defence Orders: New Zealand (Question No. 3636) {: #subdebate-37-14-s0 .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr Whitlam: asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. What was the (a) value and (b) general nature of the defence orders placed by New Zealand in Australia and processed by his Depart- ; ment in 1970-71. 1. Does he know the (a) value and (b) general ; nature of any defence orders placed direct on industry in Australia by New Zealand in that year. {: #subdebate-37-14-s1 .speaker-KDT} ##### Mr Fairbairn:
LP -- The answer to the hon ourable member's question is as follows: :" (la) The value of defence orders placed by New Zealand in Australia and processed by the Department of Supply in 1970-71 was $0.110m. (lb) Rifle spares and naval equipment. (2) It is known that orders totalling $1.277m have been placed by companies in New Zealand for communications equipment and vehicles. {:#subdebate-37-15} #### Defence Orders: Britain (Question No. 3637) {: #subdebate-37-15-s0 .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr Whitlam: asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. What- was the (a) value and (b) general nature of the defence orders placed by Britain in Australia and processed by his .Department, in 1970-71. 1. Does he know the (a) value and (b) general nature of any defence orders placed direct, on industry in Australia by Britain in that year. {: #subdebate-37-15-s1 .speaker-KDT} ##### Mr Fairbairn:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (la) The value of defence orders placed by Britain in Australia and processed by the Department of Supply in 1970-71 was $6.555m. (lb) Ikara, Jindvik and camera equipment.' {: type="1" start="2"} 0. No. {:#subdebate-37-16} #### Defence Orders: Malaysia (Question No. 3638) {: #subdebate-37-16-s0 .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr Whitlam: asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice: (1) What was the (a) value and Cb) general nature of the defence orders placed by Malaysia in Australia and processed by his Department in 1970-71. {: type="1" start="2"} 0. Does he know the (a) value and (b) general nature of any defence orders placed direct on industry in Australia by Malaysia in that year. {: #subdebate-37-16-s1 .speaker-KDT} ##### Mr Fairbairn:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question, is as follows: (la) The value of defence orders placed by Malaysia in Australia and processed by the Department of Supply in 1970-71 was $0.958m. (lb) Munitions and truck spares. {: type="1" start="2"} 0. No. {:#subdebate-37-17} #### Defence Orders: Singapore (Question No. 3639) {: #subdebate-37-17-s0 .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr Whitlam: asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. What was the (a) value and (b) general nature of the defence orders placed' by Singapore in Australia and processed by his Department in 1970-71. 1. Does he know the (a) value and (b) general nature of any defence orders placed direct- on industry in Australia by Singapore in that year. {: #subdebate-37-17-s1 .speaker-KDT} ##### Mr Fairbairn:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (la) The value of defence orders placed by Singapore in Australia and processed by the Department of Supply in 1970-71 was $0.S36m. (lb) Rifles, r1112 spares and cranes. {: type="1" start="2"} 0. No. {:#subdebate-37-18} #### Education: Commonwealth Technical Scholarships (Question No, 3646) {: #subdebate-37-18-s0 .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr Whitlam: am asked the Minister for Education and Science, upon notice: > Will be bring up to date the information which his predeccesor gave me on 26 August 1970 (Hansard, page 573) on Commonwealth Technical scholarships. {: #subdebate-37-18-s1 .speaker-QS4} ##### Mr Malcolm Fraser:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. The number of Commonwealth Technical scholarships available for 1971 was 2,500. 1. The number of applicants for these scholarships was 31,753. Of these students 2,510 (or 7.9 per cent) successfully : competed for, and accepted an award. 2. The number and percentage of scholarships awarded this year to students who, at the time of competition were attending schools and college's in metropolitan and other areas are as follows: {: type="a" start="a"} 0. i.e., persons who. when they applied for a scholarship, were enrolled at a technical college, etc., or were not attending any school or college. {: type="1" start="4"} 0. Statistics of enrolments at schools and technical colleges are not available in sufficient detail to enable this question to be answered. 1. The number and percentage of Commonwealth Technical scholarship holders who, in accepting the scholarships in 1971, elected to use them for full-time and part-time studies are as follows: {:#subdebate-37-19} #### Education: Commonwealth Secondary Scholarships (Question No. 3647) {: #subdebate-37-19-s0 .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr Whitlam: asked the Minister for Education and Science, upon notice: >Will he bring up to date the information which his predecessor gave me on 26th August, 1970 (Hansard, page 573) and 29th October, 1970 (page 3091) on Commonwealth Secondary scholarships. {: #subdebate-37-19-s1 .speaker-QS4} ##### Mr Malcolm Fraser:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1.) The number of Commonwealth Secondary scholarships available in. 1971 was 10,000. {: type="1" start="2"} 0. The number of students who competed for these awards in 1970 totalled 91,639. Of these Students, 9,995 (or 10.9 per cent) successfully competed for and accepted a Commonwealth Secondary scholarship. 1. The numbers and percentages ol scholarships accepted in 1971 by students who at the time they competed were attending Government, Catholic and other non-government schools are as follows: Within each State scholarships are awarded on merit and no specific, allocation is made for particular categories of schools. {: type="1" start="4"} 0. 'Of students enrolled in the third last year of secondary schooling in 1970 at Government, Catholic and other non-government ., schools respectively, the percentages who were awarded Commonwealth Secondary scholarships' in 1971 are as follows: The answer to this question last >',ear also included a comparison between the number of students awarded Commonwealth Secondary Scholarships and enrolments in the second Inst year of schooling. Enrolment statistics for 1971 are not yet available. The numbers of students who accepted Commonwealth Secondary scholarships in 1970, expressed as percentages of enrolments in the second last secondary year in 1970 at each category of school were as follows: {: type="1" start="6"} 0. It is again not possible to provide this information since statistics of enrolments at schools in metropolitan and other areas respectively are not available. 1. The numbers and percentages of Commonwealth Secondary scholarships awarded to boys and girls in 1971 are as follows: {:#subdebate-37-20} #### Education: 15 to 18 Year Olds (Question No. 3649) {: #subdebate-37-20-s0 .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr Whitlam: asked the Minister for Education and Science, upon notice: >Are statistics available from the 1971 Census on the number and percentage of 15, 16, "17 and 18 year-olds in full-time education. (Hansard, 30 October 1970, page 3188). {: #subdebate-37-20-s1 .speaker-QS4} ##### Mr Malcolm Fraser:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: >The Acting Commonwealth Statistician has advised that the statistics requested by the honourable member will not be available for some considerable lime. 1 will supply them to the honourable member when they become available. Advisory Committee on the Teaching of Asian Languages and Cultures (Question No. 3656) **Mr Whitlam** asked the Minister for Education and Science, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Have he and the State Education Ministers met to discuss the report of the Advisory Committee on the Teaching of Asian Languages and Cultures which his predecessor sent them in October 1970 and which he tabled on 31st March 1971. 1. If so, what was the dale and outcome of the discussion. {: #subdebate-37-20-s2 .speaker-QS4} ##### Mr Malcolm Fraser:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. and (2) My predecessor had some brief discussion of the Report with State Ministers at the meeting of the Australian Education Council held in Brisbane on 27th and 28th May. It was agreed that the Directors-General of Education would meet with the Secretary of my Department to discuss the Report and to prepare proposals for consideration by the Governments. The meeting will take place during October. {:#subdebate-37-21} #### Commonwealth-State Education Committees (Question No. 3657) {: #subdebate-37-21-s0 .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr Whitlam: asked the Minister for Education and Science, upon notice: >On what joint Commonwealth-State committees, such as the Australian Science Education Project's Committee of Management (Hansard 16th September 1970, page 1250), and the National Committee on Social Science Teaching (Hansard, 16th March 1971, page 696), do officers of his Department serve. {: #subdebate-37-21-s1 .speaker-QS4} ##### Mr Malcolm Fraser:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: >Officers of my Department serve on the Committee of Management of the Australian Science Education Project and the National Committee on Social Science Teaching which are the only joint Commonwealth-State committees concerned with curriculum development. Handicapped Children: Interdepartmental Committee (Question No. 3718) **Mr Whitiam** asked the Minister for Social Services, upon notice: {: type="A" start="I"} 0. Which departments are represented on the interdepartmental committee established to make a survey of handicapped children and the facilities available for their use. {: type="1" start="2"} 0. What are the terms of reference of the committee. 1. What was the date of the establishment of the Committee. . {: #subdebate-37-21-s2 .speaker-DB6} ##### Mr Wentworth:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. (2) and (3) It is not the policy of the Government to give information on these matters which concern advice 'to Ministers and arrangements between Ministers and their advisers. See answers to Questions Nos. 3600 and 3601 in Hansard of 7th September 197L {:#subdebate-37-22} #### Insurance: Compulsory Third Party (Question No. 3725) {: #subdebate-37-22-s0 .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr Whitlam: asked the Treasurer, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Can he prepare tables of compulsory third party insurance premiums received and claims paid in each State and Territory in each year since 1950 corresponding to the tables on workmen's compensation insurance which as Minister for Labour and National Service he prepared for the honourable Member for Hindmarsh on 16th February 1971 (Hansard, page 65). 1. Can he prepare a table of claims paid expressed as a percentage of premiums receivable corresponding to the table on workmen's compensation insurance which the present Minister for Labour and National Service prepared for the Honourable Member for Hindmarsh on 20th April 1971 (Hansard, page 1733). {: #subdebate-37-22-s1 .speaker-DQF} ##### Mr Snedden:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: >The' Acting Commonwealth Statistician has provided the following information. > >Compulsory third party insurance premiums receivable and claims paid in each State in each year since 1950 are shown in the following tables. Similar information is not available for the Northern Territory and the Australian Capital Territory. > >The following table expresses claims paid as a percentage of the premiums receivable. However, the Acting Commonwealth Statistician advises that these percentages should not be regarded as the. percentages of premiums that are paid out as claims. This is because the figures shown above for premiums for each year are not adjusted to provide for premiums unearned at the end of the year, i.e., some of the amounts included in the premiums aggregated for a particular financial year are in respect of insurance cover during some or all of the subsequent year. The figures shown for claims for each year do not include an allowance for possible claims against that part of the cover relating to the subsequent year. {:#subdebate-37-23} #### Civil Aviation: Aerodromes Civil Aviation (Question No. 3740) (Question No. 3741) {: #subdebate-37-23-s0 .speaker-JZX} ##### Mr Collard:
KALGOORLIE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA asked the Minister representing the Minister for Civil Aviation, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Is it a fact that a MacRobertson Miller Airlines Fokker F28 aircraft on a flight from Port Hedland to Derby on Saturday 31st July or thereabouts, was unable, due to fog, to land at either Broome or Derby and eventually landed at Fitzroy Crossing. 1. If so, would this be a normal alternative under such conditions; if not, why was the aircraft flown, to Fitzroy . Crossing on the occasion in question. 2. What amount of fuel was the aircraft carrying .when it first arrived over Derby; was it sufficient to satisfy, fuel requirements for a continuation of the flight to Wyndham or Kununurra. 3. Were either Wyndham or Kununurra or both open for traffic. 4. For what period of time did the aircraft remain within the Derby area before the decision was taken to fly to Fitzroy Crossing. 5. What amount of fuel was the aircraft carrying when it: {: type="a" start="a"} 0. left Derby for Fitzroy Crossing; and (b) landed at Fitzroy Crossing. {: #subdebate-37-23-s1 .speaker-KVR} ##### Mr Swartz:
LP -- The Minister for Civil Aviation has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Yes, it is a fact that a MacRobertson Miller Airlines Fokker F28 aircraft, on a flight from Port Hedland to Derby on Saturday 31st July, was unable, due to fog, to land at either Derby or Broome and eventually landed at Fitzroy Crossing. {: #subdebate-37-23-s2 .speaker-JZX} ##### Mr Collard: asked the Minister representing the Minister for Civil -Aviation, upon notice: (1). Is Fitzroy Crossing in Western Australia a normal alternative to Derby, for Fokker Friendship and Fellowship aircraft when both Derby and Broome are fogbound. {: type="1" start="2"} 0. If hot, which aerodrome is -the normal alternative. 1. Does Fitzroy Crossing have: (a) the normal and necessary facilities for night landing and take-off; and tb) - an all weather airstrip. {: #subdebate-37-23-s3 .speaker-KVR} ##### Mr Swartz:
LP -- The Minister for Civil Aviation has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Fitzroy Crossing is suitable as an alternate aerodrome for Fokker Friendship ' aircraft during daylight hours' provided the weather conditions are suitable. It is hot normally used by Fokker Fellowship aircraft. 1. There are several aerodromes suitable as alternate aerodromes for Fokker Friendship and Fellowship aircraft in the area. Provided all the Department's operational requirements are satisfied, the selection of the most suitable alternate aerodrome rests with the operator dr the pilot-in-command. 2. (a) Fitzroy Crossing does not have all the normal facilities for night landing and take-off. (b) Fitzroy Crossing does not have a formed runway surface and is, therefore, subject to climatic conditions and may be adversely affected by, prolonged periods of rain.. 3. Fitzroy Crossing is not a normal alternative aerodrome for this type of aircraft. The aircraft was landed at Fitzroy Crossing because there were no suitable alternate aerodromes within range. 4. When the aircraft arrived overhead at Derby it was carrying approximately 5,200 lb of fuel This quantity of fuel was insufficient' for the aircraft to fly, to Wyndham or to Kununurra with normal fuel reserves. 5. Wyndham and Kununurra would have been available for traffic if required.. Meteorological conditions at these ports were suitable, but Wyndham is not normally used by F28 aircraft. 6. The aircraft remained within the Derby area for approximately 22 minutes. 7. When the aircraft departed the Derby area for Fitzroy Crossing it was carrying approximately 3,000 lb of fuel and after landing at Fitzroy Crossing the Captain estimated the fuel remaining to be between 300 and 500 lb. {:#subdebate-37-24} #### Education: Universities (Question No. 3764) {: #subdebate-37-24-s0 .speaker-KYS} ##### Mr Reynolds:
BARTON, NEW SOUTH WALES asked the Minister for Education and Science, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Does the Commonwealth Bureau of Census and Statistics' 'publication University Statistics 1970 Part 1, on page 37, footnote (a) state, inter alia, that the University of Newcastle now waives all fees for teacher trainees and is reimbursed from recurrent grants: the source of these students is now shown as University instead of State Governments. 1. What was the basis of this change in financial arrangements. 2. What are the implications of the change. 3. Are any similar arrangements being considered for teacher trainees attending other universities. {: #subdebate-37-24-s1 .speaker-QS4} ##### Mr Malcolm Fraser:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Yes. 1. and (3) There has not in fact been, a change in financial arrangements. All universities in New South Wales provide fee remissions for teacher trainees sponsored by the State Government. In the formula used to finance university recurrent expenditure, the Commonwealth provides $1 for every $1.85 available in the form of State grants plus fees. Consequently, if universities remit fees to State sponsored students, the State grant is higher by the amount of the remitted fees. This arrangement, which is purely a matter between the State Government and the universities, has existed for a number of years. 2. Arrangements in. other State's differ. In some cases, universities provide only partial fee remissions. The net cost to the State' Governments is unaffected. "' ' ' ' ' {:#subdebate-37-25} #### National Development (Question No. 3774) {: #subdebate-37-25-s0 .speaker-KDP} ##### Dr Everingham: asked the Minister for National Development, upon notice: >What studies have been made of the long range costs and benefits to the Australian community of new metal industries allowing for the escalation of costs and depletion of natural resources, the effects on soil and ocean ecology, and the diseconomies of scale and greater war vulnerability in concentrating populations near existing cities or in scarce recreational areas. {: #subdebate-37-25-s1 .speaker-KVR} ##### Mr Swartz:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: >The honourable member's question is a very complex and somewhat confused one. A number of the matters referred to are ones in which responsibility does not rest in any one area but touch on the interests and activities of the Commonwealth, the States and private industry. > >The Commonwealth is concerned with watching the adequacy of resources and with ensuring that there is not an excessive rate of depletion in relation to Australia's future needs. On the question of costs, the matter of escalation is mainly ons for private industry and the concern of Governments is to ensure a reasonable return to the Australian people. > >As to effects on ecology these are now matters which, at the Commonwealth level, are the responsibility of my colleague the Minister for the Environment, Aborigines and the Arts. In relation to particular industries, these are matters within the responsibility of the respective State Governments. In this regard I would point out that in the last year or two, the States have become active in establishing appropriate machinery to deal with these matters within their own boundaries. I am confident that appropriate measures will be taken as required. {:#subdebate-37-26} #### Education (Question No. 3788) {: #subdebate-37-26-s0 .speaker-KDP} ##### Dr Everingham: asked the Minister for Education and Science, upon notice: >Will he appoint teachers familiar with modern audio-visual methods to advisory bodies concerned with science and library grants to secondary schools so that language laboratories and other equipment for modern teaching of languages can be incorporated in science blocks and libraries at secondary schools in proportion to the needs of individual schools. {: #subdebate-37-26-s1 .speaker-QS4} ##### Mr Malcolm Fraser:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: > Both the Commonwealth Secondary Schools Libraries Committee and the Commonwealth Advisory Committee on Standards for Science Facilities in Independent Secondary Schools have as members teachers who are thoroughly familiar with modern audio-visual methods and materials, both in general and as they apply to he teaching ot science and the enlarged role of the library in the secondary school. However, 'neither the > >Science Facilities nor Libraries Programmes have as their aim the supply of language teaching laboratories. Broadcasting: Australian Capital Territory (Question No. 3804) **Mr Enderby** asked the PostmasterGeneral, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Is there a radio frequency available or has one been allocated for use upon the calling of applications for a second commercial radio broadcasting licence for Canberra? 1. If so, is there any reason why applications for licences should not be called forthwith? {: #subdebate-37-26-s2 .speaker-KIF} ##### Sir Alan Hulme:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. and (2) The Australian Broadcasting Control Board has given some consideration to the technical and economic factors relating to the possibility of authorising an additional commercial broadcasting station to serve Canberra in connection with the Board's continuing responsibilities for the development of the broadcasting services. However, a frequency has not yet been allocated and no specific proposal had yet been submitted for my consideration. The Board will furnish a report to me on the matter when its investigations arc completed and if, after considering the Board's report, I decide to invite applications for a licence, adequate publicity will be given to the matter so that any interested companies may apply. {:#subdebate-37-27} #### Aboriginals: Northern Territory (Question No. 3834) {: #subdebate-37-27-s0 .speaker-8H7} ##### Mr Enderby: asked the Minister for the Interior, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. What banking facilities are available at the Wave Hill Aboriginal Welfare Settlement in the Northern Territory. 1. Has his attention been drawn to complaints by Gurindji Aborigines in the Wave Hill and Wattie Creek areas of the Northern Territory that they have experienced great difficulty in cashing cheques and are discriminated against because of the delay that takes place in the cashing of their cheques. 2. Will he take the appropriate steps to ensure that these difficulties are overcome. {: #subdebate-37-27-s1 .speaker-GH4} ##### Mr Hunt:
CP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. There is an agency of the Commonwealth Savings Bank at the Wave Hill Centre which is conducted by the local Baptist Minister. 1. and (3) I have been informed that there were complaints from some people to the Registrar of Social Services about difficulties in cashing social service cheques. Because of the limited banking facilities these cheques are cashed at the store run by the Wave Hill Social Club. The complaints appear to concern the fact, that the store has limited trading hours and was not always open when people wished to cash cheques. The service provided by the store in this regard is considered reasonable and adequate in all the circumstances. {:#subdebate-37-28} #### Aviation: Aircraft Noise (Question No. 3837) {: #subdebate-37-28-s0 .speaker-KDV} ##### Mr Charles Jones: asked the Minister for Education and Science, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Has a research team headed by **Dr E.** K. Bigg of the Radiophysics Division of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation been carrying out research into the possible effects of supersonic aircraft flying at heights of up to 130,000 feet. 1. If so, what has this research disclosed. 2. Does the SST Concorde cruise at between 50,000 and 60,000 feet and is this cruising height in the critical zone which has been researched. 3. Has Qantas an option to purchase Concordes; if so has the CSIRO advised them of possible environmental pollution from these high flying aircraft. {: #subdebate-37-28-s1 .speaker-QS4} ##### Mr Malcolm Fraser:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. The CSIRO Division of Radiophysics has carried out research into the distribution of particulate matter in the upper atmosphere since 1962. These investigations have formed part of the Division's overall programme and have not been undertaken with the object of assessing the possible effects of supersonic aircraft flights in the upper atmosphere. Following a recent reorganisation, this work is being continued in the newly formed CSIRO Division of Atmospheric Physics. 1. A well-defined layer of relatively large particles occurs in the stratosphere between heights of 40,000 and 60,000 feet. From 1962 to 1964 the Division of Radiophysics collected and examined these particles with the help of United States Air Force U-2 aircraft then based in Australia. Since 1968 sampling has been resumed and extended to altitudes of 135,000 feet using high-altitude balloons. The particles are now more numerous than, they were in 1962 and are quite different In 1962 the particles collected at 66,000 feet were nearly all solid ammonium sulphate, but now they are almost exclusively droplets of concentrated sulphuric acid. This acid is thought to have been formed from sulphur dioxide discharged into the atmosphere at ground level. As tha sulphur dioxide diffuses upwards through the atmosphere it becomes oxidised and reacts with water to form sulphuric acid. The presence of large numbers of acid droplets in the upper atmosphere implies an increase in the amount of sulphur dioxide relative to ammonia. This increase may have had a natural cause. Very large quantities of sulphurous gases and particles were ejected high into the atmosphere following an extremely large volcanic eruption in Indonesia in 1963. The sulphuric acid produced from these gases deposited on the pre-existing and injected particles and may have temporarily swept the lower stratosphere clean of ammonia and ammonium sulphate. Industrial activity and air traffic may also be contributing to the amount of sulphur dioxide in the upper atmosphere but the extent of this is not yet known. Only further observations will make it possible to determine whether this problem is predominantly man-made or natural. {: type="1" start="3"} 0. I am advised that the normal cruising height of the SST Concorde is between 55,000 and 62,000 feet. While this region lies within the altitudes that have been studied by the CSIRO Division of Radiophysics it has not received particular attention during these investigations. 1. My colleague the Minister for Civil Aviation has confirmed that Qantas has an option to purchase 4 Concordes. CSIRO has not been approached by Qantas for advice on possible environmental pollution from high flying aircraft. {:#subdebate-37-29} #### Department of Education and Science: Questions (Question No. 3893) {: #subdebate-37-29-s0 .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr Whitlam: asked the Minister for Education and Science, upon notice: >Which of my questions to him does he expect to be able to answer before the debate on the estimates for his Department. {: #subdebate-37-29-s1 .speaker-QS4} ##### Mr Malcolm Fraser:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: >The honourable member has for some years asked a series of questions of considerable complexity on universities, colleges of advanced education and scholarships. Many of these questions involve considerable study of available data to present the material in the form requested. As the then Minister for Education and Science pointed out in answer to Question No. 1419 (Hansard 22nd September 1970, page 1494) the timing of such answers is dependent on when the information can become available, whether it ' be from universities, colleges of advanced education or on the question of scholarships. > >As far as the other questions standing in the honourable member's name are concerned answers are being prepared as quickly as possible and will be provided at the first opportunity. > >I would point out to the honourable member that the resources of my Department are not unlimited and must largely bc devoted to the administration of the various programs for which it is responsible, lt may sometimes be necessary to give these programs priority over the research involved in preparing answers to lengthy questions. {:#subdebate-37-30} #### Housing: Australian Capital Territory (Question No. 3894) {: #subdebate-37-30-s0 .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr Whitlam: asked the Minister for the Interior, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. When did a member of the Victorian Housing Commission ' tender the advice which the Minister for the Interior before last asked him to provide on economic and efficient housing administration in the Australian Capital Territory (Hansard, 21st May 1970, page 2624). {: type="1" start="2"} 0. Which departments are represented on the inter-departmental committee established to examine the matter. 1. What was the date of the establishment of the committee. 2. Have any steps yet been taken to create an independent housing authority in the A.C.T. {: #subdebate-37-30-s1 .speaker-GH4} ##### Mr Hunt:
CP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. March 1968. 1. Departments of the Treasury, Housing, Works and the Interior. The Public Service Board and the National Capital Development Commission were also represented. 2. The Committee was convened on 7th October 1969. 3. The Government has approved the establishment of a Statutory Housing Authority for the Australian Capital Territory. Action is being taken to commence drafting the necessary legislation for submission to Parliament. {:#subdebate-37-31} #### Tertiary Students: Schools of Origin (Question No. 3906) {: #subdebate-37-31-s0 .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr Whitlam: asked the Minister for Education and Science, upon notice: >What percentage of new enrolments at (a) universities (b) colleges of advanced education and (c) teachers' colleges was drawn from (i) government schools (ii) Catholic schools and (iii) other non-government schools in the most recent year for which information is available. {: #subdebate-37-31-s1 .speaker-QS4} ##### Mr Malcolm Fraser:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: >This information is not available. The honourable member may be interested in an answer my predecessor gave to a similar question - see Hansard, 6th May, 1971, page 2865. Canberra and the Australian Capital Territory (Question No. 3936) **Mr Scholes** asked the Minister for the Interior, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Will he examine the possibility of having maps prepared showing the regular bus routes in Canberra and indicating which bus routes pass points of interest to Canberra visitors. 1. Will he arrange for the examination of similar maps and tourist tickets issued by transport authorities in London. {: #subdebate-37-31-s2 .speaker-GH4} ##### Mr Hunt:
CP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. and (2) Over 80 per cent of visitors to Canberra arrive by car and the average stay is li days. For those without their own transport there is available a variety of daily sightseeing tours which cover more points of interest than the city bus service. Because so few visitors use the bus service for sightseeing it is considered that the limited funds available for visitor promotion and information are belter used to aid the vast majority of visitors who travel to places of interest in Canberra by other means. {:#subdebate-37-32} #### Aged Persons Homes (Question No. 3976) {: #subdebate-37-32-s0 .speaker-KEC} ##### Mr Kennedy: asked the Minister Social Services, upon notice: for {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Which Councils have provided accommodation for aged persons in each year since the Aged Persons Homes Act was amended to enable local government to qualify for subsidy. 1. What sum was provided by (a) the council and (b) the Commonwealth, and for how many persons was accommodation provided in each case. {: #subdebate-37-32-s1 .speaker-DB6} ##### Mr Wentworth:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. and (2) The following table contains the requested information. {:#subdebate-37-33} #### Social Services (Question No. 40891 {: #subdebate-37-33-s0 .speaker-KDP} ##### Dr Everingham: asked the Minister for Social Services, upon notice: >Will the Government review its practice of refusing lo grant retrospective payment of supplementary allowance when there is good reason for the delay in application and the evidence in support of the claim is reliable. {: #subdebate-37-33-s1 .speaker-DB6} ##### Mr Wentworth:
LP -- The answer to the hon.honourable member's question is as follows: >The essential requirement for payment of supplementary assistance is that the pensioner pays rent and is entirely or substantially dependent on his pension. For a pensioner to establish . these points and indicate that he requires supplementary assistance be must first lodge an application for it. Generally the date of commencement is the pension ' pay-day after the receipt of the application as in the case of pensions. This procedure was adopted when supplementary assistance was introduced in 1958 and any variation is a matter of Government policy which will be considered at the appropriate time. {:#subdebate-37-34} #### Lake Pedder (Question No. 4101) {: #subdebate-37-34-s0 .speaker-KDP} ##### Dr Everingham: asked the Minister for the Environment. Aborigines and the Arts, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Can he say whether more mainlanders than Tasmanians use Lake St Clair-Cradle Mountain National Park as a recreation resort and if this is likely to occur also at Lake Pedder if it is not despoiled by Tasmania's Hydro-Electric Commission. 1. Can he also say whether the Commission's decision to use Lake Pedder as a canal from the Serpentine Dam is due to the extra cost of by passing the Lake for the Gordon Power Scheme. 2. Will he confer with the Tasmanian Government on the possibility of saving Lake Pedder with the help of low interest loans to Tasmania from the Commonwealth Bank. {: #subdebate-37-34-s1 .speaker-0095J} ##### Mr Howson:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 do not know. 2 and 3. The Tasmanian Minister for Tourism and Immigration has advised me that he is replying to representations concerning Lake Pedder as follows: >While 1 appreciate the sincerity ot your views I find it surprising that this issue has been raised again at this late stage, particularly when the planned raising of the water level is virtually imminent. > >I can only emphasize that many proposed layouts were considered by the Hydro-Electric Commission's engineers prior to the submission of the recommended scheme of development to Parliament in 1967. > >No practicable scheme could be devised to save' Lake Pedder at an economic cost acceptable to the State. The by-pass scheme which is being revived was considered before the present scheme was approved. Estimates of cost for this arrangement were submitted to the Select Committee of the Legislative Council set up to examine the Cordon River and Thermal Power ; Station Development proposals in 1967. It was the opinion of the Select Committee that the considerable extra expenses involved could not ; . be justified by the partial preservation of the area resulting from the proposal. > >Revised estimates, taking into account various factors too involved to detail here, together ' with the escalation of costs since 1967, showed that the by-pass flume arrangement to 'save' Lake Pedder would cost approximately $25 million more than the scheme which was approved by Parliament. > >You will appreciate that a decision by Parliament can only be reversed or modified by Parliament itself and the Government has no intention tion of recommending to Parliament that the j Gordon Power scheme should be modified. 1 I repeat that the scheme is the most econom ical of various proposals which have been considered and it is not proposed to burden the State economy by introducing costly changes which are beyond our financial resources.* {:#subdebate-37-35} #### Lake Pedder (Question No. 4106) {: #subdebate-37-35-s0 .speaker-8H7} ##### Mr Enderby: asked the Minister for the Environment, Aborigines and the Arts, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Has his attention been drawn to proposals to develop hydro-electric resources in Tasmania by the submerging of Lake Pedder. 1. If so, can he say whether there are alternative schemes and proposals for developing alternative hydro-electric resources that would result in Lake Pedder being unaffected and located between two artificial lakes. 2. Are the alternative schemes as economically viable as the scheme, that would *result* in Lake Pedder being submerged. 3. Would the loss of Lake Pedder destroy great natural beauty and. make impossible the full scientific investigation and study of the surrounding button grass sedgeland and the associated fauna and flora. 4. Will the destruction. of Lake Pedder destroy a unique part of Australia which should be regarded as being owned not only by our generation but by our generation in trust for future generations. 5. Does the contemplated project require the expenditure of Commonwealth funds; if so, will he ensure that the expenditure of those funds is made conditional on the alternative projects being developed rather than the project which results in Lake Pedder being submerged. 6. If he possesses any influence with his colleagues in the Tasmanian Parliament who are responsible for the contemplated project, will he discuss the project with them as a matter of urgency, {: #subdebate-37-35-s1 .speaker-0095J} ##### Mr Howson:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: >See answer to Question No. 4101. {:#subdebate-37-36} #### International Labour Convention No. Ill (Question No. 4111) {: #subdebate-37-36-s0 .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr Whitlam: asked the Minister for Labour and National Service, upon notice: >Which *State* has agreed to ratification of International Labour Organisation Convention No. Ill - Discrimination (Employment and Occupation), 1958 (Hansard, 8th . September 1971, page 983). {: #subdebate-37-36-s1 .speaker-KIM} ##### Mr Lynch:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: >Queensland. {:#subdebate-37-37} #### Motor Vehicles (Question No. 4198) {: #subdebate-37-37-s0 .speaker-NF4} ##### Mr Cohen: asked the Minister for Shipping and Transport, upon notice: >Has he raised the matter of recall legislation for defective motor vehicles with the Australian Transport Advisory Council as promised in his answer to my question without notice on 5th May 1971 (Hansard, pages 2551-2). {: #subdebate-37-37-s1 .speaker-009OD} ##### Mr Nixon:
Minister for Shipping and Transport · GIPPSLAND, VICTORIA · CP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: >As promised, 1 arranged for this matter to be discussed at the meeting of the Australian Transport Advisory Council held in Perth, on 8th July 1971. {:#subdebate-37-38} #### Road Safety (Question No. 4199) {: #subdebate-37-38-s0 .speaker-NF4} ##### Mr Cohen: asked the Minister for Shipping and Transport, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Has the give way to the right rule been discussed by the Advisory Committee on Road User Performance and Traffic Codes, a committee of the Australian Transport Advisory Council. 1. If so, what was the result of its' deliberations. {: #subdebate-37-38-s1 .speaker-009OD} ##### Mr Nixon:
CP -- The answer .to the. honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. and (2) The give way to (he right rule was discussed in December 1968 by, 'the then Australian Road Traffic Code Committee. It was decided retention of this rule was warranted. The Advisory Committee on Road User Performance and Traffic Codes, the committee now dealing with these matters, is currently examining the application of the Australian Road Traffic Code to ascertain the extent it is being adopted by each of the States and Territories. {:#subdebate-37-39} #### Road Safety (Question No. 4200) {: #subdebate-37-39-s0 .speaker-NF4} ##### Mr Cohen: asked the Minister for Shipping and Transport upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Has the Advisory Committee on Safety in Vehicle Design, a committee of the Australian Transport Advisory Council, discussed the proposal by the United States National Highway Safety Bureau to introduce a motor vehicle safety standard high speed warning and control which will govern cars to a speed of 95 mph and give a warning signal at 80 mph. 1. If so, what was the result of its deliberations. {: #subdebate-37-39-s1 .speaker-009OD} ##### Mr Nixon:
CP -- The answer to the honourable member's- question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Yes. The proposal to which you refer has been put to the United States automotive industry and other interested parties for comment. I understand the period for comment has expired but I am not aware of any decision on the matter being taken so far by the United States National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. 1. The Advisory - Committee on Safety in Vehicle Design has not yet reported to the Australian Transport Advisory Council. {:#subdebate-37-40} #### Road Safety (Question No. 4204) {: #subdebate-37-40-s0 .speaker-NF4} ##### Mr Cohen: asked the Minister for Shipping and Transport, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Was a survey carried out by his Department in recent years estimating the cost of road accidents in Australia to be near $800 million per annum. 1. If so, why was the report not made public. {: #subdebate-37-40-s1 .speaker-009OD} ##### Mr Nixon:
CP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. and (2) No. {:#subdebate-37-41} #### Road Safety (Question No. 4207) {: #subdebate-37-41-s0 .speaker-NF4} ##### Mr Cohen: asked the Minister for Shipping and Transport, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Has the advisory Committee on Safety in Vehicle Design yet submitted its report on fire in road accidents (Hansard, 16th March, 1971, page 957). 1. If so, what Commonwealth action has resulted. 2. If not, when does he expect the report to be submitted. 3. Has his attention been drawn to the report in The Sunday Australian of 12th September, 1971 outlining criticism of Volkswagen sedans and vans by **Mr Ralph** Nader. 4. If so will he initiate studies to ascertain the truth of the criticisms. 5. Has the Commonwealth made or does it intend to make any studies of the comparative safety of the most popular cars sold in Australia. 6. Would this comparative information be of value to consumers who are at present unable to determine the relative safety of different makes of vehicle. {: #subdebate-37-41-s1 .speaker-009OD} ##### Mr Nixon:
CP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1), (2) and (3) The Advisory Committee on Safety in Vehicle Design is examining the matter of fuel systems in motor vehicles and is taking into account the risk of fire occurring when road accidents take place. It hopes to have a report completed in time for the next meeting of the Australian Transport Advisory Council. Commonwealth action will be taken on this matter in the light of whatever recommendations on this matter are made to the Australian Transport Advisory Council. {: type="1" start="4"} 0. and (5) Yes. However, 1 have not yet received a copy of **Mr Nader's** report When this is obtained and studied, I shall be in a position to decide what further action needs to be taken. 1. No, nor does my Department have any proposals at the present time to undertake such studies. 2. It is doubtful whether. comparative information could be presented in a manner which could be of real value to the consumer because of the difficulties in placing a rating on particular safety features either in isolation or in combination with other features. However, all new cars regstered in Australia are required to comply with various Australian Design Rules for motor vehicle safety and certain other legal requirements relating to safety, thus ensuring common safety standards as between different makes of new cars. The standard of safety will be progressively raised to cover additional safety features as further design rules become effective. {:#subdebate-37-42} #### Vietnam: Obligation to Disobey Orders (Question No. 3470) {: #subdebate-37-42-s0 .speaker-KDP} ##### Dr Everingham: asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice: >Under what conditions are servicemen in Vietnam (a) obliged to disobey and (b) informed of their obligation to disobey those orders which are contrary to international law. {: #subdebate-37-42-s1 .speaker-KDT} ##### Mr Fairbairn:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: >Australian servicemen are under a legal duty to refuse to carry out orders which are manifestly contrary to law including international law. Australian servicemen are instructed as to what constitutes a lawful order and prior to posting to an operational area and periodically whilst in the area are instructed in their duties and responsibilities towards other nationals and their possessions.

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 28 September 1971, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1971/19710928_reps_27_hor74/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant